Scott Peterson's appeal

[enlightenme]

IMO:

They didn't prove "Who" either..
There was Zero evidence that Laci's body was ever in his truck or toolbox..
There was Zero evidence that she was murdered in their house or his warehouse..
There was Zero evidence that he weighted her body down in the bay..they didn't prove that he made anchors ..they didn't prove that he attached those anchors to her body...they didn't even prove that it was possible for him to have done that...the prosecution presented an unproven theory..a figment of their imagination ..nothing more..!

They did prove that he returned to the bay 5 times, using rental cars, lying to 3 people as to his whereabouts.

They did prove that he lied to various people and about other things besides his affair with Amber.

They did prove that he tried to hide evidence - i.e. the boat cover in the shed with gasoline over it.

They did prove, IMO, that he was getting ready to flee or hide out until he could get to perhaps Mexico.

They did prove that the bodies washed ashore, after a 2 day storm, within 2 miles of where Scott admitted he was on the day Laci disappeared.

When I think of figments of imagination, I think of someone abducting Laci, holding her for a while, cutting Conner out of the top of her uterus, storing the bodies for months, placing them a mile apart on the shore. That seems like nothing more than imagination and theories without facts.

JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Convictions have been reversed due to insufficient evidence...IMO, "sans speculation" there is zero evidence that Scott committed a murder..there is a huge difference between drawing inferences from established proven facts and establishing guilt based on speculation and conjecture..


There is overwhelming evidence Scott committed a murder.

Scott -"I lost my wife"-Dec. 06 Shawn Sibley

Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

Scott - "I lost my wife" - Dec. 09 Amber Frey

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

Scott - Boat - SF Bay - 12-24-02

Bodies - found ashore - same vicinity---- Scott - boat - 12-24

Conner in utero - Dr. Brian Peterson

Trajectory created for Conner – Dr. Cheng

Laci – marine environment – Dr. Galloway

I agree with you. There is a huge difference between drawing inferences from established proven facts and creating an alternate theory using nothing but imagination and speculation.

[I'mSun]

Unfortunately, when the real discussion begins, I'm at work and my time is severely limited. :D

I did find this and it's pretty interesting reading
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4888CCB7137A230588256EE600557A0A/$file/0355974.pdf?openelement

If the link works, scroll down to Brewer v Hall 10401

It is my understanding that Dr Jackson was alleged to be uncooperative and refused to deliberate when the other 11 didn't want to do things his way. Since I haven't heard anyone speak publicly about it, I don't know the full story. Neither does anyone else. If the rumors are true, J Delucci was fully justified in removing him.IMO, its been reported that Jackson was bordering on juror misconduct: 1) he tried to intimidate another juror for objecting to discussion of tests that were not introduced as evidence; 2) he tried to use his medical background to lecture others in medicine regarding Dr. March's tx; 3) when another juror attempted to discuss things from the jurors' own research, not only did Jackson do nothing to try and stop it, but he tried to tell others it was OK to keep it a secret. And it goes on. There is no way you can say that there was no good cause to excuse Jackson. Period.

[adnoid]

AW, you can't state that your theory is not based on Laci passing kidney stones, and then use information on what causes kidney stones in your argument...Dr. Peterson clearly stated the stones were not crystalline which excludes crystals formed by urine...

Precisely. I'm waiting for an explanation of the formation of mineral deposits outside the body due to evaporation of human urine. I haven't seen it and I doubt I ever will.

[attorneywan2be]

AW, you can't state that your theory is not based on Laci passing kidney stones, and then use information on what causes kidney stones in your argument.
In the past, you have also posted photos of kidney stones on another site to support your argument.
Can't have it both ways.




Your theory involves urine (produced by the kidney), that formed stones outside of the body.
I know why you are refraining from using the term, "kidney stones", but actually stones that may form from urine on the outside of the body should be referred to as kidney stones as well.


Dr. Peterson clearly stated the stones were not crystalline which excludes crystals formed by urine.
He knew those stones were not caused by urine.

I'm not having it both ways...and I think you know that..

I'm trying to make it clear that my theory is not about Laci "PASSING" kidney stones..it is about stones forming from urine on her pants due to alternate wetting and drying of that part of her pants..due to repeated urination... so no, they are not kidney stones simply because they didn't form inside the kidney...they are mineral deposits that came from urine and formed outside the body..

However, I would say that those stones/mineral deposits, if analyzed, would be consistent with minerals found in urine..likewise, kidney stones would also be consistent with minerals found in urine..

I used that site to show that urine does contain minerals and to also indicate the causes that would increase the level of minerals in urine..and IMO, few of those causes would apply to Laci..

[attorneywan2be]

Precisely. I'm waiting for an explanation of the formation of mineral deposits outside the body due to evaporation of human urine. I haven't seen it and I doubt I ever will.

I noticed you used the term "human urine"..I'm thinking you must have found the sites that talk about pet urine causing deposits that bond to the fibers of the carpet..did you? :biggrin:

[Lavindar]

Precisely. I'm waiting for an explanation of the formation of mineral deposits outside the body due to evaporation of human urine. I haven't seen it and I doubt I ever will.

All this speculation has NOTHING TO DO with whether Scott will get an appeal or not. Geragos did not file a motion about this subject, although he did about just about everything else....lol. This first appeal is about a judicial review ONLY>

[deputydi]

IMO:

They didn't prove "Who" either..
There was Zero evidence that Laci's body was ever in his truck or toolbox..
There was Zero evidence that she was murdered in their house or his warehouse..
There was Zero evidence that he weighted her body down in the bay..they didn't prove that he made anchors ..they didn't prove that he attached those anchors to her body...they didn't even prove that it was possible for him to have done that...the prosecution presented an unproven theory..a figment of their imagination ..nothing more..!
The C I R C U M S T A N T I A L evidence presented proved it to me. If, by proof, you require a video tape showing how, when and where he did it -- you're right. There is no taped record of Scott's actions.

[attorneywan2be]

The C I R C U M S T A N T I A L evidence presented proved it to me. If, by proof, you require a video tape showing how, when and where he did it -- you're right. There is no taped record of Scott's actions.

Please explain why there was ZERO evidence that her body was ever in his truck or toolbox?

[deputydi]

All this speculation has NOTHING TO DO with whether Scott will get an appeal or not. Geragos did not file a motion about this subject, although he did about just about everything else....lol. This first appeal is about a judicial review ONLY>
You are so right. This thread (started by AW2B) is supposed to be about discussing APPEALS issues. She seems to want to change the subject of her own thread and retry the case here. There are other threads for that.

[deputydi]

Please explain why there was ZERO evidence that her body was ever in his truck or toolbox?
Don't you find that fact the least bit curious? Laci and Scott lived together. Do you suppose she NEVER rode in his truck? I don't ride in my DH's vehicle very often, but I do on occasion and guaranteed my DNA is there in the form of a single strand of hair or something. I have said before the LACK of DNA evidence speaks loudly to me.

[adnoid]

I noticed you used the term "human urine"..I'm thinking you must have found the sites that talk about pet urine causing deposits that bond to the fibers of the carpet..did you? :biggrin:

Oh, for the love of Pete. Drop the human part if you think that's such a big deal - unless you think the burglars suspended some poor schnauzer above the tub & forced him to pee in Laci's lap for 4 months. Heck, I can't prove they did not, so it must be so!

ETA: I'm just going to drop this. This is pointless. It's not an appeal issue, and I've already made myself look ridiculous going round and round as much as I have. If you want to think the mineralization was due to evaporation of urine, be my guest.

[deputydi]

Oh, for the love of Pete. Drop the human part if you think that's such a big deal - unless you think the burglars suspended some poor schnauzer above the tub & forced him to pee in Laci's lap for 4 months. Heck, I can't prove they did not, so it must be so!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[I'mSun]

Oh, for the love of Pete. Drop the human part if you think that's such a big deal - unless you think the burglars suspended some poor schnauzer above the tub & forced him to pee in Laci's lap for 4 months. Heck, I can't prove they did not, so it must be so! Oops, I think you just gave them another theory to think about. :D

ETA: I'm just going to drop this. This is pointless. It's not an appeal issue, and I've already made myself look ridiculous going round and round as much as I have. If you want to think the mineralization was due to evaporation of urine, be my guest.Adnoid, YOU are not the one who looks ridiculous. :beer:

[USAHICK]

Oh, for the love of Pete. Drop the human part if you think that's such a big deal - unless you think the burglars suspended some poor schnauzer above the tub & forced him to pee in Laci's lap for 4 months. Heck, I can't prove they did not, so it must be so!

ETA: I'm just going to drop this. This is pointless. It's not an appeal issue, and I've already made myself look ridiculous going round and round as much as I have. If you want to think the mineralization was due to evaporation of urine, be my guest.


:beer: WTG!

[deputydi]

Oops, I think you just gave them another theory to think about. :D

Adnoid, YOU are not the one who looks ridiculous. :beer:
:beer: Not at all!

[USAHICK]

Please explain why there was ZERO evidence that her body was ever in his truck or toolbox?


How much evidence of Laci would be left behind if she was wrapped in a tarp, laying between umbrella's?

[attorneywan2be]

Don't you find that fact the least bit curious? Laci and Scott lived together. Do you suppose she NEVER rode in his truck? I don't ride in my DH's vehicle very often, but I do on occasion and guaranteed my DNA is there in the form of a single strand of hair or something. I have said before the LACK of DNA evidence speaks loudly to me.

Do you think that Laci used to ride sitting in the bed of his truck?? why should they find her DNA there? if he transported her body in the bed of his truck they would have found evidence from her body..

So why do you think they didn't find such evidence in the bed of his truck?

[attorneywan2be]

unless you think the burglars suspended some poor schnauzer above the tub & forced him to pee in Laci's lap for 4 months. Heck, I can't prove they did not, so it must be so!


I don't think it's funny...I think it is quite silly to suggest this as a theory that anyone would adopt..IMO, Laci was abducted and was probably in a lot of pain and it is not a subject to joke about..!

[USAHICK]

Do you think that Laci used to ride sitting in the bed of his truck?? why should they find her DNA there? if he transported her body in the bed of his truck they would have found evidence from her body..

So why do you think they didn't find such evidence in the bed of his truck?


a. She was wrapped in a tarp.

b. He cleaned up the truck just like he did his laundry and the house.

[attorneywan2be]

How much evidence of Laci would be left behind if she was wrapped in a tarp, laying between umbrella's?

There was no evidence of a tarp being used to wrap her body..IMO, in order for the jury to infer that he transported her to the bay they had to have speculated that he wrapped her body in a tarp..

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped

ETA: I'm just going to drop this. This is pointless. It's not an appeal issue, and I've already made myself look ridiculous going round and round as much as I have. If you want to think the mineralization was due to evaporation of urine, be my guest.


I found your side of the argument interesting. Not at all ridiculous.

However, I have learned the hard way, it is a big waste of time and energy to get into a lengthy debate on any issue that involves the testimony of an expert witness.
When the going gets rough, the credibility of the witness then becomes an issue.

[attorneywan2be]

I'm still waiting for someone to address this question:

Why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?

[enlightenme]

I'm still waiting for someone to address this question:

Why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?


Who knows? Who really cares, except a few SIIs? I would have to have an expert examine the pants and give me their expert opinion.

BTW, wouldn't they have been on her panties too if your theory was correct?

[USAHICK]

There was no evidence of a tarp being used to wrap her body..IMO, in order for the jury to infer that he transported her to the bay they had to have speculated that he wrapped her body in a tarp..


There certainly isn't any evidence of Laci being held in a saltwater bath tub for four months either. And let us not forget about the boat tarp that showed up NOT WITH THE BOAT, but in the shed beneath a leaking blower.

[attorneywan2be]

BTW, wouldn't they have been on her panties too if your theory was correct?


No.. they wouldn't be on her panties ..the panties were covered by the pants so they were not exposed to air, they didn't have the chance to dry out between urination...

IMO, if the mineral deposits were the result of Laci's body being in the bay water ..then I would say that it would be logical to expect them to be on other areas of her clothings..but they were only found in the CROTCH area of her pants..!

[attorneywan2be]

There certainly isn't any evidence of Laci being held in a saltwater bath tub for four months either. And let us not forget about the boat tarp that showed up NOT WITH THE BOAT, but in the shed beneath a leaking blower.


I think you're missing the point...Laci being in a bathtub is basically a theory..but the jury cannot use theories to convict someone..so I'm saying that they can't speculate that Scott must have used a tarp to wrap Laci's body unless the tarp was in evidence..!

[cookiewench]

No.. they wouldn't be on her panties ..the panties were covered by the pants so they were not exposed to air, they didn't have the chance to dry out between urination...

IMO, if the mineral deposits were the result of Laci's body being in the bay water ..then I would say that it would be logical to expect them to be on other areas of her clothings..but they were only found in the CROTCH area of her pants..!

And you assume that if the coroner had never seen such a thing happen before, he wouldn't have made note of it as being unusual?

Why do you believe that there as so many meaningful issues that everyone but you didn't notice: not Geragos, not his investigators or staff, not the ME, not the prosecution - nobody but you?

[attorneywan2be]

And you assume that if the coroner had never seen such a thing happen before, he wouldn't have made note of it as being unusual?

Why do you believe that there as so many meaningful issues that everyone but you didn't notice: not Geragos, not his investigators or staff, not the ME, not the prosecution - nobody but you?


But Geragos did indeed ask questions about it and he also talked about it in his closing argument...

[cookiewench]

There was no evidence of a tarp being used to wrap her body..IMO, in order for the jury to infer that he transported her to the bay they had to have speculated that he wrapped her body in a tarp..

Why would they have to speculate that she was wrapped in a tarp?

She could have been in the truck....in the tool box....in the boat wrapped in a blanket....in the boat unwrapped but with the boat cover on.

They only have to believe that it was proven to them that Scott transported her dead body to the bay and deposited it there. Which, is true.

You don't believe this is an appeal issue, do you?

[enlightenme]

:biggrin: I seriously doubt any appeal issue will overwhelm the Appellate Judges.

<<snipped>>



How much do you want to bet that most of the Appellate judges in CA right now have heard about, read about, and discussed this case already?

In fact, this case was so high profile that I'm sure many lawyers, doctors, other experts have followed it closely and probably read the transcripts. Where are all the professionals stating that Scott's conviction was a travesty of justice?

Only his family and a few followers on the Internet are defending him.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Why would they have to speculate that she was wrapped in a tarp?

She could have been in the truck....in the tool box....in the boat wrapped in a blanket....in the boat unwrapped but with the boat cover on.

They only have to believe that it was proven to them that Scott transported her dead body to the bay and deposited it there. Which, is true.

You don't believe this is an appeal issue, do you?

IMO, it will be part of an appeal issue----> "Insufficient evidence to support the verdict"

Anyhow, it was not proven that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay...there was ZERO evidence that her body was ever in his toolbox..was ever in the bed of his truck..or was ever in the boat..if he put Laci's body unwrapped in the boat they would have found her DNA evidence in his boat..the cadaver dog would have alerted on the boat..

[cookiewench]

IMO, it will be part of an appeal issue----> "Insufficient evidence to support the verdict"

Anyhow, it was not proven that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay...there was ZERO evidence that her body was ever in his toolbox..was ever in the bed of his truck..or was ever in the boat..if he put Laci's body unwrapped in the boat they would have found her DNA evidence in his boat..the cadaver dog would have alerted on the boat..

Wait a minute.

You actually believe, after all this time and all the discussions about it, that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jurors that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay?????????????????


I think you're confusing the personal with the legal.

It has to be proven to the jurors. They believe that it was. There is no appeal issue there, because you weren't on the jury, so whether or not you feel it was proven means nothing.

[USAHICK]

Wait a minute.

You actually believe, after all this time and all the discussions about it, that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jurors that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay?????????????????


I think you're confusing the personal with the legal.

It has to be proven to the jurors. They believe that it was. There is no appeal issue there, because you weren't on the jury, so whether or not you feel it was proven means nothing.


:beer: ITA!

[cookiewench]

But Geragos did indeed ask questions about it and he also talked about it in his closing argument...


Geragos brought up a lot of nonsense that went nowhere.

If there'd been anything proveably suspicious about the ME's finding or the condition of the bodies, it would have gone somewhere other than the top of Geragos's slick tongue.

[deputydi]

There was no evidence of a tarp being used to wrap her body..IMO, in order for the jury to infer that he transported her to the bay they had to have speculated that he wrapped her body in a tarp..
Hmmm. Wonder why that tarp was found with gasoline on it. To mask the scent, maybe???

[cookiewench]

Hmmm. Wonder why that tarp was found with gasoline on it. To mask the scent, maybe???

I believe that was the boat cover, and I believe it was easily shown that there would be only one reason why Scott would put in tucked away under a leaky gas blower - and that was, to destroy scent & DNA evidence.

[USAHICK]

IMO, it will be part of an appeal issue----> "Insufficient evidence to support the verdict"

Anyhow, it was not proven that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay...there was ZERO evidence that her body was ever in his toolbox..was ever in the bed of his truck..or was ever in the boat..if he put Laci's body unwrapped in the boat they would have found her DNA evidence in his boat..the cadaver dog would have alerted on the boat..


The tracking dogs didn't pick up Laci's scent in the part or at the Medina's home but they picked it up at the Berkley Marina.

2 + 2 = 4

[Lavindar]

And you assume that if the coroner had never seen such a thing happen before, he wouldn't have made note of it as being unusual?

Why do you believe that there as so many meaningful issues that everyone but you didn't notice: not Geragos, not his investigators or staff, not the ME, not the prosecution - nobody but you?


NOT even Geragos's "hired" experts.

[attorneywan2be]

From the defense motion for a new trial..note the cases they cited..:


VI. THIS COURT SHOULD RULE THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

This Court can grant a new trial under section 1181, subdivisions (6) and/or (7) where, as here, the evidence is not sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict. (See, e.g., People v. Lagunas (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1030, 1038, fn. 6; People v. Robarge (1953) 41

75


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

Cal.2d 628, 633-634.) This conclusion can result from one (or both) of two analyses. First, the Court can conclude that the evidence is not sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict - i.e., a “substantial evidence” analysis. Second, even assuming substantial evidence, the Court will then independently assess the evidence to decide - sitting as a so-called “thirteenth juror” - whether the evidence warrants a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (See, e.g., People v. Lagunas, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1038, fn. 6; People v. Oliver (1975) 46 C.A.3d 747, 752; People v. Robarge, supra, 41 Cal.2d at pp. 633-634.)

Although this Court essentially rejected the “substantial evidence” argument when denying Mr. Peterson’s motion for acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1 at close of the prosecution’s case, we renew the argument here. Evidence sufficient to support a judgment must be substantial, of solid value, and must reasonably inspire confidence. (See, e.g., People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 891; People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486, 497.) The term “substantial evidence” does not refer to just any evidence, but instead signifies proof which is “of ponderable legal significance, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value.” (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry ((1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651.) It must be “substantial proof of the essentials which the law requires.” (Ibid.) Thus conviction may not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture, speculation, or guesswork. (See e.g., People v. Reyes, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 500; People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755; see also People v. Blakeslee (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 831, 837; United States v. Bishop (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F.2d 820, 831 (“evidence must include sufficient probative facts from which a rational factfinder applying the reasonable doubt standard could choose the hypothesis that supports a finding of guilt rather than hypotheses that are consistent with innocence”). A conviction should not be sustained on the basis of isolated pieces of evidence extracted from the record as a whole. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 577; People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 138 [“not enough for the respondent simply to point to ‘some’ evidence supporting the finding”];

76


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

(Roddenberry v. Roddenberry, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 652.)

These limiting considerations are consistent with the overriding due process guarantee that “prohibits the criminal conviction of any person except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 362 [25 L.Ed.2d 368, 90 §.Ct. 1068]; see also U.S. Const., 5th and 14th Amendments; Cal. Const., Art. I, §§ 7, 15.)

Thus in People v. Reyes, supra, 12 Cal3d 486, the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that one defendant had been seen with the codefendant before and after the crime and could have been a participant did no more than “generate a suspicion which will not support a conviction.” (Id., at p. 500.) The Court found significant that when the particular defendant was arrested the morning of the crime there were no physical signs on him of a struggle, no clothes of his were ever recovered with bloodstains on them, and his fingerprints were not discovered in the victim’s apartment. (Ibid.) “In short,” the Court concluded, “there is a conspicuous lack of incriminatory evidence,” and “viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence against Venegas at most gives rise to a bare suspicion of his complicity in the murder. As we stated in Redmond, “Evidence which merely raises a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt in not sufficient to support a conviction. Suspicion is not evidence; it merely raises a possibility, and this is not a sufficient basis for an inference of fact.” (71 Cal2d at p. 755.) “To justify a criminal conviction, the tier of fact must be reasonable persuaded to a near certainty. The tier must therefore have reasonably rejected all that undermines confidence.” (People v. Hall (1964) supra, 62 Cal.2d 104, 112.) The case against Venegas is so fraught with uncertainty as to prelude a confident determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we conclude the judgment as to Venegas must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict.”

77


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

(Ibid.)


The same conclusion is mandated here. The only arguably inculpatory evidence against Mr. Peterson was the fact that the bodies of Laci and Conner were found within a couple of miles of where Mr. Peterson had been fishing the morning of December 24, 2002. That simply is not enough in itself to give rise to an affirmative conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Peterson caused their deaths. In other words, while it is potentially some evidence, it is not substantial evidence.

Nothing else even remotely connects Mr. Peterson to the killing of his wife and unborn son. The remaining evidence introduced by the prosecution relates to Mr. Peterson’s conduct after Laci’s disappearance - i.e., “consciousness of guilt” evidence. But without independent and substantial inculpatory evidence, consciousness of guilt evidence is meaningless. California courts have consistently held that consciousness of guilt evidence - such as flight and false statements - is corroborative only, and not sufficient in itself to prove guilt. (See, e.g., People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 142.) This makes sense, for without affirmative evidence linking the defendant to a crime, there can be no reasonable certainty that the “guilt” supposedly being manifested relates to the commission of the crime charged as opposed to some perceived wrongdoing. (See, e.g., People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1143, fn. 9; People v. Rankin (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 430, 435-436.)

[I'mSun]

But Geragos did indeed ask questions about it and he also talked about it in his closing argument...So, your point is?

[attorneywan2be]

Hmmm. Wonder why that tarp was found with gasoline on it. To mask the scent, maybe???

Hmmm....are you suggesting that he wrapped Laci's body in that tarp to transport her to the bay ...then unwrapped it before dumping her body...then took the tarp back to his house??

[attorneywan2be]

So, your point is?


That was Cookiewench's point ...she stated that even Geragos didn't make an issue out of it...I stated that he did..please read the post I was replying to...thanks!

[attorneywan2be]

Wait a minute.

You actually believe, after all this time and all the discussions about it, that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jurors that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay?????????????????



Yep...IMO, nothing meaningful was said in the way of proving that there was evidence presented that proved BARD that Scott tranported Laci's body to the bay...

[Miss Bootsie]

I'm still waiting for someone to address this question:

Why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?


First, I don't think the small stones were actually formed as a result of the wet/dry process.
I think they were simply laid down by the action.

Dr. Peterson said the stony deposits were within the fibers.
The remaining clothing fabric was not shredded. Therefore the fibers were not open and exposed.

Thats it. If you understand, you can figure the rest out on your own.

[USAHICK]

Hmmm....are you suggesting that he wrapped Laci's body in that tarp to transport her to the bay ...then unwrapped it before dumping her body...then took the tarp back to his house??


Hmmm...are you suggesting that the burglars, while in custody mind you, or McGregor, while in Mexico, managed to hide Laci until she gave birth to Conner at full term and then submerged Laci in salt water and strangled Conner with a piece of twine, again hiding both until April when the SFB was crawling with cops and searchers, finally and cleverly placed the two bodies on the shore a mile apart from each other? And oh, the took her home after stealing her to change her cloths too.

And you find the boat tarp covered in gasoline NOT suspicious?

I want what you're on.

[attorneywan2be]

First, I don't think the small stones were actually formed as a result of the wet/dry process.
I think they were simply laid down by the action.

Dr. Peterson said the stony deposits were within the fibers.
The remaining clothing fabric was not shredded. Therefore the fibers were not open and exposed.

Thats it. If you understand, you can figure the rest out on your own.


If you understand then I hope you can explain why the shredding occurred ONLY in the crotch area of her pants?

However, if the mineral deposits just happened to be laid down by the action as you theorize.. then why not finding them trapped inside her bra..or inside her pants..around the zipper...within the waistband of her pants...within the drawstring of her pants...imbedded in the fractures of her ribs..etc..etc.

[deputydi]

Hmmm....are you suggesting that he wrapped Laci's body in that tarp to transport her to the bay ...then unwrapped it before dumping her body...then took the tarp back to his house??
I can't answer these questions because no one but Scott knows how, why, where and when he did it. I can surmise, but that's getting old too. Instead of sticking to the subject you said you wanted to discuss in this thread, you insist on retrying the entire case top to bottom.

IF Scott is granted a new trial, this would be the time and place to talk about what went wrong in his defense the first time around. Maybe some of the questions we are speculating about will be answered. But, until that happens, what we should be talking about is exactly why you started this thread in the first place.

The appeal. I've tried to get it back on track but you are the worst offender. If you don't want to talk about appeals issues, fine. I just don't care to beat this particular dead horse.

[attorneywan2be]

I can't answer these questions because no one but Scott knows how, why, where and when he did it. I can surmise, but that's getting old too. Instead of sticking to the subject you said you wanted to discuss in this thread, you insist on retrying the entire case top to bottom.

IF Scott is granted a new trial, this would be the time and place to talk about what went wrong in his defense the first time around. Maybe some of the questions we are speculating about will be answered. But, until that happens, what we should be talking about is exactly why you started this thread in the first place.

The appeal. I've tried to get it back on track but you are the worst offender. If you don't want to talk about appeals issues, fine. I just don't care to beat this particular dead horse.


Guess what...I was only replying to your post which was about the tarp and was not about the appeal..

I posted a list of potential appeal issues..I posted part of the defense motion regarding the issue of "insufficient evidence to support the verdict"..the discussion does branche out to other issues..and we are all guilty of that..but please look at your posts before accusing others of things you are doing..none of your posts between 12:54 until 3:14 were about the appeal..you just mention the appeal when it is convenient for you to change the subject...

BTW, I consider the testing of the mineral deposits an appeal issue..

Please address my posts that are about the appeal..thanks

[cookiewench]

If you understand then I hope you can explain why the shredding occurred ONLY in the crotch area of her pants?

However, if the mineral deposits just happened to be laid down by the action as you theorize.. then why not finding them trapped inside her bra..or inside her pants..around the zipper...within the waistband of her pants...within the drawstring of her pants...imbedded in the fractures of her ribs..etc..etc.

There could be several reasons for this: most likely, there was duct tape around her body, but not over the crotch. Then again, it could be about the position of the body, the metal of the zipper being near the crotch area and reacting to the minerals in the water, or perhaps the panties were 100% cotton (organic) while the pants were polyester, etc.

There is nothing suspicious about it, and nothing that can be brought up in appeal about it.

"Scott is not guilty because Laci's body had mineral deposits around the crotch area only" - GMAB!

[accordn2me]

If you can't decipher s*x, no wonder you can't understand the evidence. :rolleyes:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

Great sig! I've always meant to compliment you on it! So ironic that you use it. :)
I can decipher sEx! But it's not evidence, is it?

Just type it out, Otter. It's sex. Not a four letter word! :punch:

[Miss Bootsie]

How much do you want to bet that most of the Appellate judges in CA right now have heard about, read about, and discussed this case already?



Of course they have.

[cookiewench]

Yep...IMO, nothing meaningful was said in the way of proving that there was evidence presented that proved BARD that Scott tranported Laci's body to the bay...

Yes, and your opinion means nothing in the appeals process.

If you think this will fall under the topic of "not enough evidence", you're wrong.

For every man on death row, there's an unanswered question as to how he transported the body, how he gained entrance to the house, why he committed the crime, the exact time of the crime, if he did it alone or was aided, what he did with the weapon (they are often never found), and a myriad of other issues.

It's not mandated that every little detail being proven beyond a reasonable doubt - only that the crime was committed by the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which - it was.

[accordn2me]

To begin with, I never said they were kidney stones...IMO, the mineral deposits would form due to alternate wetting and drying cycles over a period of time..my theory is based on the possibility that urine was causing the wetting of the crotch area of her pants...

Would someone please elaborate on this: why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?The concrete anchor rested here and not on these other areas (bra, panties, rest of her pants).

[attorneywan2be]

"Scott is not guilty because Laci's body had mineral deposits around the crotch area only" - GMAB!

IMO, Scott could not have done it since the mineral deposits could not have formed ONLY in the crotxh area of her pants if her body was at the bottom of the bay until the storm...it is as simple as that..

[attorneywan2be]

The concrete anchor rested here and not on these other areas (bra, panties, rest of her pants).

We will have to agree to disagree...I consider the theory of the mineral deposits being concrete a total nonsense..

[Lavindar]

I believe that was the boat cover, and I believe it was easily shown that there would be only one reason why Scott would put in tucked away under a leaky gas blower - and that was, to destroy scent & DNA evidence.


Most people who have a boat keep the boat cover in the same location as the boat imo. Not at a different location under a leaky leaf blower....which would have had to be moved to put the boat cover under it.

[Lavindar]

IMO, Scott could not have done it since the mineral deposits could not have formed ONLY in the crotxh area of her pants if her body was at the bottom of the bay until the storm...it is as simple as that..

This is NOT an appeals issue

[accordn2me]

Nope, I think you are misinterpreting Dr. Peterson's testimony...

Brian Peterson: Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that material could be laid down. Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked about that.
<snipped>Let me highlight it for you.....

"that material" = concrete...it's the most likely explanation, imo

[deputydi]

Guess what...I was only replying to your post which was about the tarp and was not about the appeal..

I posted a list of potential appeal issues..I posted part of the defense motion regarding the issue of "insufficient evidence to support the verdict"..the discussion does branche out to other issues..and we are all guilty of that..but please look at your posts before accusing others of things you are doing..none of your posts between 12:54 until 3:14 were about the appeal..you just mention the appeal when it is convenient for you to change the subject...

BTW, I consider the testing of the mineral deposits an appeal issue..

Please address my posts that are about the appeal..thanks
You're right. I am guilty of responding to a couple of posts that have nothing to do with the appeal. I have been trying since last night to steer the conversation in the direction you evidently intended when you started this thread.

I did address your post about the appeal. Although I didn't address each and every one individually. I chose to take them on one at a time and, hopefully, initiate some meaningful dialog.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8932346#post8932346

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8932368&postcount=4244

This is about as far as it got. Care to start again?

[deputydi]

From the defense motion for a new trial..note the cases they cited..:
<snip>
Aren't these quotes from a motion that has already been denied?

[accordn2me]

We will have to agree to disagree...I consider the theory of the mineral deposits being concrete a total nonsense..Please post the testimony and/or a link to where they are specified "mineral deposits."

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be
From the defense motion for a new trial..note the cases they cited..:
<snip>

It would be helpful if you would provide a link to this motion. Some of us have NO idea of what you are speaking about.

[attorneywan2be]

Please post the testimony and/or a link to where they are specified "mineral deposits."

Brian Peterson: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small. There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place too.
David Harris: Again, let me go to each, you are talking about these items were in place. Were they in the usual place of wearing?
Brian Peterson: They were.
David Harris: That would include the underwear as well?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
David Harris: You can continue.
Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
David Harris: Now, when you start, and you are looking at this, you are doing this external examination, do you do one side or the other? Do you do just one side?
Brian Peterson: Normally we receive a body in place on its back. In this case, we received the body in the prone position face down. So my initial, one of my initial procedures was to turn the body over. Just easier to get to the body cavities that way. In addition to the clothing, I should mention there was also a portion of duct tape on the pants, on the front of the body. It actually was sticking to the front of the waistband of the trousers. From the back, I could see it around one leg. So it was just a piece of duct tape. In terms of size, the body is examined from all different angles. I'm looking at it from the right, from the left, from the front, from the back. Again, in this case, I was limited by the fact there was so much of the body absent. In fact, once I took the clothing off, on the left side of the front of the thigh there was a little bit of skin left. And that was the only skin left in this case. Elsewhere there was, in some places, skeletal muscle exposed. Other places there was still some fat beneath the skin left. But the outer layers of the skin, the tissue right beneath the skin was all absent.

[attorneywan2be]

Aren't these quotes from a motion that has already been denied?

They were denied by judge Delucchi..appellate courts reverse rulings made by the trial judge..that's why there are court of appeals...

[Lavindar]

Brian Peterson: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small. There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place too.
David Harris: Again, let me go to each, you are talking about these items were in place. Were they in the usual place of wearing?
Brian Peterson: They were.
David Harris: That would include the underwear as well?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
David Harris: You can continue.
Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
David Harris: Now, when you start, and you are looking at this, you are doing this external examination, do you do one side or the other? Do you do just one side?
Brian Peterson: Normally we receive a body in place on its back. In this case, we received the body in the prone position face down. So my initial, one of my initial procedures was to turn the body over. Just easier to get to the body cavities that way. In addition to the clothing, I should mention there was also a portion of duct tape on the pants, on the front of the body. It actually was sticking to the front of the waistband of the trousers. From the back, I could see it around one leg. So it was just a piece of duct tape. In terms of size, the body is examined from all different angles. I'm looking at it from the right, from the left, from the front, from the back. Again, in this case, I was limited by the fact there was so much of the body absent. In fact, once I took the clothing off, on the left side of the front of the thigh there was a little bit of skin left. And that was the only skin left in this case. Elsewhere there was, in some places, skeletal muscle exposed. Other places there was still some fat beneath the skin left. But the outer layers of the skin, the tissue right beneath the skin was all absent.


I fail to see what this has to do with the appeals issue. It appears to have more to do with another thread than this one.

[attorneywan2be]

It would be helpful if you would provide a link to this motion. Some of us have NO idea of what you are speaking about.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/newtrial.htm

[deputydi]

They were denied by judge Delucchi..appellate courts reverse rulings made by the trial judge..that's why there are court of appeals...
Um -- I know that. I just asked if it was from the appeal that had been denied. I guess the answer is yes.

[ekg]

Considering that Todd and Pearce were tall and thin and the three men that DJ saw were short and dark skinned, it would logically seem that the underwear would not fit any of them. Size 7 jockey would not be appropriate for a pregnant woman to wear anyway - too small. That's providing that that information is correct.



yes, and the reserve NYPD officer saw 2 white guys..and described one of them


Judge Delucchi: Let me ask you this. What about the -- what about the statement of the reserve police officer or the former police officer who, as I understand it, gave a statement, was passed on to Mr. Geragos, that he saw -- you correct me if I'm wrong, someone who matched the description of Laci Peterson. And I believe he said she was urinating alongside a van, which he identifies as a brown van, and then she was dragged into this van by her hair by two males.

Rick Distaso: On -- four days later. On December 28th. That's what the guy says. He says he saw Laci Peterson at a completely different location, miles away from her house. He actually says at Klause and Phoenix, which is a location in Modesto four or five miles four days later. He doesn't say that these people -- didn't say it's the same van, doesn't say it's the same men. He doesn't describe these men as dark skinned. In fact, he describes a single white male. That's what he said. So we've got Diane Jackson saying three dark skinned males, not African American. Got this man saying four days later, four or five miles away, that a single white male pulls -- or is standing there while she's urinating against the fence and then another male in a van pulls her in.


...

Mark Geragos: Let's see if I got this right. Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan. He says it's not in front of Laci Peterson's house, it's across the street? I've been in that street. So has Mr. Distaso. You know how wide that street is? It's from the rail there to the wall there.

Judge Delucchi: Approximately what?

Mark Geragos: Approximately 25 feet across, at best. In fact, when they installed their surreptitious pole camera, they put the surreptitious pole camera directly where this Miss Jackson says this brown van was because that's the best view into the Peterson house. The -- she describes three people that are not African American, scruffy looking, that are around this van, are not landscaping. She describes them as looking like they're up to no good. This gentleman, who is a reserve officer -- and by the way, he keeps saying four days later. I'm not so sure that that's actually correct, and I will do the investigation. I've listened to the tape. He says he called it in. They say what day. He says Well, whatever day I called it in, and tells them that he talked to them twice on the phone. We only have one entry on the phone. I suspect what really happened is he called it in either the same day or a day later and, when the detective called to find out what it was about and entered the information, that that was on the 28th. And then he was not -- they never went to talk to this person. In February 14th NYPD calls, says Modesto PD, what are you doing, we've got a witness, the guy's an ex cop, he sees somebody that looks like Laci Peterson, he turned around because he was so upset, his wife told him not to get involved, he sees her peeing -- the exact statement is he sees her squatting next to the fence, the gentleman has got arms on both sides of her like this so that she can't go left or right, that when she's finished, and she's looking at him as if "I need help," that he then takes her to the van, that he takes her around to the driver's side door, which she thinks is utterly peculiar, and he sees another hand reach out and kind of drag her into the van. Hello? The last time I looked that's exculpatory all day long. And I would like to at least investigate on top of this.

so who was that pregnant woman anyway? did MPD ever check to find out?


and Galloway says they were a size 7 Jockey and the pants were a Small....... but you're right that's too small for a pregnant woman...

88. THE WITNESS: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small. There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place too.



also, what 8 month pregnant woman wears button/zipper pants?

talk about uncomfortable and a hassle when you have to pee really fast and frequently..


maybe she was able to wear them b/c she wasn't pregnant any longer when she was killed wearing those pants/panties.. :shrug:

what's your L, since you also agree the size is too small for a pregnant woman

[Lavindar]

so who was that pregnant woman anyway? did MPD ever check to find out?


snipped

maybe she was able to wear them b/c she wasn't pregnant any longer when she was killed wearing those pants/panties.. :shrug:


To your first observation, what ex-cop wouldn't think of getting a license plate number if he saw something suspicious?

To the second: HOGWASH. Now the kidnappers not only kidnap her, take the baby, change her clothes, but are sure to get MOTHERHOOD brand pants to put her in. Such considerate murderers. Too bad Scott wasn't one


Notice how deftly Garegos changes that white van to possible tan and then to brown. No one ever said brown - that was garegos's word. Brown is nothing like tan. Her pants were maternity from the label - MOTHERHOOD brand,

Are you incapable of asking one question per post? This is very annoying for those of us who just want to answer one - you have to throw in the entire kitchen sink in evrery post

Where did it say 2 white guys? I didn't read that at all.

BTW, you best read again. It wasn't a NYC reserve policeman who saw this incident and it was reported that he saw it on the 28th of Dec.

That particular van was destinctive - it was a camper van with a fiberglass top on it. The van DJ saw was a utility-type van

I cannot believe how you quote Geragos as the truth.

[I'mSun]

If you understand then I hope you can explain why the shredding occurred ONLY in the crotch area of her pants?

However, if the mineral deposits just happened to be laid down by the action as you theorize.. then why not finding them trapped inside her bra..or inside her pants..around the zipper...within the waistband of her pants...within the drawstring of her pants...imbedded in the fractures of her ribs..etc..etc.Just for fun, I want to mention this: according to Dr. Henry Lee, when he and Dr. Wecht examined Laci's remains, she was in an advanced state of decomposition and many BARNACLES were attached to her bones. Barnacles don't require a wet/dry period. From Dr. Henry Lee's Forensic Files

[Miss Bootsie]

yes, and the reserve NYPD officer saw 2 white guys..and described one of them



so who was that pregnant woman anyway? did MPD ever check to find out?


and Galloway says they were a size 7 Jockey and the pants were a Small....... but you're right that's too small for a pregnant woman...





also, what 8 month pregnant woman wears button/zipper pants?

talk about uncomfortable and a hassle when you have to pee really fast and frequently..


maybe she was able to wear them b/c she wasn't pregnant any longer when she was killed wearing those pants/panties.. :shrug:

what's your L, since you also agree the size is too small for a pregnant woman

I think it depends on the style of Jockeys.
Maybe Laci was more comfortable at that stage in her pregnancy wearing the bikini or string bikini that expose the stomach and fit low on the hips.
If that is the case, size 7 would not be too small.

Are you asking what 8 month pregnant woman wears Motherhood maternity pants???????
Pregnant women and non-pregnant women buy and wear pants with button closures and zippers.
The pants have elastic around the back.
Also, the Motherhood pants appear as if they are made out of a stretchy type fabric.

[deputydi]

<snip>also, what 8 month pregnant woman wears button/zipper pants?

talk about uncomfortable and a hassle when you have to pee really fast and frequently..

maybe she was able to wear them b/c she wasn't pregnant any longer when she was killed wearing those pants/panties.. :shrug:

Oh, good grief. Motherhood brand ONLY makes maternity clothes. If the pants had buttons and zippers, they were designed for PREGNANT WOMEN.

[Miss Bootsie]

If you understand then I hope you can explain why the shredding occurred ONLY in the crotch area of her pants?

However, if the mineral deposits just happened to be laid down by the action as you theorize.. then why not finding them trapped inside her bra..or inside her pants..around the zipper...within the waistband of her pants...within the drawstring of her pants...imbedded in the fractures of her ribs..etc..etc.

Answer one question and you ask five more.:D
The probable answer to those questions are so simple to someone with an open mind.

ding ding ding Consider the area of the shredding AW.

The stones were trapped in the tangled mass of the fibers.

[TopGunner]

IMO, Scott could not have done it since the mineral deposits could not have formed ONLY in the crotxh area of her pants if her body was at the bottom of the bay until the storm...it is as simple as that..

AW2B - I give you my WORD that if ISP walks because of mineral deposits, in fact, if mineral deposits are even remotely HINTED at in the appeals process, I will eat my hat, your hat, everyone else who posts here hats, even the lurkers hats! :hat:

[TopGunner]

I think you're missing the point...Laci being in a bathtub is basically a theory..but the jury cannot use theories to convict someone..so I'm saying that they can't speculate that Scott must have used a tarp to wrap Laci's body unless the tarp was in evidence..!


Hi AW2B :seeya: Why are you speculating that someone stashed Laci in a tub somewhere for 4 months? And why are you speculating that the boat cover doused in gasoline isn't worth noting? Do you consider that NORMAL too?:eek:

[Lavindar]

Hi AW2B :seeya: Why are you speculating that someone stashed Laci in a tub somewhere for 4 months? And why are you speculating that the boat cover doused in gasoline isn't worth noting? Do you consider that NORMAL too?:eek: What's so odd about that is that the boat cover was under the leeky leaf blower, yet the cover was used AFTER the leaf blower so he had to move the leaf blower to put the cover there and he didn't notice it was leaking? Too strange. If the leaf blower had been leaking gasoline since he used it on the 22nd, the whole shed must have reeked of gasoline yrt he still put the cover under it. Shows how little he cared for his belongings. Certainly not the same guy who worried about dinging a door

[Miss Bootsie]

Who knows? Who really cares, except a few SIIs? I would have to have an expert examine the pants and give me their expert opinion.

BTW, wouldn't they have been on her panties too if your theory was correct?

If Laci had been forced to continuously urinate in her pants, the urine would have spread to more areas of her pants than the crotch area.imo

[TopGunner]

What's so odd about that is that the boat cover was under the leeky leaf blower, yet the cover was used AFTER the leaf blower so he had to move the leaf blower to put the cover there and he didn't notice it was leaking? Too strange. If the leaf blower had been leaking gasoline since he used it on the 22nd, the whole shed must have reeked of gasoline yrt he still put the cover under it. Shows how little he cared for his belongings. Certainly not the same guy who worried about dinging a door


Exactly Lavindar. We all know how ISP was about his stuff. One minute he's putting a piece of paper down on the table so the cop wouldn't make a scratch while writing out a RECEIPT - and the next minute he's trying to sell the joint. He's anal about vacuuming and mopping, but he tossed the boat cover under a leaking blower (and not on the boat).

I think it's pretty obvious that he did some last minute hustling to cover his tracks. Desperate does stupid things and he was pretty desperate.:beer:

[TopGunner]

If Laci had been forced to continuously urinate in her pants, the urine would have spread to more areas of her pants than the crotch area.imo

Oh Boots, as always, GREAT POINT! :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

We will have to agree to disagree...I consider the theory of the mineral deposits being concrete a total nonsense..

I consider the theory of the mineral deposits forming as a result of Laci urinating in her pants utter nonsense.

It takes months to years and a continuous flow of urine for kidney stones to form in the body.
You can't place the body in a bathtub filled with water for months and still have the stones form.

I agree that continuous wetting and drying of urine might cause some scaling(similar to lime scale) or crusting, but I strongly disagree urine would form hard stony mineral deposits in that short a period.

[accordn2me]

Brian Peterson: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small. There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place too.
David Harris: Again, let me go to each, you are talking about these items were in place. Were they in the usual place of wearing?
Brian Peterson: They were.
David Harris: That would include the underwear as well?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
David Harris: You can continue.
Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
David Harris: Now, when you start, and you are looking at this, you are doing this external examination, do you do one side or the other? Do you do just one side?
Brian Peterson: Normally we receive a body in place on its back. In this case, we received the body in the prone position face down. So my initial, one of my initial procedures was to turn the body over. Just easier to get to the body cavities that way. In addition to the clothing, I should mention there was also a portion of duct tape on the pants, on the front of the body. It actually was sticking to the front of the waistband of the trousers. From the back, I could see it around one leg. So it was just a piece of duct tape. In terms of size, the body is examined from all different angles. I'm looking at it from the right, from the left, from the front, from the back. Again, in this case, I was limited by the fact there was so much of the body absent. In fact, once I took the clothing off, on the left side of the front of the thigh there was a little bit of skin left. And that was the only skin left in this case. Elsewhere there was, in some places, skeletal muscle exposed. Other places there was still some fat beneath the skin left. But the outer layers of the skin, the tissue right beneath the skin was all absent.MG's "concrete expert" discusses the characteristics of the very concrete he was hired to say was the same concrete found in SLP's driveway. He nicely describes how it filters down and becomes deposited in certain places. "That material" was nothing more, and nothing less than the concrete SLP used to anchor Laci's body with.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B - I give you my WORD that if ISP walks because of mineral deposits, in fact, if mineral deposits are even remotely HINTED at in the appeals process, I will eat my hat, your hat, everyone else who posts here hats, even the lurkers hats! :hat:


Then please don't forget to post a video clip of yourself eating hats....:lol:

[attorneywan2be]

Answer one question and you ask five more.:D
The probable answer to those questions are so simple to someone with an open mind.

ding ding ding Consider the area of the shredding AW.

The stones were trapped in the tangled mass of the fibers.


:D

And you didn't answer any of them..

[attorneywan2be]

I consider the theory of the mineral deposits forming as a result of Laci urinating in her pants utter nonsense.

It takes months to years and a continuous flow of urine for kidney stones to form in the body.
You can't place the body in a bathtub filled with water for months and still have the stones form.

I agree that continuous wetting and drying of urine might cause some scaling(similar to lime scale) or crusting, but I strongly disagree urine would form hard stony mineral deposits in that short a period.


I think she was forced to urinate in her pants for weeks...not days..!!

[Rosie_02]

I think it depends on the style of Jockeys.
Maybe Laci was more comfortable at that stage in her pregnancy wearing the bikini or string bikini that expose the stomach and fit low on the hips.
If that is the case, size 7 would not be too small.

Are you asking what 8 month pregnant woman wears Motherhood maternity pants???????
Pregnant women and non-pregnant women buy and wear pants with button closures and zippers.
The pants have elastic around the back.
Also, the Motherhood pants appear as if they are made out of a stretchy type fabric.

I know when I was pregnant, I didn't wear the big granny panties that went over the belly, I thought it was way to uncomfortable, and it felt like it was cutting into my skin.. so I wore smaller ones that went under my tummy. Not alot of younger moms like to wear that kinda stuff..even when they're pregnant. As for the zippers and buttons... they make alot of cool new maternaty cloths now, that look like regular cloths. They have buttons and zippers, its just that its usually made out of really stretchy material, and elastic waistbands... It makes perfect sence.
Anyways.. Laci was a size 2 before she was pregnant, she was a very small woman. Her wearing size 7 while pregnant seems reasonable.

:shrug:

And the mineral deposites in the crotch of her undies.. doesnt necessarily have to be from urine (which dilutes quickly when submerged in water) ... if you catch my drift. I wont say anymore about that, im sure you can all catch on to what im getting at.
I have to admit though... its wierd that they never tested them though.....

Jmhlo!

*edited because im half asleep, and having spelling issues. lol

[adnoid]

IMO, Scott could not have done it since the mineral deposits could not have formed ONLY in the crotxh area of her pants if her body was at the bottom of the bay until the storm...it is as simple as that..

Damn it. I said I'd drop it, but I cannot.

There is NO TESTIMONY that the deposits are ONLY in the crotch! The testimony refers to the deposits being on what is left of the PANTS, and the jury was given the photographs from the autopsy which WE CANNOT SEE BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL SEALED!

I assume the deposits are all over the remnants of the pants. The ONLY WAY to know is to see the photos, which WE CANNOT DO.

BUT - THE JURY SAW THOSE PICTURES. So the jury has evidence we do not. They voted to convict.

[adnoid]

I think she was forced to urinate in her pants for weeks...not days..!!

Did they let her take off her pants to defecate?

This is getting ridiculous. I'm ashamed of myself for responding. In my defense I've been drinking really good wine with my sister for hours and we've both been having fun at Scott's expense.

[adnoid]

I consider the theory of the mineral deposits forming as a result of Laci urinating in her pants utter nonsense...

You give it more credit than I.

[TopGunner]

Did they let her take off her pants to defecate?

This is getting ridiculous. I'm ashamed of myself for responding. In my defense I've been drinking really good wine with my sister for hours and we've both been having fun at Scott's expense.


You are so clever Adnoid, even when you're drinking. :biggrin:

EXCELLENT POINT! :beer:

[TopGunner]

Then please don't forget to post a video clip of yourself eating hats....:lol:

Haha........you wish! :hat: :lol:

[Miss Bootsie]

There is NO TESTIMONY that the deposits are ONLY in the crotch! The testimony refers to the deposits being on what is left of the PANTS,

You're right. Also, there is no testimony that the shredding is only in that area.

[deputydi]

I know when I was pregnant, I didn't wear the big granny panties that went over the belly, I thought it was way to uncomfortable, and it felt like it was cutting into my skin.. so I wore smaller ones that went under my tummy. Not alot of younger moms like to wear that kinda stuff..even when they're pregnant. As for the zippers and buttons... they make alot of cool new maternaty cloths now, that look like regular cloths. They have buttons and zippers, its just that its usually made out of really stretchy material, and elastic waistbands... It makes perfect sence.
Anyways.. Laci was a size 2 before she was pregnant, she was a very small woman. Her wearing size 7 while pregnant seems reasonable.

:shrug:

And the mineral deposites in the crotch of her undies.. doesnt necessarily have to be from urine (which dilutes quickly when submerged in water) ... if you catch my drift. I wont say anymore about that, im sure you can all catch on to what im getting at.
I have to admit though... its wierd that they never tested them though.....

Jmhlo!

*edited because im half asleep, and having spelling issues. lol
Welcome, Rosie. I hope to see you post here more often. :seeya:

You are completely correct. I didn't buy maternity undies when I was pregnant either. In fact, I don't even remember buying a larger size but it's been a long time and I could have forgotten that little detail.

AW2B seems to be hanging her hopes of a successful appeal on issues that are irrelevant. MG had every chance to have these mineral deposits tested if he thought they were that important. He didn't and that's no one's fault but his. We don't have access to the photos that would show exactly where these deposits are -- we only have a description of the pants. I don't understand where she's trying to go with this issue.

Her theory is that Laci was kept alive for a period of approx two months during which time she was forced to urinate in her pants. These phantom kidnappers then killed her and kept her submerged in a bathtub for another two months until they could safely deposit her decomposed body on the shore where she was found. I'm not at all clear on how she thinks Conner exited her body, but, somehow he did. During her two month submersion in the bathtub, wouldn't the deposits dissolve? To me, this whole scenario is pretty desperate and makes no sense on a whole bunch of levels.

[attorneywan2be]

You are so clever Adnoid, even when you're drinking. :biggrin:

EXCELLENT POINT! :beer:

Nope....it is not a good point...:D

I think her abductors took her once or twice a day to the bathroom..but as we know, frequent urination is associated with pregnancy..and it's even worse in pregnant women that are suffering from urinary tract infection which is also common during pregnancy..coffee has a diuretic effect..Laci had coffee in her system, in addition, she also suffered from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy..I don't think she was taking her medication when she was held captive...

IMO. it is the most logical theory as to the mineral deposits...

[Miss Bootsie]

AW2B seems to be hanging her hopes of a successful appeal on issues that are irrelevant. MG had every chance to have these mineral deposits tested if he thought they were that important. He didn't and that's no one's fault but his. We don't have access to the photos that would show exactly where these deposits are -- we only have a description of the pants. I don't understand where she's trying to go with this issue.

Her theory is that Laci was kept alive for a period of approx two months during which time she was forced to urinate in her pants. These phantom kidnappers then killed her and kept her submerged in a bathtub for another two months until they could safely deposit her decomposed body on the shore where she was found. I'm not at all clear on how she thinks Conner exited her body, but, somehow he did. During her two month submersion in the bathtub, wouldn't the deposits dissolve? To me, this whole scenario is pretty desperate and makes no sense on a whole bunch of levels.

Do we know that Geragos didn't privately get an expert to look at the stones?

Yup, you're right. The stones would have dissolved after the lower part of her body was submerged in a bath-tub for two months.

I think its possible those stones became tangled in the mass of threads while Laci's body was on the shore line.
She was found in a rocky area. I'm sure there are also small stony particles.

[Miss Bootsie]

Nope....it is not a good point...:D

I think her abductors took her once or twice a day to the bathroom..but as we know, frequent urination is associated with pregnancy..and it's even worse in pregnant women that are suffering from urinary tract infection which is also common during pregnancy..coffee has a diuretic effect..Laci had coffee in her system, in addition, she also suffered from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy..I don't think she was taking her medication when she was held captive...

IMO. it is the most logical theory as to the mineral deposits...

Testimony please, that Laci had coffee in her system.
Testimony please, that Laci's caffeine level was elevated.

[attorneywan2be]

You're right. Also, there is no testimony that the shredding is only in that area.

The Me's testimony at the trial and at the preliminary hearings speak for itself...when he explained the location of the mineral deposits that he found on her pants he was very specific, he stated at the prelim that he found them around the upper legs of her pants, and he stated at the trial that he found them in the crotch area of her pants..they were not found anywhere else on her clothing..even MG pointed out in his closing argument that the mineral deposits were only found on the front of her pants..

I have a question: why do you think the back portion of her panties was missing? keep in mind that the front portion of her panties was intact and the panties were beneath the pants, so they should have been protected by the pants...would someone please address this question...TIA!

Me's testimony at the prelim:

14 A. What I saw in the trousers that have been more or
15 less reduced to thread down around the upper legs, there
16 were round, smooth, round to oval deposits of stone.
17 I'm not a mineralogist, I'm not an anthropologist, but
18 it was quite heavy --
19 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 THE WITNESS: These were discrete deposits.
22 Again, as I tried to consider what possible mechanism
23 might have been involved there, I thought about, again, how
24 a body acts in the water, how it tends to submerge and then
25 resurface. And I think if this happened over a period of
26 time, with alternate layers of wetting and drying, it could
27 have account -- it could account for minerals building up as
28 I saw here.

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

ME's testimony at the trial

Brian Peterson: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small. There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place too.
David Harris: Again, let me go to each, you are talking about these items were in place. Were they in the usual place of wearing?
Brian Peterson: They were.
David Harris: That would include the underwear as well?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
David Harris: You can continue.
Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
David Harris: Now, when you start, and you are looking at this, you are doing this external examination, do you do one side or the other? Do you do just one side?
Brian Peterson: Normally we receive a body in place on its back. In this case, we received the body in the prone position face down. So my initial, one of my initial procedures was to turn the body over. Just easier to get to the body cavities that way. In addition to the clothing, I should mention there was also a portion of duct tape on the pants, on the front of the body. It actually was sticking to the front of the waistband of the trousers. From the back, I could see it around one leg. So it was just a piece of duct tape. In terms of size, the body is examined from all different angles. I'm looking at it from the right, from the left, from the front, from the back. Again, in this case, I was limited by the fact there was so much of the body absent. In fact, once I took the clothing off, on the left side of the front of the thigh there was a little bit of skin left. And that was the only skin left in this case. Elsewhere there was, in some places, skeletal muscle exposed. Other places there was still some fat beneath the skin left. But the outer layers of the skin, the tissue right beneath the skin was all absent.

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

MG's closing argument

That was Doctor Peterson. Doctor Peterson talked about -- some of you remember these mineralization that was in the pants. And it would have been in the pants right along the front.
And when I asked Doctor Peterson about that mineralization, his explanation was that the body had to have been exposed. I have a sixth grader. Like other sixth graders, I can tell you they just finished the mineralization chapter. In order to have minerals, you have to have an object that is exposed so the water evaporates and the minerals form.
Doctor Peterson recognized that. You know what Doctor Peterson did? Because of that observation about the mineralization, what he called smooth stones, he said my thing is it may have had to do with the body being alternately exposed and submerged. And maybe as water and salts were deposited and dried, the material could be laid down.
I said, when you say it was submerged, meaning at some point under water, at some point out of -- at least not exposed, or maybe on the surface of the water. That's what the testimony is. That's their expert.
Somehow the mineralization took place in the -- mineralization was on the front of Laci.
His testimony was that you would normally expect the body to be laying with the appendages down. If that was the case, how do you explain the fact there was mineralization in the front, and the stones were in the front, unless that body was somewhere else, somewhere else.
For instance, I don't know if it's the case but, you know, we showed you that area by that Hoffman Channel where there is a marshy area.
These bodies kind of come and float up right in that specific area. And you will remember on the map, there was Laci's body, there is the bag, this bag that Officer Philipps said had the she same smell as the composition. Then there was the baby. It was all by the Hoffman Channel.
And remember, Officer Philipps said that that water comes out on the tide. And you will remember, even the DA two months later came up with that bag of junk which I opened up and showed to you, which they said was plastic, which was at the foot of the Hoffman Channel. And that's a marshy area over there.
If the bodies were dumped over there, is it so hard to believe that that's why there was this mineralization? Because it was in a marine environment over there by that marsh area. And that at some point when the large rain came, that's what washed the bodies out to where they were found?
I don't think so. I don't think that's so hard to believe. In fact, you would have to come up with some explanation, because we have got completely conflicting theories.
If it -- on the one hand, they are saying bodies are weighted down. That was the argument yesterday. The body are weighted down, that they are at the bottom, and that's why we can't find anything. That's why we did all of these searches, and the bodies were not -- you weren't able to locate the bodies. But, at the same time, you have got their medical examiner saying that they are all -- they are alternately exposed and submerged, meaning that at some point out of the water, not exposed to the water, or at least on the surface of the water. How else do you explain it? That's what the facts are. We're not making them up.

[Lavindar]

Do we know that Geragos didn't privately get an expert to look at the stones?

Yup, you're right. The stones would have dissolved after the lower part of her body was submerged in a bath-tub for two months.

I think its possible those stones became tangled in the mass of threads while Laci's body was on the shore line.
She was found in a rocky area. I'm sure there are also small stony particles.

Wasn't Wecht allowed to perform an autopsy on Laci? Why didn't HE collect the stones (or minerals or whatever you want to call them) and have then tested? He obviously didn't think they were significant either. And isn't Wecht a god - he never lies and he's always right?

[attorneywan2be]

Testimony please, that Laci had coffee in her system.
Testimony please, that Laci's caffeine level was elevated.


Mark Geragos: And the toxicology on Laci showed elevated levels of caffeine?
Brian Peterson: I'm not sure if they were elevated. I'm not quite sure what her normal caffeine level is. Skeletal muscle would be, there was simply caffeine present in the skeletal muscle.

[attorneywan2be]

Wasn't Wecht allowed to perform an autopsy on Laci? Why didn't HE collect the stones (or minerals or whatever you want to call them) and have then tested? He obviously didn't think they were significant either. And isn't Wecht a god - he never lies and he's always right?

As far as I know, he just examined the remains and performed an autopsy..but I don't think he examined the clothings..

[Lavindar]

As far as I know, he just examined the
remains and performed an autopsy..but I don't think he examined the clothings..
But you don't KNOW

[ekg]

To the second: HOGWASH. Now the kidnappers not only kidnap her, take the baby, change her clothes, but are sure to get MOTHERHOOD brand pants to put her in. Such considerate murderers. Too bad Scott wasn't one

you were the one who said a pregnant woman wouldn't wear a size 7 Jockey.... what's your theory on why she found in a size 7 Jockey then?


Notice how deftly Garegos changes that white van to possible tan and then to brown. No one ever said brown - that was garegos's word. Brown is nothing like tan. Her pants were maternity from the label - MOTHERHOOD brand



Judge Delucchi: What color was the van?

Rick Distaso: I think he said the van -- I have the tip exactly here.

Judge Delucchi: Was it a dark colored van, something like that?

Rick Distaso: I think he said it's a tan or brown, or something like that. {Nope,wrong.. MG didn't say Brown...... RD did!}

Judge Delucchi: What does Mrs. Jackson say?

Rick Distaso: She says -- initially she tells the officers it's a white van.

Judge Delucchi: And then she says --

Rick Distaso: Then she says it's tan or brown.{again, RD, NOT MG says brown!} I mean, Judge --

Mark Geragos: Beige.

Rick Distaso: Wait, hold on, let me finish.

Judge Delucchi: Let him finish.

snip

Mark Geragos: Let's see if I got this right. Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan. He says it's not in front of Laci Peterson's house, it's across the street? I've been in that street. So has Mr. Distaso. You know how wide that street is? It's from the rail there to the wall there.

Judge Delucchi: Approximately what?

Mark Geragos: Approximately 25 feet across, at best. In fact, when they installed their surreptitious pole camera, they put the surreptitious pole camera directly where this Miss Jackson says this brown van was because that's the best view into the Peterson house. The -- she describes three people that are not African American, scruffy looking, that are around this van, are not landscaping. She describes them as looking like they're up to no good. This gentleman, who is a reserve officer -- and by the way, he keeps saying four days later. I'm not so sure that that's actually correct, and I will do the investigation. I've listened to the tape. He says he called it in. They say what day. He says Well, whatever day I called it in, and tells them that he talked to them twice on the phone. We only have one entry on the phone. I suspect what really happened is he called it in either the same day or a day later and, when the detective called to find out what it was about and entered the information, that that was on the 28th. And then he was not -- they never went to talk to this person. In February 14th NYPD calls, says Modesto PD, what are you doing, we've got a witness, the guy's an ex cop, he sees somebody that looks like Laci Peterson, he turned around because he was so upset, his wife told him not to get involved, he sees her peeing -- the exact statement is he sees her squatting next to the fence, the gentleman has got arms on both sides of her like this so that she can't go left or right, that when she's finished, and she's looking at him as if "I need help," that he then takes her to the van, that he takes her around to the driver's side door, which she thinks is utterly peculiar, and he sees another hand reach out and kind of drag her into the van. Hello? The last time I looked that's exculpatory all day long. And I would like to at least investigate on top of this.

Rick Distaso: Right, but before we finish, I want the court to understand exactly what we're talking about here. This man who says he saw this on the 28th says -- this is the van he describes. Beige in color with a white stripe that looks like a lightning bolt or a check mark. The stripe started by the driver's door and ran to the end of the van. Miss Jackson says a white van, and she changes it then to say a beige or tan van.



Are you incapable of asking one question per post? This is very annoying for those of us who just want to answer one - you have to throw in the entire kitchen sink in evrery post

I asked who the pregnant woman was? If MPD ever found her and what your theory of the size 7 jockeys were since you said she wouldn't have worn them.... I didn't think those 3 questions were that complicated.. sorry, I will ask easier and less questions to you in the future.



Where did it say 2 white guys? I didn't read that at all.

maybe you should read it again?? JD mentions 2 guys ...RD then goes on to say a single white male... and then says 'the other male'... which he doesn't say is any color, but he does specifically says they are NOT DARK SKINNED. That makes them 2 WHITE GUYS.


Judge Delucchi: Let me ask you this. What about the -- what about the statement of the reserve police officer or the former police officer who, as I understand it, gave a statement, was passed on to Mr. Geragos, that he saw -- you correct me if I'm wrong, someone who matched the description of Laci Peterson. And I believe he said she was urinating alongside a van, which he identifies as a brown van, and then she was dragged into this van by her hair by two males.

Rick Distaso: On -- four days later. On December 28th. That's what the guy says. He says he saw Laci Peterson at a completely different location, miles away from her house. He actually says at Klause and Phoenix, which is a location in Modesto four or five miles four days later. He doesn't say that these people -- didn't say it's the same van, doesn't say it's the same men. He doesn't describe these men as dark skinned. In fact, he describes a single white male. That's what he said. So we've got Diane Jackson saying three dark skinned males, not African American. Got this man saying four days later, four or five miles away, that a single white male pulls -- or is standing there while she's urinating against the fence and then another male in a van pulls her in.



BTW, you best read again. It wasn't a NYC reserve policeman who saw this incident and it was reported that he saw it on the 28th of Dec.

I read it just fine the 1st time... and if he wasn't a reserve police officer then Rick Distaso is a liar....

Rick Distaso: Right. Actually, just so the record's clear, he was a reserve police officer for three years in the 1970s.




That particular van was destinctive - it was a camper van with a fiberglass top on it. The van DJ saw was a utility-type van


I'm not seeing that in Rick Distaso's description here.....why did he leave that out?



I cannot believe how you quote Geragos as the truth.

Look again....... it is Rick Distaso and Judge Deluchhi I am quoting for the truth and Geragos is saying the same thing as them..... are you saying the Judge and the DA are liars?

[USAHICK]

Nope....it is not a good point...:D

I think her abductors took her once or twice a day to the bathroom..but as we know, frequent urination is associated with pregnancy..and it's even worse in pregnant women that are suffering from urinary tract infection which is also common during pregnancy..coffee has a diuretic effect..Laci had coffee in her system, in addition, she also suffered from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy..I don't think she was taking her medication when she was held captive...

IMO. it is the most logical theory as to the mineral deposits...

I am LAUGHING OUTLOUD - SO LOUD -- I'm scarin the people around me.

[ekg]

To your first observation, what ex-cop wouldn't think of getting a license plate number if he saw something suspicious?

To the second: HOGWASH. Now the kidnappers not only kidnap her, take the baby, change her clothes, but are sure to get MOTHERHOOD brand pants to put her in. Such considerate murderers. Too bad Scott wasn't one


Notice how deftly Garegos changes that white van to possible tan and then to brown. No one ever said brown - that was garegos's word. Brown is nothing like tan. Her pants were maternity from the label - MOTHERHOOD brand,

Are you incapable of asking one question per post? This is very annoying for those of us who just want to answer one - you have to throw in the entire kitchen sink in evrery post

Where did it say 2 white guys? I didn't read that at all.

BTW, you best read again. It wasn't a NYC reserve policeman who saw this incident and it was reported that he saw it on the 28th of Dec.

That particular van was destinctive - it was a camper van with a fiberglass top on it. The van DJ saw was a utility-type van

I cannot believe how you quote Geragos as the truth.

isn't it funny how Geragos is the liar and shouldn't be quoted for the truth... when he is just repeating exactly what the Judge and the Prosecutor are saying...

How can all of these ppl be lying and it still be a fair trial... How can we believe anything from the trial when everyone has this problem with telling the truth....

[USAHICK]

you were the one who said a pregnant woman wouldn't wear a size 7 Jockey.... what's your theory on why she found in a size 7 Jockey then?










I asked who the pregnant woman was? If MPD ever found her and what your theory of the size 7 jockeys were since you said she wouldn't have worn them.... I didn't think those 3 questions were that complicated.. sorry, I will ask easier and less questions to you in the future.




maybe you should read it again?? JD mentions 2 guys ...RD then goes on to say a single white male... and then says 'the other male'... which he doesn't say is any color, but he does specifically says they are NOT DARK SKINNED. That makes them 2 WHITE GUYS.







I read it just fine the 1st time... and if he wasn't a reserve police officer then Rick Distaso is a liar....









I'm not seeing that in Rick Distaso's description here.....why did he leave that out?





Look again....... it is Rick Distaso and Judge Deluchhi I am quoting for the truth and Geragos is saying the same thing as them..... are you saying the Judge and the DA are liars?


If ever I've seen testimony snipped and edited to twist the facts -- here it is!

[ekg]

Oh, good grief. Motherhood brand ONLY makes maternity clothes. If the pants had buttons and zippers, they were designed for PREGNANT WOMEN.

Oh, good grief. When I was 8 months pregnant I stayed away from buttons and zippers even when they were maternity clothing...... but I also stayed away from unwire bras too.... so maybe I was just an anomaly when it came to late pregnancy and comfort.:shrug:

[ekg]

Exactly Lavindar. We all know how ISP was about his stuff. One minute he's putting a piece of paper down on the table so the cop wouldn't make a scratch while writing out a RECEIPT - and the next minute he's trying to sell the joint. He's anal about vacuuming and mopping, but he tossed the boat cover under a leaking blower (and not on the boat).

I think it's pretty obvious that he did some last minute hustling to cover his tracks. Desperate does stupid things and he was pretty desperate.:beer:

sounds like my husband...... he protects and cleans MY stuff and just tosses his stuff around like rags... I find it charming that he makes sure my things and the house are so well cared for and cleaned... Next time I come home and find that he's mopped and vacuumed I'll tell him what an oddity he is and how lucky I am to have a man that will do those things...

[ekg]

Oh Boots, as always, GREAT POINT! :beer:

sure it would spread....... like maybe to the 'back' area..

which would explain why only the back area was missing... it was already in a 'weaken condition' <--for lack of a better word ....

AW2B's wetting/drying theory gets better all the time IMO..

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be
Nope....it is not a good point...

I think her abductors took her once or twice a day to the bathroom..but as we know, frequent urination is associated with pregnancy..and it's even worse in pregnant women that are suffering from urinary tract infection which is also common during pregnancy..coffee has a diuretic effect..Laci had coffee in her system, in addition, she also suffered from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy..I don't think she was taking her medication when she was held captive...

IMO. it is the most logical theory as to the mineral deposits...

Link to Laci having urinary tract infection please

[ekg]

:D

And you didn't answer any of them..

:D she did the same to me..... gave me a bunch of post # and asked me to comment on all of them..... and then ignored my replies and the time it took to track down the #'s...

But it's cool.. nothing less than what I expected..:shrug:

Hey, is the whole Brown van thing an appeals thing? It is very troublesome IMO...

Judge Delucchi: Let me ask you this. What about the -- what about the statement of the reserve police officer or the former police officer who, as I understand it, gave a statement, was passed on to Mr. Geragos, that he saw -- you correct me if I'm wrong, someone who matched the description of Laci Peterson. And I believe he said she was urinating alongside a van, which he identifies as a brown van, and then she was dragged into this van by her hair by two males.

Rick Distaso: On -- four days later. On December 28th. That's what the guy says. He says he saw Laci Peterson at a completely different location, miles away from her house. He actually says at Klause and Phoenix, which is a location in Modesto four or five miles four days later. He doesn't say that these people -- didn't say it's the same van, doesn't say it's the same men. He doesn't describe these men as dark skinned. In fact, he describes a single white male. That's what he said. So we've got Diane Jackson saying three dark skinned males, not African American. Got this man saying four days later, four or five miles away, that a single white male pulls -- or is standing there while she's urinating against the fence and then another male in a van pulls her in.

Judge Delucchi: What color was the van?

Rick Distaso: I think he said the van -- I have the tip exactly here.

Judge Delucchi: Was it a dark colored van, something like that?

Rick Distaso: I think he said it's a tan or brown, or something like that.

Judge Delucchi: What does Mrs. Jackson say?

Rick Distaso: She says -- initially she tells the officers it's a white van.

Judge Delucchi: And then she says --

Rick Distaso: Then she says it's tan or brown. I mean, Judge --

Mark Geragos: Beige.

Rick Distaso: Wait, hold on, let me finish.

Judge Delucchi: Let him finish.

Rick Distaso: If we're -- you know, if every brown van -- you know, Modesto is a city of 200,000 people. I got to believe there's more than one brown van. My question is how -- to meet the People vs. Hall standard, how can they link this van to -- to this van allegedly seen four days later? It's impossible.

Mark Geragos: Let's see if I got this right. Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan. He says it's not in front of Laci Peterson's house, it's across the street? I've been in that street. So has Mr. Distaso. You know how wide that street is? It's from the rail there to the wall there.

Judge Delucchi: Approximately what?

Mark Geragos: Approximately 25 feet across, at best. In fact, when they installed their surreptitious pole camera, they put the surreptitious pole camera directly where this Miss Jackson says this brown van was because that's the best view into the Peterson house. The -- she describes three people that are not African American, scruffy looking, that are around this van, are not landscaping. She describes them as looking like they're up to no good. This gentleman, who is a reserve officer -- and by the way, he keeps saying four days later. I'm not so sure that that's actually correct, and I will do the investigation. I've listened to the tape. He says he called it in. They say what day. He says Well, whatever day I called it in, and tells them that he talked to them twice on the phone. We only have one entry on the phone. I suspect what really happened is he called it in either the same day or a day later and, when the detective called to find out what it was about and entered the information, that that was on the 28th. And then he was not -- they never went to talk to this person. In February 14th NYPD calls, says Modesto PD, what are you doing, we've got a witness, the guy's an ex cop, he sees somebody that looks like Laci Peterson, he turned around because he was so upset, his wife told him not to get involved, he sees her peeing -- the exact statement is he sees her squatting next to the fence, the gentleman has got arms on both sides of her like this so that she can't go left or right, that when she's finished, and she's looking at him as if "I need help," that he then takes her to the van, that he takes her around to the driver's side door, which she thinks is utterly peculiar, and he sees another hand reach out and kind of drag her into the van. Hello? The last time I looked that's exculpatory all day long. And I would like to at least investigate on top of this.

Rick Distaso: Right, but before we finish, I want the court to understand exactly what we're talking about here. This man who says he saw this on the 28th says -- this is the van he describes. Beige in color with a white stripe that looks like a lightning bolt or a check mark. The stripe started by the driver's door and ran to the end of the van. Miss Jackson says a white van, and she changes it then to say a beige or tan van.

Mark Geragos: Well, but on the tape he says the same thing. He says it looked white but it was really a little darker, it was kind of cream. They both are describing the same thing. In fact, interestingly, their other witness, Kristen Dempewolf, she describes the van that she sees parked across the street, the one they went and hypnotized, she also sees a van she doesn't recognize from the neighborhood, and she talks about it being oxidized. Everybody's got this same memory of a van that's in that neighborhood that's out of place that they've never seen before that has this weird color that's not quite white that looks a little darker.

all 3 witnesses describing the same thing all within a cpl days of each other and in conjunction with Laci missing? How every odd.... even odder is that LE and RD didn't think much of it at all... that's seems like tunnel-vision to me...

But what I don't know is if it's an appelable issue or not...

and can you explain the "Habeas" appeal? I've read it but for whatever reason I just don't understand it..

sorry for throwing a kitchen sink full of questions at you..... :biggrin: LOL

[Lavindar]

Oh, good grief. When I was 8 months pregnant I stayed away from buttons and zippers even when they were maternity clothing...... but I also stayed away from unwire bras too.... so maybe I was just an anomaly when it came to late pregnancy and comfort.:shrug:Oh, I see. Because you wouldn't do it, Laci wouldn't do it. What fallacious thinking

[adnoid]

...nothing less than what I expected...

And the NGs live to turn in alerts on me.

If I was petty and insecure I'd alert on this message. But I'm not, so I will not.

[ekg]

Nope....it is not a good point...:D

I think her abductors took her once or twice a day to the bathroom..but as we know, frequent urination is associated with pregnancy..and it's even worse in pregnant women that are suffering from urinary tract infection which is also common during pregnancy..coffee has a diuretic effect..Laci had coffee in her system, in addition, she also suffered from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy..I don't think she was taking her medication when she was held captive...

IMO. it is the most logical theory as to the mineral deposits...

the more I see the more I agree..... it not only explains the deposits, but it explains why the backs of the underwear were gone... repeated urination would degrade the fabric IMO...especially since a person who is starved and dehydrated will have very acidic urine...

I find the concrete deposit laughable b/c why would they just be in the crotch area? besides... I would think a ME can tell the difference b/c concrete and a mineral deposit...well, I would hope he could anyway...LOL

no, the only plausible theory is yours IMO..:beer:

[Lavindar]

If ever I've seen testimony snipped and edited to twist the facts -- here it is! I would like to know the DATE of that "testimony" also. It's a conversation between the Judge and the two attorneys - it's NOT testimony:

From 9/29

543) Birgit Fladager: And in your investigation into Mr. Harshman, did you also review the daily log of contact at the Command Center that was provided by Sergeant Cloward?
544) Craig Grogan: Yes.
545) Birgit Fladager: And did you review the report from January 3rd, 2003, contacts from that day?
546) Craig Grogan: Yes, I have seen it.
547) Birgit Fladager: Specifically looking at the top of Bates stamp 41006.
548) Craig Grogan: I'm sorry just a moment
549) Birgit Fladager: And I have a copy I'd be happy to share with you if you can't find it.
560) Craig Grogan: That would help.
561) Birgit Fladager: Was there anything this that report, detective, which reaffirmed for you that this sighting, alleged sighting,
562) Mark Geragos: Objection. Leading.
563) Judge Delucchi: Well, I think it's, the way it's going is capable of a yes or no answer, so I'll permit it.
564) Birgit Fladager: Was there anything that report, detective, which confirmed for you that this sighting of Laci Peterson, in fact, occurred after December 24th, and was on or about December 28th?
565) Craig Grogan: Yes.
566) Birgit Fladager: What was that?
567) Craig Grogan: The log from the Command Post, which is dated January 3rd. When Mr. Harshman contacted somebody at the Command Post on that day, he said it was six days prior which, I believe, would be the 28th.

[ekg]

If ever I've seen testimony snipped and edited to twist the facts -- here it is!


please show me the twist...

this..
Rick Distaso: If we're -- you know, if every brown van -- you know, Modesto is a city of 200,000 people. I got to believe there's more than one brown van. My question is how -- to meet the People vs. Hall standard, how can they link this van to -- to this van allegedly seen four days later? It's impossible.

I snipped, and said I snipped... I was over the 8000 character limit and it didn't have any bearing on who said brown van...

Please show me where I edited or snipped to change or twist anything....

[attorneywan2be]

But you don't KNOW

According to judge Girolami's ruling, they were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes..

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/Defense_examine_remains_080803.pdf

[ekg]

Oh, I see. Because you wouldn't do it, Laci wouldn't do it. What fallacious thinking


am I not allowed to bring in personal experiences to make my own assumptions now?

I could flip that on anyone of the G's if that's the case... b/c I see y'all bringing in how you treat your 'others', how y'all wouldn't treat them and how y'all would react to this and that situation all the time... so does that make your thinking "fallacious" also? or are you just being argumentative?

[deputydi]

Oh, good grief. When I was 8 months pregnant I stayed away from buttons and zippers even when they were maternity clothing...... but I also stayed away from unwire bras too.... so maybe I was just an anomaly when it came to late pregnancy and comfort.:shrug:

Well, maybe you weren't terribly concerned about style. :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

:D she did the same to me..... gave me a bunch of post # and asked me to comment on all of them..... and then ignored my replies and the time it took to track down the #'s...

But it's cool.. nothing less than what I expected..:shrug:

Hey, is the whole Brown van thing an appeals thing? It is very troublesome IMO...



all 3 witnesses describing the same thing all within a cpl days of each other and in conjunction with Laci missing? How every odd.... even odder is that LE and RD didn't think much of it at all... that's seems like tunnel-vision to me...

But what I don't know is if it's an appelable issue or not...

and can you explain the "Habeas" appeal? I've read it but for whatever reason I just don't understand it..

sorry for throwing a kitchen sink full of questions at you..... :biggrin: LOL


Hi there..I'm glad to see you..:seeya: :D

I'm not sure if the van will be an appeal issue..it might be used as part of "ineffective assistance of counsel" that MG didn't properly investigate the case..or, if Scott's investigators would uncover new evidence related to that van, they can include it in the Writ of Habeas Corpus..

I think this is a good explanation of Habeas Corpus:

Quote:

STATE HABEAS CORPUS. Unlike an appeal, Habeas Corpus Review is not confined to the record made in the trial court. Newly discovered evidence, changes in the law, use of perjured testimony to secure the conviction, undisclosed plea bargains to prosecution witnesses, or ineffective assistance of the defendant's trial counsel are among the claims that the petitioner or his attorney can raise in a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The California Supreme Court's new "fast track" policies for the first State Habeas Corpus Petition bypasses the two lower courts (the Superior Court where the trial was held and the Court of Appeal for that appellate district) so that it can be filed in the California Supreme Court while the automatic appeal is pending. If the Habeas Petition is denied, the petitioner/appellate can file a Petition for Rehearing in the California Supreme Court, if that's denied, the petitioner must then file a Petition for Writ in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the California Supreme Court. If after the appeal is decided, new developments give rise to further claims (a post-affirmance State Habeas Corpus Petition) may be filed in the California Supreme Court. If it is denied in the California Supreme Court, this effectively exhausts all state court remedies.


FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS. A defendant who has exhausted state court review, both on Appeal and on Habeas Corpus, can then seek Federal Review by filing a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition in the U.S. District Court where the case was tried. For instance, a case that was tried in San Mateo would fall under the jurisdiction of the northern District Court (San Francisco & San Jose). However, whereas review in the state courts can be based on any claims of violation of state or federal law, Habeas Review in Federal Court is usually limited to claimed violations of the Federal Constitution. If the Habeas Petition is denied, you can then file a new Petition in the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. If denied by the 9th Circuit, a Petition for Writ can be filed in the U.S Supreme Court.

[ekg]

And the NGs live to turn in alerts on me.

If I was petty and insecure I'd alert on this message. But I'm not, so I will not.


I see no obscene, racist or sexually explicit language, nothing wrong,argumentative,harassing or improper in what I said, nothing that threatens, or cause distress or discomfort to anyone...In fact, it's extremely less hostile or ridiculing than alot of posts by many G's.. add to that it is the truth, I did answer a mulit-question post and didn't get a reply.. and I didn't think I would..

petty and insecure? really? it that what it is when you report posts? does that include everyone?

you can PM me your answers if you want... neither of us should be doing this in this thread anyway...

[ekg]

I would like to know the DATE of that "testimony" also. It's a conversation between the Judge and the two attorneys - it's NOT testimony:






Motions Heard, Discovery Issues, and Review of Jury PreInstructions

Thursday, May 27, 2004

If Catherine Crier and the Jurors book can be used... then I think a conversation b/t a JUDGE, PROSECUTOR and a DEFENSE ATTORNEY.. in COURT, being RECORDED BY THE COURT.. should also be on the list of acceptable reference material.... and I will wait for an admin to tell me differently before I stop using it ... :)

[ekg]

Well, maybe you weren't terribly concerned about style. :shrug:


I disagree.. I think there are very stylish maternity clothes w/o zippers and buttons... and I don't know how stylish a nursing bra is...but since La Leche League recommends them, I differ to them..

[deputydi]

<snip>I'm not sure if the van will be an appeal issue..it might be used as part of "ineffective assistance of counsel" that MG didn't properly investigate the case..<snip>
This might help you understand what IAC really means:
Adequate Representation or Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Indigent defendants who are represented by appointed lawyers and defendants who can afford to hire their own attorneys are both entitled to adequate representation. But "adequate representation" does not mean perfect representation. However, an incompetent or negligent lawyer can so poorly represent a client that the court is justified in throwing out a guilty verdict based on the attorney's incompetence.

If a defendant's lawyer is ineffective at trial and on direct appeal, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial has been violated. In analyzing claims that a defendant's lawyer was ineffective, the principal goal is to determine whether the lawyer's conduct so undermined the functioning of the judicial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Proving this requires two steps:

1. The defendant must show that his own lawyer's job performance was deficient. The defendant must prove that his counsel made errors so serious that the lawyer did not function as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.
2. The defendant must show that the deficient performance unfairly prejudiced the defense. The defendant must show that his lawyer's errors were so serious as to wholly deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

Unless a defendant proves both steps, the conviction or sentence cannot be said to result from a breakdown in the judicial process such that the result is unreliable. When courts review a lawyer's advocacy of a defendant, they are deferential. Courts are bound by a strong presumption that any given lawyer's conduct falls within the range of reasonable professional assistance.
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/right-counsel#post-conviction-proceedings

[Lavindar]

please show me the twist...

this..
I snipped, and said I snipped... I was over the 8000 character limit and it didn't have any bearing on who said brown van...

Please show me where I edited or snipped to change or twist anything....
Can you provide the day of the testimony? It appears to be a conversation between hte attornies and the judge, not testimony

[Lavindar]

Motions Heard, Discovery Issues, and Review of Jury PreInstructions

Thursday, May 27, 2004

If Catherine Crier and the Jurors book can be used... then I think a conversation b/t a JUDGE, PROSECUTOR and a DEFENSE ATTORNEY.. in COURT, being RECORDED BY THE COURT.. should also be on the list of acceptable reference material.... and I will wait for an admin to tell me differently before I stop using it ... :)


However, it is NOT TESTIMONY and not heard by the jury and therefore not appealable

[Lavindar]

:D she did the same to me..... gave me a bunch of post # and asked me to comment on all of them..... and then ignored my replies and the time it took to track down the #'s...

But it's cool.. nothing less than what I expected..:shrug:

Hey, is the whole Brown van thing an appeals thing? It is very troublesome IMO...



all 3 witnesses describing the same thing all within a cpl days of each other and in conjunction with Laci missing? How every odd.... even odder is that LE and RD didn't think much of it at all... that's seems like tunnel-vision to me...

But what I don't know is if it's an appelable issue or not...

and can you explain the "Habeas" appeal? I've read it but for whatever reason I just don't understand it..

sorry for throwing a kitchen sink full of questions at you..... :biggrin: LOL

Rick Distaso: Then she says it's tan or brown. I mean, Judge --

Mark Geragos: Beige.

Rick Distaso: Wait, hold on, let me finish.

Judge Delucchi: Let him finish.

Rick Distaso: If we're -- you know, if every brown van -- you know, Modesto is a city of 200,000 people. I got to believe there's more than one brown van. My question is how -- to meet the People vs. Hall standard, how can they link this van to -- to this van allegedly seen four days later? It's impossible.

Mark Geragos: Let's see if I got this right. Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan. He says it's not in front of Laci Peterson's house, it's across the street? I've been in that street. So has Mr. Distaso. You know how wide that street is? It's from the rail there to the wall there.

Judge Delucchi: Approximately what?

Mark Geragos: Approximately 25 feet across, at best. In fact, when they installed their surreptitious pole camera, they put the surreptitious pole camera directly where this Miss Jackson says this brown van was because that's the best view into the Peterson house. The -- she describes three people that are not African American, scruffy looking, that are around this van, are not landscaping. She describes them as looking like they're up to no good.


Amazing how this "beige," white, or tan van has morphed into "brown" from what Geragos says. See how he slightly alters things to become what he WANTS them to be. The police DID locate the Renfrows - which was a big issue with him and checked out the "blood" Garegos said was in it - in fact he MADE them check it twice - why? to drag things out because he KNEW it wasn't blood.

Anyone else notice that there's no SAFE in this statement by Geragos?

[ekg]

Hi there..I'm glad to see you..:seeya: :D

yeah I had to take a board-breather.... my best friends brother was killed in Iraq and it was belittled when I mentioned it.. so I chose to take a rest instead of getting banned.. lol


I'm not sure if the van will be an appeal issue..it might be used as part of "ineffective assistance of counsel" that MG didn't properly investigate the case..or, if Scott's investigators would uncover new evidence related to that van, they can include it in the Writ of Habeas Corpus..

I think this is a good explanation of Habeas Corpus:

Quote:

STATE HABEAS CORPUS. Unlike an appeal, Habeas Corpus Review is not confined to the record made in the trial court. Newly discovered evidence, changes in the law, use of perjured testimony to secure the conviction, undisclosed plea bargains to prosecution witnesses, or ineffective assistance of the defendant's trial counsel are among the claims that the petitioner or his attorney can raise in a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The California Supreme Court's new "fast track" policies for the first State Habeas Corpus Petition bypasses the two lower courts (the Superior Court where the trial was held and the Court of Appeal for that appellate district) so that it can be filed in the California Supreme Court while the automatic appeal is pending. If the Habeas Petition is denied, the petitioner/appellate can file a Petition for Rehearing in the California Supreme Court, if that's denied, the petitioner must then file a Petition for Writ in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the California Supreme Court. If after the appeal is decided, new developments give rise to further claims (a post-affirmance State Habeas Corpus Petition) may be filed in the California Supreme Court. If it is denied in the California Supreme Court, this effectively exhausts all state court remedies.


FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS. A defendant who has exhausted state court review, both on Appeal and on Habeas Corpus, can then seek Federal Review by filing a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition in the U.S. District Court where the case was tried. For instance, a case that was tried in San Mateo would fall under the jurisdiction of the northern District Court (San Francisco & San Jose). However, whereas review in the state courts can be based on any claims of violation of state or federal law, Habeas Review in Federal Court is usually limited to claimed violations of the Federal Constitution. If the Habeas Petition is denied, you can then file a new Petition in the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. If denied by the 9th Circuit, a Petition for Writ can be filed in the U.S Supreme Court.

OK.. thanks for the expo. that helps somewhat...

here's another question....... the Van isn't new evidence.. so if there is another trial it can be used?

I should say I'm under the assumption that "new" evidence would have to be approved for use in a new trial???

anyway... I think the Van and the witnesses to it should have been hammered home by MG... and since he didn't IMO that's ineffectual council, which is appeallable:D

[ekg]

Can you provide the day of the testimony? It appears to be a conversation between hte attornies and the judge, not testimony


I've already posted that for you...

[ekg]

However, it is NOT TESTIMONY and not heard by the jury and therefore not appealable


oh I think that is exactly why it's appeallable...IMO MG had reasonable doubt, and didn't use it..

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be


And you didn't answer any of them..

:D she did the same to me..... gave me a bunch of post # and asked me to comment on all of them..... and then ignored my replies and the time it took to track down the #'s...


WHO did WHAT to you??????

[Lavindar]

EKG, herse's the description of the man in that tip

he describes the van as being extended higher than normal, correct?
1703) Craig Grogan: Yes. The top of the van had a fiberglass top that raises it up over the standard height.
1704) Mark Geragos: Okay. And he describes one of the people as being thirties, tall, thin with a ponytail, three-to-four-day growth of beard, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking?


Todd and Pearce both have short hair. And there is only ONE man, not two. And Garegos changes the location also from Scenis just east of Coffee to Scenic and Claus. Two very different areas - both high traffic areas yet no one else saw this unusual scene. BTW there was no chain link fencing on Scenic by Claus in 2003. It would have had to have been Coffee and Scenic if he saw chain link fencing and that is a very busy part of town traffic wise.

[ekg]

Amazing how this "beige," white, or tan van has morphed into "brown" from what Geragos says. See how he slightly alters things to become what he WANTS them to be. The police DID locate the Renfrows - which was a big issue with him and checked out the "blood" Garegos said was in it - in fact he MADE them check it twice - why? to drag things out because he KNEW it wasn't blood.

Anyone else notice that there's no SAFE in this statement by Geragos?


funny that you snipped the testimony preceding that...


Judge Delucchi: Let me ask you this. What about the -- what about the statement of the reserve police officer or the former police officer who, as I understand it, gave a statement, was passed on to Mr. Geragos, that he saw -- you correct me if I'm wrong, someone who matched the description of Laci Peterson. And I believe he said she was urinating alongside a van, which he identifies as a brown van, and then she was dragged into this van by her hair by two males.

Rick Distaso: On -- four days later. On December 28th. That's what the guy says. He says he saw Laci Peterson at a completely different location, miles away from her house. He actually says at Klause and Phoenix, which is a location in Modesto four or five miles four days later. He doesn't say that these people -- didn't say it's the same van, doesn't say it's the same men. He doesn't describe these men as dark skinned. In fact, he describes a single white male. That's what he said. So we've got Diane Jackson saying three dark skinned males, not African American. Got this man saying four days later, four or five miles away, that a single white male pulls -- or is standing there while she's urinating against the fence and then another male in a van pulls her in.

Judge Delucchi: What color was the van?

Rick Distaso: I think he said the van -- I have the tip exactly here.

Judge Delucchi: Was it a dark colored van, something like that?

Rick Distaso: I think he said it's a tan or brown, or something like that.

Judge Delucchi: What does Mrs. Jackson say?

Rick Distaso: She says -- initially she tells the officers it's a white van.

Judge Delucchi: And then she says --

Rick Distaso: Then she says it's tan or brown. I mean, Judge --

Mark Geragos: Beige.

Rick Distaso: Wait, hold on, let me finish.

Judge Delucchi: Let him finish.

Rick Distaso: If we're -- you know, if every brown van -- you know, Modesto is a city of 200,000 people. I got to believe there's more than one brown van. My question is how -- to meet the People vs. Hall standard, how can they link this van to -- to this van allegedly seen four days later? It's impossible.

Mark Geragos: Let's see if I got this right. Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan. He says it's not in front of Laci Peterson's house, it's across the street? I've been in that street. So has Mr. Distaso. You know how wide that street is? It's from the rail there to the wall there




the word BROWN came from JUDGE DELUCCHI and RICK DISTASO..

you do know Rick Distaso is the DA right? I'm not being smarmy, I'm just making sure since you keep saying BROWN comes from Geragos.. so maybe you are confusing the names... I know I did/do with the Harris/Harris...

[attorneywan2be]

This might help you understand what IAC really means:

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/right-counsel#post-conviction-proceedings

Maybe you need to read this site..that might help you understand the duties of counsel representing a DEATH PENALTY case..

For example:

Quote:

"counsel has “an obligation to conduct thorough and independent investigations relating to the issues of both guilt and penalty."

IMO, MG didn't do a thorough and independent investigation..for example, he missed the notation he received from the prosecution about Lt. Aponte's report that Laci had a confrontation with Todd according to a conversation he heard between an inmate and his brother.."the Tenbrinks brothers". This was a very important piece of evidence that was not investigated..had he been thorough in his investigation of the case he would have interviewed Lt. Aponte BEFORE the trial and possibly he would have uncovered evidence that would have exonerated Scott..in addition, by all indications, he didn't investigate the mineral deposits that were found on Laci's pants..they should have been analyzed..etc..etc..

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

Quote:

"The court cited to Guidelines 11.8.2(D) in stating that defense counsel has a duty to investigate and present all available mitigating evidence to the jury in the most effective way possible. Id. The court elaborated on the type of mitigating evidence to produce, commenting on relevant types of evidence, such as “medical history, educational history, employment and training history, family and social history, prior adult and juvenile correctional experience, and religious and cultural influences.” Id. at *39. Further, the court noted that defense counsel in a death penalty case has a duty to begin investigating mitigating evidence “at the start of the case.” Id. at *52 (emphasis added)."

Mark Geragos stated in court that the judge granted 2 weeks for him to go out and find/interview witnesses to put together mitigation evidence..

http://www.probono.net/deathpenalty/aba-guidelines-for-capital-counsel-case-summaries-july-2007.cfm

[Lavindar]

funny that you snipped the testimony preceding that...







the word BROWN came from JUDGE DELUCCHI and RICK DISTASO..

you do know Rick Distaso is the DA right? I'm not being smarmy, I'm just making sure since you keep saying BROWN comes from Geragos.. so maybe you are confusing the names... I know I did/do with the Harris/Harris...
It does not negate the fact that it was a distinctive van with a fiberglass top - none of the other fans were described as such. Certainly NOT Diane Jackson's van which was a utility van with room for landscaping equipment in the back of this. This is obviously a camper van. And NO ONE SAW this bizarre happening in a very busy intersection but this one couple who saw it well enough to describe the person and it did not fit the description of the short, dark-complected guys OR Todd or Pearce. Wonder if it occured to anyone that her fear might be due to being discovered urinating in public, rather than fear of the man shielding her for privacy

[Miss Bootsie]

the more I see the more I agree..... it not only explains the deposits, but it explains why the backs of the underwear were gone... repeated urination would degrade the fabric IMO...especially since a person who is starved and dehydrated will have very acidic urine...

I find the concrete deposit laughable b/c why would they just be in the crotch area? besides... I would think a ME can tell the difference b/c concrete and a mineral deposit...well, I would hope he could anyway...LOL

no, the only plausible theory is yours IMO..:beer:

The deposits were not confined to the crotch area.
Neither was the shredding.

:biggrin: A Forensic pathologist knows what a kidney stone is when he sees it as well. ;)

[ekg]

EKG, herse's the description of the man in that tip

he describes the van as being extended higher than normal, correct?
1703) Craig Grogan: Yes. The top of the van had a fiberglass top that raises it up over the standard height.
1704) Mark Geragos: Okay. And he describes one of the people as being thirties, tall, thin with a ponytail, three-to-four-day growth of beard, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking?


Todd and Pearce both have short hair. And there is only ONE man, not two. And Garegos changes the location also from Scenis just east of Coffee to Scenic and Claus. Two very different areas - both high traffic areas yet no one else saw this unusual scene. BTW there was no chain link fencing on Scenic by Claus in 2003. It would have had to have been Coffee and Scenic if he saw chain link fencing and that is a very busy part of town traffic wise.

well if there was only one.... then I guess I have a new post for the "Distaso's Failure to Deliver/Misstatements in OS" thread..

altho its wasn't in his OS.. so I don't know if it applies.

why would he make the judge think there were 2 guys? and why would the judge say there were 2 guys?

Judge Delucchi: Let me ask you this. What about the -- what about the statement of the reserve police officer or the former police officer who, as I understand it, gave a statement, was passed on to Mr. Geragos, that he saw -- you correct me if I'm wrong, someone who matched the description of Laci Peterson. And I believe he said she was urinating alongside a van, which he identifies as a brown van, and then she was dragged into this van by her hair by two males.

Rick Distaso: On -- four days later. On December 28th. That's what the guy says. He says he saw Laci Peterson at a completely different location, miles away from her house. He actually says at Klause and Phoenix, which is a location in Modesto four or five miles four days later. He doesn't say that these people -- didn't say it's the same van, doesn't say it's the same men. He doesn't describe these men as dark skinned. In fact, he describes a single white male. That's what he said. So we've got Diane Jackson saying three dark skinned males, not African American. Got this man saying four days later, four or five miles away, that a single white male pulls -- or is standing there while she's urinating against the fence and then another male in a van pulls her in.

Todd and Pearce looked pretty clean cut in their mug shot....(well Todd did for sure, I can't remember Pearces).. do we know if he had a pony tail before he was arrested?

[ekg]

It does not negate the fact that it was a distinctive van with a fiberglass top - none of the other fans were described as such. Certainly NOT Diane Jackson's van which was a utility van with room for landscaping equipment in the back of this. This is obviously a camper van. And NO ONE SAW this bizarre happening in a very busy intersection but this one couple who saw it well enough to describe the person and it did not fit the description of the short, dark-complected guys OR Todd or Pearce. Wonder if it occured to anyone that her fear might be due to being discovered urinating in public, rather than fear of the man shielding her for privacy


I thought DJ specifically said it was NOT landscaping?

[attorneywan2be]

yeah I had to take a board-breather.... my best friends brother was killed in Iraq and it was belittled when I mentioned it.. so I chose to take a rest instead of getting banned.. lol

I'm sorry to hear that..I must have missed that post..he made the ultimate sacrifice for our country..may God bless his soul to rest in peace..my deepest condolences to his family and yours..


OK.. thanks for the expo. that helps somewhat...

here's another question....... the Van isn't new evidence.. so if there is another trial it can be used?

I should say I'm under the assumption that "new" evidence would have to be approved for use in a new trial???

anyway... I think the Van and the witnesses to it should have been hammered home by MG... and since he didn't IMO that's ineffectual council, which is appeallable:D

I agree, MG should have done a thorough investigation of the van..maybe it will be an appeal issue...I hope so...:D

[Lavindar]

well if there was only one.... then I guess I have a new post for the "Distaso's Failure to Deliver/Misstatements in OS" thread..

altho its wasn't in his OS.. so I don't know if it applies.

why would he make the judge think there were 2 guys? and why would the judge say there were 2 guys?


Todd and Pearce looked pretty clean cut in their mug shot....(well Todd did for sure, I can't remember Pearces).. do we know if he had a pony tail before he was arrested?

Todd has never worn a pony tail according to his friends.

here's a view of the intersection that Harshman says he saw this incident. Notice the number of vehicles in the video

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Coffee+Rd+%26+Scenic+Dr,+Modesto,+Stanislaus,+Ca lifornia,+United+States&sll=37.6383,-120.99959&sspn=0.240334,0.510178&ie=UTF8&cd=1&mpnum=0&ll=37.648796,-120.975467&spn=0.000939,0.001993&t=h&z=19&om=1

[ekg]

Todd has never worn a pony tail according to his friends.

here's a view of the intersection that Harshman says he saw this incident. Notice the number of vehicles in the video

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Coffee+Rd+%26+Scenic+Dr,+Modesto,+Stanislaus,+Ca lifornia,+United+States&sll=37.6383,-120.99959&sspn=0.240334,0.510178&ie=UTF8&cd=1&mpnum=0&ll=37.648796,-120.975467&spn=0.000939,0.001993&t=h&z=19&om=1

Thank you.... Google maps is awesome isn't it..:biggrin:


But what intersection is Rick Distaso talking about then??

Rick Distaso: On -- four days later. On December 28th. That's what the guy says. He says he saw Laci Peterson at a completely different location, miles away from her house. He actually says at Klause and Phoenix, which is a location in Modesto four or five miles four days later.


are "Klause and Phoenix" in the same area?

[deputydi]

Maybe you need to read this site..that might help you understand the duties of counsel representing a DEATH PENALTY case..
<snip>
I didn't thoroughly read each and every case cited in your link, but the ones I did read (and skimmed through), talk about mitigating evidence, i.e. prior convictions, mental history, abuse, etc). Counsel has a duty to investigate evidence that the State plans to use in their prosecution. The mineral deposits and this other stuff you are expounding on had no bearing on THE STATE'S case. Since the State didn't use it as an integral part of their CIC, MG had no "duty" to fully investigate. Remember, it is the State's case Mark must respond to and create the reasonable doubt.

[attorneywan2be]

The deposits were not confined to the crotch area.
Neither was the shredding.

:biggrin:

Yes..they were confined to the crotch area of her pants/upper legs portion of her pants...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

:biggrin:

[USAHICK]

oh I think that is exactly why it's appeallable...IMO MG had reasonable doubt, and didn't use it..

This makes less than no sense.

[I'mSun]

Yes..they were confined to the crotch area of her pants/upper legs portion of her pants...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

:biggrin:Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice.
H. L. Mencken

[Lavindar]

I thought DJ specifically said it was NOT landscaping?

She thought it was lanscapers but she could see into the van and there was no landscaping equipment in it. And the guys glared at her.

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be
Nope....it is not a good point...

I think her abductors took her once or twice a day to the bathroom..but as we know, frequent urination is associated with pregnancy..and it's even worse in pregnant women that are suffering from urinary tract infection which is also common during pregnancy..coffee has a diuretic effect..Laci had coffee in her system, in addition, she also suffered from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy..I don't think she was taking her medication when she was held captive...

IMO. it is the most logical theory as to the mineral deposits...

Originally posted by Miss Bootsie:Testimony please, that Laci had coffee in her system.
Testimony please, that Laci's caffeine level was elevated.



Mark Geragos: And the toxicology on Laci showed elevated levels of caffeine?
Brian Peterson: I'm not sure if they were elevated. I'm not quite sure what her normal caffeine level is. Skeletal muscle would be, there was simply caffeine present in the skeletal muscle.




I am aware of the testimony you quoted. I am also aware of the testimony where Dr. Peterson stated everyone has traces of caffeine in their system.
DR. PETERSON:We found some decomposition chemical and some caffeine. We probably all have caffeine.


PLEASE quote the testimony that states Laci had coffee in her system.

[Lavindar]

Thank you.... Google maps is awesome isn't it..:biggrin:


But what intersection is Rick Distaso talking about then??




are "Klause and Phoenix" in the same area?

Never heard of Klause and Phoenix. I think he may have meant Claus and Scenic and recorder misunderstood. That's what's so fishy about this whole thing. Claus and Scenid is over 3 miles west of Claus and Coffee. There are no chain link fences there at all. There was a chain link fence up at Coffee and Scenic due to some buildings being torn down and then new ones being built. Claus and Scenic is mostly residential and a large apartment complex. Scenic is a common route from downtown to the East Side of Modesto. The County Medical Urgent Care is a couple of blocks away and Downey high school is just up the street on Coffee. There are business on the north side of the street, some automotive places, a cigarette store and some other small business. People coming down Coffee and going east on Scenic would be sitting at the light. That's an odd intersection to choose to urinate. I believe the Bike Path to the park goes down from there also.

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=+scenic+dr.+and+claus+rd&sll=37.656207,-120.920886&sspn=0.000939,0.001993&ie=UTF8&ll=37.65784,-120.921176&spn=0.000939,0.001993&t=h&z=19&om=1

Claus and Scenic. Fences around apts and Copper Creek are wrought iron fences. Nothing on the south of Scenic - no chain link fence at all - just down a bluff to Dry Creek and then farm land on other side. An intersection that is not deserted either.

[attorneywan2be]

I didn't thoroughly read each and every case cited in your link, but the ones I did read (and skimmed through), talk about mitigating evidence, i.e. prior convictions, mental history, abuse, etc). Counsel has a duty to investigate evidence that the State plans to use in their prosecution. The mineral deposits and this other stuff you are expounding on had no bearing on THE STATE'S case. Since the State didn't use it as an integral part of their CIC, MG had no "duty" to fully investigate. Remember, it is the State's case Mark must respond to and create the reasonable doubt.

I strongly disagree that MG had no duty to investigate the evidence..1- the mineral deposits evidence was presented in court..it was presented that they were mineral deposited on her pants from the bay water..MG had the duty to analyze the mineral deposits to determine the source..Freshwater? urine?..etc...2- the prosecution case was about Scott killing Laci before he left the house..the Aponte's report directly contradicts that notion...since according to that report, Laci had a confrontation with Todd as he was burglarizing the Medina's house...Scott had already left the house for at least 23 minutes...

Quote:

The court stated that the Guidelines have long been considered guides to determining what is reasonable conduct for defense counsel, and specifically stated that they “explicitly recognize that competent counsel will investigate and discover all the evidence that Petitioner’s counsel failed to unearth.”

[attorneywan2be]

I am aware of the testimony you quoted. I am also aware of the testimony where Dr. Peterson stated everyone has traces of caffeine in their system.


PLEASE quote the testimony that states Laci had coffee in her system.

Strike the word "coffee" and replace it with the word "caffeine"..it will not change the meaning of my post in question...I referred to coffee as having a diuretic effect..and that there was coffee in her system..well, it is the caffeine in the coffee that has the diuretic effects...and she did have caffeine in her system...

Anyhow...I'm sure you realize that already...:D

[attorneywan2be]

Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice.
H. L. Mencken


Exactly..I'm happy you realized that on your own...!

[I'mSun]

I think she was forced to urinate in her pants for weeks...not days..!!IF this were true, then how do you account for the state of decomposition her body was in which was consistent with being in a marine environment??

[attorneywan2be]

oh I think that is exactly why it's appeallable...IMO MG had reasonable doubt, and didn't use it..

Exactly..! :beer:

[Lavindar]

Exactly..! :beer:
MG may have HAD reasonable doubt, but he didn't try to show that - he tried to show Scott was STONE COLD INNOCENT. a GOOD attorney would have gone for reasonable doubt. MG didn't even go there

[Lavindar]

IF this were true, then how do you account for the state of decomposition her body was in which was consistent with being in a marine environment?? Have no fear, no one will try to dispute that statement because there is no EVIDENCE of anything else.

[deputydi]

I strongly disagree that MG had no duty to investigate the evidence..1- the mineral deposits evidence was presented in court..it was presented that they were mineral deposited on her pants from the bay water..MG had the duty to analyze the mineral deposits to determine the source..Freshwater? urine?..etc...2- the prosecution case was about Scott killing Laci before he left the house..the Aponte's report directly contradicts that notion...since according to that report, Laci had a confrontation with Todd as he was burglarizing the Medina's house...Scott had already left the house for at least 23 minutes...

Quote:

The court stated that the Guidelines have long been considered guides to determining what is reasonable conduct for defense counsel, and specifically stated that they “explicitly recognize that competent counsel will investigate and discover all the evidence that Petitioner’s counsel failed to unearth.”
You're right, the mineral deposits were briefly mentioned in testimony. They were NOT what any of the attorneys (pros or defense) considered a material fact in proving Laci was in the water for 4 months. There was plenty of evidence supporting that. I don't remember even MG questioning whether Laci's body was in the bay for a long period of time. In fact, you are the only person I know of that disputes that. I will be totally shocked if this is even mentioned in the appeal.

Maybe the Aponte tip should have been more fully investigated, but do we know that it wasn't? LE had tens of thousands of tips to look into. It would have been physically impossible for them to have given each and every tip the time you think should have been devoted to them. I have a feeling that MG did investigate the Aponte tip and, for whatever reason, felt it was not credible. I guess we'll see what comes of this one.

Ineffective counsel is extremely hard to prove. If it was that easy to get a reversal based on second guessing the defense strategy, every defendant would have to be retried. MG made some serious mistakes IMO but I don't see any of them rising to the level required to prove ineffective counsel. Most of them were errors in judgment and strategy.

IMO, J Delucci was justified and on solid legal ground when he removed each of the jurors, but an appeals court may see that one differently. If I were you, I'd concentrate on that issue. That, and denying MG his boat experiment. Again, I think his ruling was correct but an appeals court may not see it that way.

The bathtub theory you are trying to float and this business about the importance of the mineral deposits is just flailing in the wind.

[TopGunner]

Exactly..I'm happy you realized that on your own...!

Sun posted a quote, by Mencken...which I'm happy to help you realize with my help. :D

[attorneywan2be]

You're right, the mineral deposits were briefly mentioned in testimony. They were NOT what any of the attorneys (pros or defense) considered a material fact in proving Laci was in the water for 4 months. There was plenty of evidence supporting that. I don't remember even MG questioning whether Laci's body was in the bay for a long period of time. In fact, you are the only person I know of that disputes that. I will be totally shocked if this is even mentioned in the appeal.

Well I guess you will be shocked...

Maybe the Aponte tip should have been more fully investigated, but do we know that it wasn't? LE had tens of thousands of tips to look into. It would have been physically impossible for them to have given each and every tip the time you think should have been devoted to them. I have a feeling that MG did investigate the Aponte tip and, for whatever reason, felt it was not credible. I guess we'll see what comes of this one.

Geragos admitted that he didn't realize the significance of the name reflected on the Aponte's tip until 2 weeks before the end of the trial when the prosecution turned over the interview with Mr. R..that would mean he didn't investigate that tip...he was putting the blame on the prosecution for not providing the complete Aponte's report during discovery..they just turned it over as a tip among 10,000 tips..IMO, the Aponte's report will be part of the appeal issue----> "ineffective assistance of counsel" because Mark Geragos failed to investigate the Aponte's tip that was turned over by the prosecution + it will be part of the appeal issue ----> "the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence" because they failed to turn over the COMPLETE Aponte's report...

From the court hearing discussing the defense motion for a new trial..

Mark Geragos: The two issues that were brought up by the prosecution that I think need clarification. One is this issue of Aponte and Aponte's looking at or hearing this phone call and then making a phone call to Modesto PD. Mr. Harris's position in the opposition is that all they had to do was, or all we had to do out of the 10,000 tips is then contact him, that they disclosed whatever exculpatory information it is. That is not the standard, number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, as a practical matter, we did not realize the significance of that name until probably two weeks before the end of the trial when they turned over, as the court may remember, a interview with an inmate at the Stanislaus County Jail. When they turned over the interview with the inmate, we recessed for a day, we went over, Mr. Harris went over, interviewed that gentleman, I'll just call him Mr. R., in the Stanislaus County Jail. Once we interviewed that gentleman, he's the one who told us and made the connection such that we went back and re-interviewed Lieutenant Aponte. What is not in the motion, the opposition, anywhere, is who is the detective who called Lieutenant Aponte. Where are the notes about that phone call? Where are the notes about the interview with the inmate?
This inmate is in custody, in Norco. He makes a phone call, or at first he's heard and he hears in the yard, or he's overheard in the yard, saying that, that Todd confronts Laci Peterson in regards to the burglary. He then is on a phone call and is picked up on a taped phone call. Lieutenant Aponte, who is the head of their investigation division at the Department of Corrections, thinks that that is so significant, in January, that he saves that tape and he's got a tape-recorded statement or a tape recording of the phone call that's saved somewhere. Instead, and then he makes a phone call to Modesto. He has a distinct memory of Modesto either getting that taped phone call, or calling up there and/or at the very least calling of there and interviewing this person. Interestingly, after Modesto calls up and interviewed this person, he's then heard on the phone again, a second time, calling his mother, and telling his mother tell, I won't give the exact name of the other person, but Tell X to shut the **** up, he doesn't know who he's dealing with in regards to saying these things over the phone. He's then confronted again. Now, none of this stuff becomes, you can't connect the dots on any of this until we get Mr. R, who is in custody, who they interview, with one week left in this trial, turn over the discovery, and we run out, interview this gentleman, and find out that yes, in fact, the gentleman who's in custody, and his brother, are people who were connected to Todd, who was the burglar across the street. Now, fast-forward, it's been exactly two years. So we no longer have the tape, because they've now done, and I continually am talking,
Judge Delucchi: The tape's gone.
Mark Geragos: The tape's gone. They can't find it at Norco and they don't know what happened to it. We don't have any evidence of it, and I've got Aponte who still has a distinct memory of this happening, of hearing it, a trained law enforcement officer who is their head of investigations who thought it was significant enough that he kept calling Modesto to say Look, you've got to do something, or somebody needs to do something. We don't have the tape now. We've got, and mind you, I don't get into the case until May, some four months later, so I've got no way at the time to say Give me a copy of that tape. Aponte's memory is that Modesto does have a copy of the tape, that they came up and got it. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the opposition to the motion to dismiss discloses who the detective was, where his notes are, and why nowhere in the 43000 pages of discovery any of this about further investigation is recorded.

[attorneywan2be]

Sun posted a quote, by Mencken...which I'm happy to help you realize with my help. :D

Thanks..that was quite amusing...:biggrin:

[deputydi]

<snip>Geragos admitted that he didn't realize the significance of the name reflected on the Aponte's tip until 2 weeks before the end of the trial when the prosecution turned over the interview with Mr. R..<snip>
I do admit that this MAY be a viable issue. The information was turned over in discovery and MG found himself in the same investigatory snafu the pros had. Whether or not the tape was available isn't much of an issue. They still had Aponte's potential testimony. If Geragos realized two weeks before the trial ended that it could be important, he could have gotten it on the record. He would have still been conducting his CIC. I still feel that tip was investigated and found not to be credible. Otherwise, he would have presented Aponte's testimony which could have been corroborated by the inmate who was interviewed. For all of MG's blustering and complaining, there is a reason these people weren't called to testify. I just don't think we know what it is.

[Miss Bootsie]

Strike the word "coffee" and replace it with the word "caffeine"..it will not change the meaning of my post in question...I referred to coffee as having a diuretic effect..and that there was coffee in her system..well, it is the caffeine in the coffee that has the diuretic effects...and she did have caffeine in her system...

Anyhow...I'm sure you realize that already...:D

AW, the point is, you stated something as fact, that you knew full well, could not be supported by the trial testimony.

What I realize is, everyone has traces of caffeine in their system.
I also realize that Dr. Peterson did not state that Laci's caffeine level was elevated.

I'm going to reiterate one more time.
Dr. Peterson stated the stony deposits were not crystalline.
Any stone that is formed from urine via the kidney contains crystals.

You can post about your imaginary pee pee theory until the cows come home, but nothing is going to change that.

[TopGunner]

However, it is NOT TESTIMONY and not heard by the jury and therefore not appealable:beer: ITA !

[TopGunner]

AW, the point is, you stated something as fact, that you knew full well, could not be supported by the trial testimony.

What I realize is, everyone has traces of caffeine in their system.
I also realize that Dr. Peterson did not state that Laci's caffeine level was elevated.

I'm going to reiterate one more time.
Dr. Peterson stated the stony deposits were not crystalline.
Any stone that is formed from urine via the kidney contains crystals.

You can post about your imaginary pee pee theory until the cows come home, but nothing is going to change that.


The GOOD news Boots, is that THE REST OF US GOT IT THE FIRST TIME!!! :D :tongue: !

[TopGunner]

I do admit that this MAY be a viable issue. The information was turned over in discovery and MG found himself in the same investigatory snafu the pros had. Whether or not the tape was available isn't much of an issue. They still had Aponte's potential testimony. If Geragos realized two weeks before the trial ended that it could be important, he could have gotten it on the record. He would have still been conducting his CIC. I still feel that tip was investigated and found not to be credible. Otherwise, he would have presented Aponte's testimony which could have been corroborated by the inmate who was interviewed. For all of MG's blustering and complaining, there is a reason these people weren't called to testify. I just don't think we know what it is.

And let us not forget DD that MG has almost as much crediblity as the killer he defended. If I had to pick which one I'd trust the most, I'd probably take the easy way out and just shoot myself.:no:

[TopGunner]

Oh, good grief. When I was 8 months pregnant I stayed away from buttons and zippers even when they were maternity clothing...... but I also stayed away from unwire bras too.... so maybe I was just an anomaly when it came to late pregnancy and comfort.:shrug:

ekg, I'm not really suggesting you're an anomaly :D but when I was pregnant, right up to the day I gave birth....I had to wear a form of dress for work that consisted of all the above, and often my work and casual cloths mix. Laci was a very stylish dresser, I wouldn't rule the above out at all. In fact, I remember a bunch of intelligent NG's posting once-upon-a-time and they said that Laci PURPOSELY put Conner in danger because she wore heels to the Christmas party she attended by herself, and yes..........I use the word "intelligent" in jest.

[TopGunner]

And the NGs live to turn in alerts on me.

If I was petty and insecure I'd alert on this message. But I'm not, so I will not.


Adnoid................*sigh*. I really wish this would stop. I would think by now people would at least appreciate that you stay true to who you are, you never waiver, and your posts are quite valuable. Besides, if you go...well, let's just say I'm not ready to leave too. BUT I WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rose:

[TopGunner]

MG may have HAD reasonable doubt, but he didn't try to show that - he tried to show Scott was STONE COLD INNOCENT. a GOOD attorney would have gone for reasonable doubt. MG didn't even go there

Lavindar, ITA with you. MG had no business taking this case. He had no experience and was literally blinded by $$ and celebrity. I bet he LOVED watching his mug on TV day after day. He took the case for all the wrong reasons, but then, nobody would have gotten him off so I guess it really doesn't matter anyway. :cool:

[enlightenme]

This seems to have become the "catch-all" thread and not just an appeals subject anymore.

So I'll ask here. Please, SIIs, answer a few questions for me with your theories:

Why would Scott move his boat cover to the furthest shed from his house and put a leaky leaf blower on top of it? This was within 48 hours of Laci's "disappearance".

Why would he rent vehicles and drive 80 plus miles an hour to the bay, five times, only to sit in a parking lot for 5 mintues? Why did he lie to his mom, Sharon, and his friend about where he was?

Those are 2 facts that I never seem to get an innocent, reasonable explanation for.

TIA

[I'mSun]

Adnoid................*sigh*. I really wish this would stop. I would think by now people would at least appreciate that you stay true to who you are, you never waiver, and your posts are quite valuable. Besides, if you go...well, let's just say I'm not ready to leave too. BUT I WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rose:ITA, me too! You said it so well, TG :beer:

[TopGunner]

sounds like my husband...... he protects and cleans MY stuff and just tosses his stuff around like rags... I find it charming that he makes sure my things and the house are so well cared for and cleaned... Next time I come home and find that he's mopped and vacuumed I'll tell him what an oddity he is and how lucky I am to have a man that will do those things...


When was the last time you were 8 months pregnant and missing for over a week, and hubs tried selling your home and everything you owned? :no:

[TopGunner]

[QUOTE=ekg;8933551]yeah I had to take a board-breather.... my best friends brother was killed in Iraq and it was belittled when I mentioned it.. so I chose to take a rest instead of getting banned.. lol

ekg - I do not recall you posting anything about this, but I find it hard to believe anyone here, and I do mean ANYONE would belittle it.

I am taking one of my *children* that I did not give birth to, but raised all the same - to the base this Monday at 4:00 AM where he will depart for Bagdad shortly after.

I would have noticed if anyone belittled such a thing. :patriot:

[TopGunner]

funny that you snipped the testimony preceding that...







the word BROWN came from JUDGE DELUCCHI and RICK DISTASO..

you do know Rick Distaso is the DA right? I'm not being smarmy, I'm just making sure since you keep saying BROWN comes from Geragos.. so maybe you are confusing the names... I know I did/do with the Harris/Harris...


Careful............bold large print FREAKS AW2B OUT! :eek:

[TopGunner]

well if there was only one.... then I guess I have a new post for the "Distaso's Failure to Deliver/Misstatements in OS" thread..

altho its wasn't in his OS.. so I don't know if it applies.

why would he make the judge think there were 2 guys? and why would the judge say there were 2 guys?


Todd and Pearce looked pretty clean cut in their mug shot....(well Todd did for sure, I can't remember Pearces).. do we know if he had a pony tail before he was arrested?

Hey ekg, can you post a link to Todd's mug shot? I've never seen one, and I've never been able to find one..............can't find one now either. Thanks. :D

[adnoid]

... Besides, if you go...well, let's just say I'm not ready to leave too. BUT I WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rose:

I'm not going. I'm heeding the (TTBOMN apocryphal) advice of Mr. Clemens.

[Otter]

ekg - I do not recall you posting anything about this, but I find it hard to believe anyone here, and I do mean ANYONE would belittle it.

I am taking one of my *children* that I did not give birth to, but raised all the same - to the base this Monday at 4:00 AM where he will depart for Bagdad shortly after.

I would have noticed if anyone belittled such a thing. :patriot:

He and all our brave men and women are in my prayers constantly TG. Thank him for his service so that we are able to live our lives in freedom and without fear. :patriot:

And thank you for supporting him in his sacrifice and your's in your worry while he's away. May God abundantly bless him and his comrades and their families! Please Lord protect them all and their loved ones at home. http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/good/GT-PrayingAngel_PilledupPupils.gif

[Lavindar]

He and all our brave men and women are in my prayers constantly TG. Thank him for his service so that we are able to live our lives in freedom and without fear. :patriot:

And thank you for supporting him in his sacrifice and your's in your worry while he's away. May God abundantly bless him and his comrades and their families! Please Lord protect them all and their loved ones at home. http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/good/GT-PrayingAngel_PilledupPupils.gif


And I thank god that none of my children have to serve. I would be a basket case if they did. A friend's son came home all messed up emotionally for having gone over there

[attorneywan2be]

I do admit that this MAY be a viable issue. The information was turned over in discovery and MG found himself in the same investigatory snafu the pros had. Whether or not the tape was available isn't much of an issue. They still had Aponte's potential testimony. If Geragos realized two weeks before the trial ended that it could be important, he could have gotten it on the record. He would have still been conducting his CIC. I still feel that tip was investigated and found not to be credible. Otherwise, he would have presented Aponte's testimony which could have been corroborated by the inmate who was interviewed. For all of MG's blustering and complaining, there is a reason these people weren't called to testify. I just don't think we know what it is.

Mark Geragos didn't investigate the Aponte's report by his own admission..for example, there would have been no way for him to have investigated it secretly..simply because in order to investigate it, he needed to talk to Aponte to get the details..according to him, he got significant info 2 weeks before the trial..however, the defense didn't get to interview Aponte until AFTER the verdict..so it was too late for him to call Aponte to testify...IMO, he was negligent. that is "ineffective assistance of counsel" loud and clear..that piece of evidence was very important..in addition, the prosecution is still responsible for not turning over the entire report to the defense..

[attorneywan2be]

This seems to have become the "catch-all" thread and not just an appeals subject anymore.

So I'll ask here. Please, SIIs, answer a few questions for me with your theories:

Why would Scott move his boat cover to the furthest shed from his house and put a leaky leaf blower on top of it? This was within 48 hours of Laci's "disappearance".

1-The boat cover was first found in his truck..so it was there when the police searched on the 24th..so if there was blood or urine from Laci would he have left it in the bed of his truck while he went to the park to meet Sharon and the police???? mind you, while he was at the park, I think his truck was parked in his driveway with supposedly incriminating evidence in plain view...and there was no gasoline on it at that point...when the police got to his house they went in to clear it..Scott wasn't even there yet, he didn't demand a search warrant..he let Brocchini searched his truck without ever complaining or asking for a search warrant...in fact, he left his truck with the boat cover in it and went with Brocchini and Evers to his warehouse ..while other police officers were still searching his house..an MPD "identification techinician" was collecting evidence..taking photographs..etc..----> "Consciouness of innocence"

2-As far as I know, gasoline would not remove blood stains..

With that said, according to testimony, they didn't find blood..urine or anything incriminating on that boat cover..that's according to the prosecution's witnesses..I think the prosecution was capable to call experts to testify that the gasoline could have removed blood stains or urine if that was the case..

Why would he rent vehicles and drive 80 plus miles an hour to the bay, five times, only to sit in a parking lot for 5 mintues? Why did he lie to his mom, Sharon, and his friend about where he was?

TIA

IMO:

I think he rented vehicles to evade the media..as we know, reporters were following him almost everywhere he went...that would drive anyone insane...

Why he went to the bay? I think he was worried, his worries were two folds, 1- He was worried about Laci being found dead..IMO, he loved her..and wanted her back safe and sound...2-He was also worried that in case Laci was indeed killed, the killer would place Laci's body at his alibi..IMO, anyone in his situation would think along those lines ---->"what if the killer plant her body where I went ..everyone on earth heard that the police is suspecting me..everyone on earth knows that I was fishing in the bay area when she went missing.." IMO, he didn't want his mom or anyone else to know that he was worried, some people like to act brave and don't like to share their inner feelings with anyone..but that has nothing to do with guilt..it has to do with their personality..or maybe, he was worried that the media will get hold of his location....etc..etc..
I think it's also possible he was looking for the witnesses who saw him on the 24th..

[frydaddy]

Morning chuckle! (http://www.takebackourrights.org/docs/lockyer_letter.html)

[frydaddy]

Hey ekg, can you post a link to Todd's mug shot? I've never seen one, and I've never been able to find one..............can't find one now either. Thanks. :D

http://www.findlaci2003.us/burlary-suspects.html

BTW - I think the names and photos are backwards.

[TopGunner]

1-The boat cover was first found in his truck..so it was there when the police searched on the 24th..so if there was blood or urine from Laci would he have left it in the bed of his truck while he went to the park to meet Sharon and the police???? mind you, while he was at the park, I think his truck was parked in his driveway with supposedly incriminating evidence in plain view...and there was no gasoline on it at that point...when the police got to his house they went in to clear it..Scott wasn't even there yet, he didn't demand a search warrant..he let Brocchini searched his truck without ever complaining or asking for a search warrant...in fact, he left his truck with the boat cover in it and went with Brocchini and Evers to his warehouse ..while other police officers were still searching his house..an MPD "identification techinician" was collecting evidence..taking photographs..etc..----> "Consciouness of innocence"

2-As far as I know, gasoline would not remove blood stains..

With that said, according to testimony, they didn't find blood..urine or anything incriminating on that boat cover..that's according to the prosecution's witnesses..I think the prosecution was capable to call experts to testify that the gasoline could have removed blood stains or urine if that was the case..



IMO:

I think he rented vehicles to evade the media..as we know, reporters were following him almost everywhere he went...that would drive anyone insane...

Why he went to the bay? I think he was worried, his worries were two folds, 1- He was worried about Laci being found dead..IMO, he loved her..and wanted her back safe and sound...2-He was also worried that in case Laci was indeed killed, the killer would place Laci's body at his alibi..IMO, anyone in his situation would think along those lines ---->"what if the killer plant her body where I went ..everyone on earth heard that the police is suspecting me..everyone on earth knows that I was fishing in the bay area when she went missing.." IMO, he didn't want his mom or anyone else to know that he was worried, some people like to act brave and don't like to share their inner feelings with anyone..but that has nothing to do with guilt..it has to do with their personality..or maybe, he was worried that the media will get hold of his location....etc..etc..
I think it's also possible he was looking for the witnesses who saw him on the 24th..

Fluff fluff - the boat cover merely had her scent on it, and that's what he was covering up.

[TopGunner]

sniped quote from AW2B:

.." IMO, he didn't want his mom or anyone else to know that he was worried, some people like to act brave and don't like to share their inner feelings with anyone..but that has nothing to do with guilt..


Yup, that's right........he and his Mom talked about not getting rid of Conner's things to soon because IT WOULDN'T LOOK RIGHT.

Whole lotta love and concern there !

[frydaddy]

1-The boat cover was first found in his truck..so it was there when the police searched on the 24th..so if there was blood or urine from Laci would he have left it in the bed of his truck while he went to the park to meet Sharon and the police???? mind you, while he was at the park, I think his truck was parked in his driveway with supposedly incriminating evidence in plain view...and there was no gasoline on it at that point...when the police got to his house they went in to clear it..Scott wasn't even there yet, he didn't demand a search warrant..he let Brocchini searched his truck without ever complaining or asking for a search warrant...in fact, he left his truck with the boat cover in it and went with Brocchini and Evers to his warehouse ..while other police officers were still searching his house..an MPD "identification techinician" was collecting evidence..taking photographs..etc..----> "Consciouness of innocence"

2-As far as I know, gasoline would not remove blood stains..

With that said, according to testimony, they didn't find blood..urine or anything incriminating on that boat cover..that's according to the prosecution's witnesses..I think the prosecution was capable to call experts to testify that the gasoline could have removed blood stains or urine if that was the case..



IMO:

I think he rented vehicles to evade the media..as we know, reporters were following him almost everywhere he went...that would drive anyone insane...

Why he went to the bay? I think he was worried, his worries were two folds, 1- He was worried about Laci being found dead..IMO, he loved her..and wanted her back safe and sound...2-He was also worried that in case Laci was indeed killed, the killer would place Laci's body at his alibi..IMO, anyone in his situation would think along those lines ---->"what if the killer plant her body where I went ..everyone on earth heard that the police is suspecting me..everyone on earth knows that I was fishing in the bay area when she went missing.." IMO, he didn't want his mom or anyone else to know that he was worried, some people like to act brave and don't like to share their inner feelings with anyone..but that has nothing to do with guilt..it has to do with their personality..or maybe, he was worried that the media will get hold of his location....etc..etc..
I think it's also possible he was looking for the witnesses who saw him on the 24th..

You didn't answer the question...here it is again...no one asked for your opinion of the evidence on the boat cover. Here's a repost of the question to refresh your memory.

Why would Scott move his boat cover to the furthest shed from his house and put a leaky leaf blower on top of it?

[TopGunner]

http://www.findlaci2003.us/burlary-suspects.html

BTW - I think the names and photos are backwards.



Thanks FD! So these are the two masterminds who robbed a bank, passed a lie detector test, and while IN custody managed to pull of the biggest frame up consipracy - convincing over 300 people they never knew to join 'em?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about morning chuckle. (Almond Joy)

[TopGunner]

He and all our brave men and women are in my prayers constantly TG. Thank him for his service so that we are able to live our lives in freedom and without fear. :patriot:

And thank you for supporting him in his sacrifice and your's in your worry while he's away. May God abundantly bless him and his comrades and their families! Please Lord protect them all and their loved ones at home. http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/good/GT-PrayingAngel_PilledupPupils.gif


TY :rose: :patriot:

[deputydi]

<snip>ekg - I do not recall you posting anything about this, but I find it hard to believe anyone here, and I do mean ANYONE would belittle it.

I am taking one of my *children* that I did not give birth to, but raised all the same - to the base this Monday at 4:00 AM where he will depart for Bagdad shortly after.

I would have noticed if anyone belittled such a thing. :patriot:
I would like to see a link to the post ekg refers to. I also don't believe ANYONE here would belittle it.

May God keep your "child" safe. :rose:

[deputydi]

Mark Geragos didn't investigate the Aponte's report by his own admission..for example, there would have been no way for him to have investigated it secretly..simply because in order to investigate it, he needed to talk to Aponte to get the details..according to him, he got significant info 2 weeks before the trial..however, the defense didn't get to interview Aponte until AFTER the verdict..so it was too late for him to call Aponte to testify...IMO, he was negligent. that is "ineffective assistance of counsel" loud and clear..that piece of evidence was very important..in addition, the prosecution is still responsible for not turning over the entire report to the defense..
I admit I don't know the details surrounding the Aponte tip. I didn't really pay too much attention to it because MG made so many misleading claims that this seemed to just be another one of them. You know, of course, the story of the boy who called "wolf".

This won't be part of the first appeal, but it probably will be included in the habeas petition. The judges hearing it will be privvy to all the details and information that we don't have so we'll just have to wait and see where it goes. "that piece of evidence" has the potential of being evidence of ineffective assistance, but it also could be just another one of MG's red herrings. The appeals court will have to sort that one out.

[accordn2me]

yeah I had to take a board-breather.... my best friends brother was killed in Iraq .......I'm very, very sorry to hear that ekg. :rose:

[accordn2me]

Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice.
H. L. Mencken
I love this quote! For some reason...President Bush came to mind when I read it.
:patriot:

[accordn2me]

I strongly disagree that MG had no duty to investigate the evidence..1- the mineral deposits evidence was presented in court..it was presented that they were mineral deposited on her pants from the bay water..MG had the duty to analyze the mineral deposits to determine the source..Freshwater? urine?..etc...2- the prosecution case was about Scott killing Laci before he left the house..the Aponte's report directly contradicts that notion...since according to that report, Laci had a confrontation with Todd as he was burglarizing the Medina's house...Scott had already left the house for at least 23 minutes...

Quote:

The court stated that the Guidelines have long been considered guides to determining what is reasonable conduct for defense counsel, and specifically stated that they “explicitly recognize that competent counsel will investigate and discover all the evidence that Petitioner’s counsel failed to unearth.”

I think MG did "unearth" the mystery "deposits." His concrete expert more than likely told him it matched the concrete found at SLP's warehouse and/or in his driveway.

Read what the expert said the concrete has in it....pea gravel, rocks, stones, sand, fly ash, coarse aggregate...etc.

[Miss Bootsie]

Yes..they were confined to the crotch area of her pants/upper legs portion of her pants...



i.e. Originally posted by attorneywan2be
Laci had coffee in her systemYou are again posting something as fact knowing full well you don't have supporting testimony or photos to support your statement.
Sorry, but Dr. Peterson didn't state the stony deposits were confined to the crotch area.
i.e. Dr. P's reference to caffeine doesn't mean coffee was found in Laci's system. Dr. P's reference to the upper leg portion doesn't mean the stony deposits were confined to the crotch area.

You keep defending your theory when you know full well Dr. Peterson stated.....
PETERSON: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones.

Urine contains a high percentage of salt.

Give it up, the testimony doesn't support your theory.

[accordn2me]

He and all our brave men and women are in my prayers constantly TG. Thank him for his service so that we are able to live our lives in freedom and without fear. :patriot:

And thank you for supporting him in his sacrifice and your's in your worry while he's away. May God abundantly bless him and his comrades and their families! Please Lord protect them all and their loved ones at home. http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/good/GT-PrayingAngel_PilledupPupils.gif

Amen!

Otter, this was a beautiful prayer.

I hope I didn't upset you the other day with my ribbing about the /s/ word. :biggrin:

[accordn2me]

I'm not going. I'm heeding the (TTBOMN apocryphal) advice of Mr. Clemens.Just when I had most all of the letter system figured out...here you go throwing in a loooooooong one! :no:

[accordn2me]

Morning chuckle! (http://www.takebackourrights.org/docs/lockyer_letter.html)Has anyone checked this out on snopes.com? :read:

[accordn2me]

http://www.findlaci2003.us/burlary-suspects.html

BTW - I think the names and photos are backwards.Let me say...I don't have an eye for detail but these two look alike to me. It's almost like an age progression...

do burglars who rob together tend to look alike?

[enlightenme]

Fluff fluff - the boat cover merely had her scent on it, and that's what he was covering up.


Yep, that's what I think too. He had Laci wrapped in a tarp in the boat and the boat cover on the boat. When he thought that they would be using dogs, he decided to try and cover up any scent that might be on the boat cover.

[accordn2me]

Yep, that's what I think too. He had Laci wrapped in a tarp in the boat and the boat cover on the boat. When he thought that they would be using dogs, he decided to try and cover up any scent that might be on the boat cover.

The pool would have been the perfect place to wash the cover before dousing it in gasoline and storing it in the shed. Pure speculation...but a definite possibility.

[Lavindar]

http://www.findlaci2003.us/burlary-suspects.html

BTW - I think the names and photos are backwards.


And you would be correct, as usual.

[Lavindar]

Morning chuckle! (http://www.takebackourrights.org/docs/lockyer_letter.html)
That man has to be senile or he cannot read a map. Evelyn Hernandez and the women from pinole and fremont are NOT within 80 miless of modesto. The other two he mentions from Modesto were NOT pregnant. You do NOT want to get me started on Dalton and the lies he told in his book to make himself look credible. My fingers would rebel with all the typing I'd have to do.

[frydaddy]

I admit I don't know the details surrounding the Aponte tip. I didn't really pay too much attention to it because MG made so many misleading claims that this seemed to just be another one of them. You know, of course, the story of the boy who called "wolf".

This won't be part of the first appeal, but it probably will be included in the habeas petition. The judges hearing it will be privvy to all the details and information that we don't have so we'll just have to wait and see where it goes. "that piece of evidence" has the potential of being evidence of ineffective assistance, but it also could be just another one of MG's red herrings. The appeals court will have to sort that one out.

You are being way too fair on this one Di, but that's one thing I've always respected about you, your ability to give others more benefit of the doubt than I would. The information was clearly there in the discovery. That they overlooked it, failed to realize it's potential importance, or didn't catch the relevant connections, it would only matter if there was any meat to it, which there wasn't.

From MG's motion...

"Approximately six-eight weeks before the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution produced a written letter from an inmate at a correctional facility in Modesto who claimed to have information about Laci Peterson's disappearance. Defense attorney Pat Harris and Investigator Carl Jensen drove to Modesto and interviewed the inmate about a number of topics. During the course of the interview, the inmate mentioned several names which were written down by Mr. Jensen .

A few days later , one of the defense team members, Raffi Naljian, ran the names through the discovery database.

One of the names, hereafter referred to as AT, led to a small notation in the hundreds of pages of tip sheets provided by the Modesto Police. In the notation, AT was talking with his brother, hereafter referred to as ST, who was imprisoned at the California Rehabilitation Center facility commonly known as NORCO. The notation stated that in a phone call four weeks after Laci's disappearance, AT had told ST that Laci had walked up on Stephen Todd while he was burglarizing the house next door and that he had verbally threatened her."

Here's the problem with this that I have.

1. It's vague...no dates on when the letter was handed over, when the witness was interviewed, when Raffi ran the names, nothing. No names of who the witness was, who the witness named, nothing.

2. The obvious progression on this couldn't have taken long to arrive at "burglary". The second that the word burglary came up, which is the crux of the whole matter with the safe red herring, no way can MG pass this off as "no one realized until the trial ended" the importance of this. Jenson testified Oct 18th, yet not a word about the letter, the witness, or anything to do with the burglary. We are asked to believe that MG's reputation as a defense attorney was so unimportant in his own mind, that his investigators are going to take potentially exculpatory evidence in this letter from the prosecution and not follow up on all that investigation within a day or two?

3. The Aponte thing was in discovery, so Steven Todd and the Tenbrinks names had to be connected. Steven Todd's burglary of the Medina house was one of MG's biggest flights of fancy. No way can I believe that every mention of Todd in discovery wasn't fully checked out. So, Aponte and the Tenbrinks names wouldn't have been a big surprise for MG's investigators. The second that the witness mentioned the name Tenbrink, MG had his info and could have gotten the ball rolling through Jenson. He didn't.

[deputydi]

That man has to be senile or he cannot read a map. Evelyn Hernandez and the women from pinole and fremont are NOT within 80 miless of modesto. The other two he mentions from Modesto were NOT pregnant. You do NOT want to get me started on Dalton and the lies he told in his book to make himself look credible. My fingers would rebel with all the typing I'd have to do.
My knowledge of the tragic death of Laci and Conner Peterson has been gleaned primarily from the book written by Mr. Dalton. No member of the Peterson family has asked me to read Mr. Dalton’s book nor has any person retained me as a practicing member of the State Bar of California to concern myself with the Peterson family or with Scott Peterson.
Why would any intelligent person limit their knowledge of a case on a book written by a lawyer who was fired? He had NO first hand knowledge of what went on in the courtroom, and, most of his facts were either wrong or grossly misstated. I have no respect and would give no credibility to someone who would base an opinion on one single, questionable source.

[frydaddy]

Has anyone checked this out on snopes.com? :read:


Not sure...but I could go off on a whole other tangent about politicians taking the word of folks like Dalton as their sole means for moving forward on things. Since I have grass to cut in 100 degree weather, I'll not!

[frydaddy]

Let me say...I don't have an eye for detail but these two look alike to me. It's almost like an age progression...

do burglars who rob together tend to look alike?

We men...we resemble each other!

I remember comments from back in the day about Pearce looking much older than Todd. He's 44 and Todd was 36...

Ever wonder if Todd and Pearce were such credible alternate suspects, why Stough and Ridenour weren't called to discuss the investigation of them?

[frydaddy]

That man has to be senile or he cannot read a map. Evelyn Hernandez and the women from pinole and fremont are NOT within 80 miless of modesto. The other two he mentions from Modesto were NOT pregnant. You do NOT want to get me started on Dalton and the lies he told in his book to make himself look credible. My fingers would rebel with all the typing I'd have to do.

Are you trying to say a former politician may not have his facts straight? I'm shocked! :D

[deputydi]

You are being way too fair on this one Di, but that's one thing I've always respected about you, your ability to give others more benefit of the doubt than I would. The information was clearly there in the discovery. That they overlooked it, failed to realize it's potential importance, or didn't catch the relevant connections, it would only matter if there was any meat to it, which there wasn't.<snip>
Thanks. :) But I only said it will probably be a part of the habeas petition. Do I think it will succeed in getting Scott retried? Absolutely not.

If I'm reading AW2B correctly, her opinion is that his neglect in fully investigating the Aponte tip amounts to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. And, on that basis, a retrial will be granted. I think she's wrong in her opinion of the result, but I do believe it will be included in the appeal. The appeals attorneys are going to throw everything they can against the wall and pray something sticks.

I also believe the boat incident will be included, as will the denial of MG's boat experiment and the dismissal of two of the jurors. I don't think any of these issues will go anywhere and his appeal will be denied. This is my opinion only -- obviously, I don't have any inside info.

What won't be included in the brief (IMO) is any mention of the mineral deposits AW2B wants to discuss endlessly. The deposits were mentioned BRIEFLY during (I think) Dr Petersen's testimony when he was describing Laci's remains. No one challenged his description or questioned the Dr about the origin of the deposits or suggested they were there because she was forced to pee in her pants over a period of time. The idea of someone holding Laci captive for two months before killing her, then soaking her body in a bathtub for another two months is completely and totally without any testimony to back it up and IMO ridiculous. The court will not entertain any meritless claims and it cannot be included in the first appeal unless it was something the defense challenged and was overruled on. AW2B is the only person who thinks this theory makes any sense whatsoever.

[Lavindar]

We men...we resemble each other!

I remember comments from back in the day about Pearce looking much older than Todd. He's 44 and Todd was 36...

Ever wonder if Todd and Pearce were such credible alternate suspects, why Stough and Ridenour weren't called to discuss the investigation of them?


Excellent point, fry. Stough's name was mentioned in all the witness sitings that Geragos questioned Grogan about. Why wasn't he called? Why wasn't Holmes called to discuss Peggy O'Donnel? Easier to cast the stones than prove them I guess for Geragos.

It can't be because Geragis "couldn't" as many would like to believe. For example, he called Bertalotto, the DA's investigator as his witness, even though the prosecution had already called him. He called Grogan as his witness even though Grogan had already been called as a prosecution witness. And he called Michael Hicks, an MPD officer. He could have, and CHOSE NOT TO, called Officer Stough to clarify anything on the burglary.

My guess is that he didn't want to "clarify" anything on the burglary. He just wanted to muddy the water in regards to all of this. The old "spaghetti on the wall" trick.

[Lavindar]

You are being way too fair on this one Di, but that's one thing I've always respected about you, your ability to give others more benefit of the doubt than I would. The information was clearly there in the discovery. That they overlooked it, failed to realize it's potential importance, or didn't catch the relevant connections, it would only matter if there was any meat to it, which there wasn't.

From MG's motion...

"Approximately six-eight weeks before the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution produced a written letter from an inmate at a correctional facility in Modesto who claimed to have information about Laci Peterson's disappearance. Defense attorney Pat Harris and Investigator Carl Jensen drove to Modesto and interviewed the inmate about a number of topics. During the course of the interview, the inmate mentioned several names which were written down by Mr. Jensen .

A few days later , one of the defense team members, Raffi Naljian, ran the names through the discovery database.

One of the names, hereafter referred to as AT, led to a small notation in the hundreds of pages of tip sheets provided by the Modesto Police. In the notation, AT was talking with his brother, hereafter referred to as ST, who was imprisoned at the California Rehabilitation Center facility commonly known as NORCO. The notation stated that in a phone call four weeks after Laci's disappearance, AT had told ST that Laci had walked up on Stephen Todd while he was burglarizing the house next door and that he had verbally threatened her."

Here's the problem with this that I have.

1. It's vague...no dates on when the letter was handed over, when the witness was interviewed, when Raffi ran the names, nothing. No names of who the witness was, who the witness named, nothing.

2. The obvious progression on this couldn't have taken long to arrive at "burglary". The second that the word burglary came up, which is the crux of the whole matter with the safe red herring, no way can MG pass this off as "no one realized until the trial ended" the importance of this. Jenson testified Oct 18th, yet not a word about the letter, the witness, or anything to do with the burglary. We are asked to believe that MG's reputation as a defense attorney was so unimportant in his own mind, that his investigators are going to take potentially exculpatory evidence in this letter from the prosecution and not follow up on all that investigation within a day or two?

3. The Aponte thing was in discovery, so Steven Todd and the Tenbrinks names had to be connected. Steven Todd's burglary of the Medina house was one of MG's biggest flights of fancy. No way can I believe that every mention of Todd in discovery wasn't fully checked out. So, Aponte and the Tenbrinks names wouldn't have been a big surprise for MG's investigators. The second that the witness mentioned the name Tenbrink, MG had his info and could have gotten the ball rolling through Jenson. He didn't.

Here's an additional problem I have with this. ST was incarcerated in NORCO. Yet it was his BROTHER, AT who was NOT incarcerated at the time who told the INCARCERATED brother this huge fairy tale. I always thought it was the incarcerated brother who told the fairy tale. Now I understand WHY ST was afraid to tell the police anything. He was afraid of implicating his brother in anything. As I have said repeatedly, if it was in a phone call, THAT INFORMATION is recorded. Every call from prison is RECORDED unless it is to a known lawyer's phone number. These recordings are not erased. When a prisoner makes a call, a recording comes on stating that "this call is being recorded." The message is repeated when the receiver of the call accepts the collect call. There are NO incoming calls to prisoners allowed in prison....only messages.

Carl Jensen testified for the defense. Why was this not brought up then? The case went to the jury on Nov 3, Jensen testified on Oct 18. Six-8 weeks would have put it in September. How long would a database search take? Do you think this is all because the defense sat on their posteriors rather than working?

[Lavindar]

I went back and skimmed Carl Jensen's testimony. He testified to the walking distances in Carmel and where the concrete was taken from the hosue, nothing more. Nothing about a tip from a person in jail in Modesto.

[USAHICK]

That man has to be senile or he cannot read a map. Evelyn Hernandez and the women from pinole and fremont are NOT within 80 miless of modesto. The other two he mentions from Modesto were NOT pregnant. You do NOT want to get me started on Dalton and the lies he told in his book to make himself look credible. My fingers would rebel with all the typing I'd have to do.


He was drunk.

[USAHICK]

I went back and skimmed Carl Jensen's testimony. He testified to the walking distances in Carmel and where the concrete was taken from the hosue, nothing more. Nothing about a tip from a person in jail in Modesto.

Why am I not surprised?

[attorneywan2be]

If I'm reading AW2B correctly, her opinion is that his neglect in fully investigating the Aponte tip amounts to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. And, on that basis, a retrial will be granted. I think she's wrong in her opinion of the result, but I do believe it will be included in the appeal. The appeals attorneys are going to throw everything they can against the wall and pray something sticks.


IMO:

Here are the questions:

1-Did the defense fully and thoroughly investigate the Aponte's tip? No
2-Was the info included in that tip vital in this case? Yes..in fact, if proven it would have been exonerating evidence..

1+2= the defense didn't meet his obligation to fully and thoroughly investigate the case as reflected in the ABA guidelines for death penalty cases..----> "ineffective assistance of counsel"

The same applies to the lack of investigation of the mineral deposits...if analyzed they would have been able to determine the source of those deposits..saltwater?..freshwater?..urine?..etc..et c..for example, if saltwater was excluded as the source that would have been exonerating evidence...the prosecution told the jury that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay and that her body was there for 4 months..so it was Geragos's duty to investigate evidence that could disprove that theory..

[USAHICK]

IMO:

Here are the questions:

1-Did the defense fully and thoroughly investigate the Aponte's tip? No
2-Was the info included in that tip vital in this case? Yes..in fact, if proven it would have been exonerating evidence..

1+2= the defense didn't meet his obligation to fully and thoroughly investigate the case as reflected in the ABA guidelines for death penalty cases..----> "ineffective assistance of counsel"

The same applies to the lack of investigation of the mineral deposits...if analyzed they would have been able to determine the source of those deposits..saltwater?..freshwater?..urine?..etc..et c..for example, if saltwater was excluded as the source that would have been exonerating evidence...the prosecution told the jury that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay and that her body was there for 4 months..so it was Geragos's duty to investigate evidence that could disprove that theory..


Here is the question: Did Scott Lee Peterson plan out and excute the cold blooded murder of Laci Denise Peterson and their son Conner?

The answer: YES

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO:

Here are the questions:

1-Did the defense fully and thoroughly investigate the Aponte's tip? No
2-Was the info included in that tip vital in this case? Yes..in fact, if proven it would have been exonerating evidence..

1+2= the defense didn't meet his obligation to fully and thoroughly investigate the case as reflected in the ABA guidelines for death penalty cases..----> "ineffective assistance of counsel"

The same applies to the lack of investigation of the mineral deposits...if analyzed they would have been able to determine the source of those deposits..saltwater?..freshwater?..urine?..etc..et c..for example, if saltwater was excluded as the source that would have been exonerating evidence...the prosecution told the jury that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay and that her body was there for 4 months..so it was Geragos's duty to investigate evidence that could disprove that theory..

You don't know what the defense may have had privately investigated or tested.

[deputydi]

IMO:

Here are the questions:

1-Did the defense fully and thoroughly investigate the Aponte's tip? No
2-Was the info included in that tip vital in this case? Yes..in fact, if proven it would have been exonerating evidence..

1+2= the defense didn't meet his obligation to fully and thoroughly investigate the case as reflected in the ABA guidelines for death penalty cases..----> "ineffective assistance of counsel"

The same applies to the lack of investigation of the mineral deposits...if analyzed they would have been able to determine the source of those deposits..saltwater?..freshwater?..urine?..etc..et c..for example, if saltwater was excluded as the source that would have been exonerating evidence...the prosecution told the jury that Scott dumped Laci's body in the bay and that her body was there for 4 months..so it was Geragos's duty to investigate evidence that could disprove that theory..
This example is the closest I could find to what you are talking about.
Ex parte Okere, 56 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d)
Defendant testified at hearing an application for writ of habeas corpus that he gave attorney names of witnesses and important facts that attorney did not investigate. Defendant did not subpoena attorney to testify at hearing and offered no explanation from attorney about his conduct. Defendant did not overcome presumption that attorney exercised reasonable professional judgment.
http://www.sorrelsudashen.com/papers/ineffective_assistance.doc

You don't seem to want to understand that this is an extremely difficult point to prove. The court starts out with the belief that the trial attorney was competent and the petitioner must prove he was not. Not just because some apellate attorney claims it -- by specific examples and proof that, if not for the trial attorneys incompetence, the outcome would have been different. Not simply MAY HAVE -- the evidence and examples must be clear and convincing. That just doesn't happen very often.

Actions much more outrageous than the ones you believe will get Scott a new trial have been denied. This one will too.

[Lavindar]

This example is the closest I could find to what you are talking about.

http://www.sorrelsudashen.com/papers/ineffective_assistance.doc

You don't seem to want to understand that this is an extremely difficult point to prove. The court starts out with the belief that the trial attorney was competent and the petitioner must prove he was not. Not just because some apellate attorney claims it -- by specific examples and proof that, if not for the trial attorneys incompetence, the outcome would have been different. Not simply MAY HAVE -- the evidence and examples must be clear and convincing. That just doesn't happen very often.

Actions much more outrageous than the ones you believe will get Scott a new trial have been denied. This one will too.
WE KNOW Garegos had a private investigator. He testified. But he didn't testify to the Aponte tip at all.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

You keep defending your theory when you know full well Dr. Peterson stated.....

Quote:
PETERSON: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones.

Urine contains a high percentage of salt.

Give it up, the testimony doesn't support your theory.


And SALTWATER doesn't contain salt???

[Lavindar]

And SALTWATER doesn't contain salt???
Salt IS a crystal. NaCl aka sodium chloride CRYSTALS...
http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html

The second paragraph also says that the salt crystal is often used as an example of crystalline structure.

Toss your salt theory.

[ekg]

I'm very, very sorry to hear that ekg. :rose:


Thank you A2M...




:patriot:

[TopGunner]

And SALTWATER doesn't contain salt???


I still don't understand why this is being HAMMERED on. It will NEVER EVER come up in the appeal issues.
:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Snip
You keep defending your theory when you know full well Dr. Peterson stated.....


Quote:
PETERSON: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones.

Urine contains a high percentage of salt.

Give it up, the testimony doesn't support your theory.


IMO, there is a strong possibility the level of calcium was high in Laci's urine ..why? Prolonged inactivity increases urinary calcium..my theory is based on Laci being held captive for weeks----> "inactivity"


Quote:

Calcium Stones

Approximately 85% of stones are composed predominantly of calcium compounds. The most common cause of calcium stone production is excess calcium in the urine (hypercalciuria). Excess calcium is normally removed from the blood by the kidneys and excreted in the urine. In hypercalciuria, excess calcium builds up in the kidneys and urine, where it combines with other waste products to form stones. Low levels of citrate, high levels of oxalate and uric acid, and inadequate urinary volume may also cause calcium stone formation.

Calcium stones are composed of calcium that is chemically bound to oxalate (calcium oxalate) or phosphate (calcium phosphate). Of these, calcium oxalate is more common. Calcium phosphate stones typically occur in patients with metabolic or hormonal disorders such as hyperparathyroidism and renal tubular acidosis.

Increased intestinal absorption of calcium (absorptive hypercalciuria), excessive hormone levels (hyperparathyroidism), and renal calcium leak (kidney defect that causes excessive calcium to enter the urine) can cause hypercalciuria. Prolonged inactivity also increases urinary calcium and may cause stones.

http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml

[attorneywan2be]

I still don't understand why this is being HAMMERED on. It will NEVER EVER come up in the appeal issues.
:shrug:

Please don't say never..or at least indicate that it is your opinion...!

[Lavindar]

IMO, there is a strong possibility the level of calcium was high in Laci's urine ..why? Prolonged inactivity increases urinary calcium..my theory is based on Laci being held captive for weeks----> "inactivity"


Quote:

Calcium Stones

Approximately 85% of stones are composed predominantly of calcium compounds. The most common cause of calcium stone production is excess calcium in the urine (hypercalciuria). Excess calcium is normally removed from the blood by the kidneys and excreted in the urine. In hypercalciuria, excess calcium builds up in the kidneys and urine, where it combines with other waste products to form stones. Low levels of citrate, high levels of oxalate and uric acid, and inadequate urinary volume may also cause calcium stone formation.

Calcium stones are composed of calcium that is chemically bound to oxalate (calcium oxalate) or phosphate (calcium phosphate). Of these, calcium oxalate is more common. Calcium phosphate stones typically occur in patients with metabolic or hormonal disorders such as hyperparathyroidism and renal tubular acidosis.

Increased intestinal absorption of calcium (absorptive hypercalciuria), excessive hormone levels (hyperparathyroidism), and renal calcium leak (kidney defect that causes excessive calcium to enter the urine) can cause hypercalciuria. Prolonged inactivity also increases urinary calcium and may cause stones.

http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml

Yet you provide no source for your theory that she was inactive while held captive. In fact, you don't have any evidence to her being held anywhere by anyone.

[TopGunner]

Please don't say never..or at least indicate that it is your opinion...!

OK, I won't say _____. :tongue:

[TopGunner]

Please don't say never..or at least indicate that it is your opinion...!

I didn't say it.

I typed it. :tongue:

[I'mSun]

I didn't say it.

I typed it. :tongue:Seems you are in a mood and on a roll today,TG!
:beer:

[attorneywan2be]

Yet you provide no source for your theory that she was inactive while held captive. In fact, you don't have any evidence to her being held anywhere by anyone.


Provide a source for my theory?? that's a new one...!

[attorneywan2be]

I didn't say it.

I typed it. :tongue:

ok fine...please don't type "It will NEVER EVER come up in the appeal issues" or at least type that it is your opinion....LOL :biggrin:

[I'mSun]

I still don't understand why this is being HAMMERED on. It will NEVER EVER come up in the appeal issues.
:shrug:
ITA, TG! There is absolutely no evidence supporting that theory- and the theory isn't even reasonable.

[Lavindar]

Provide a source for my theory?? that's a new one...!


Theories are usually based on some kind of fact and you do not provide that. Kidney stones take much longer than a few weeks of inactivity to form. Yet you seem to think that a kidnapped victim (with no evidence of any kidnapping) is held long enough to form kidney stones? You also prove no evidence that there was excesss calcium in Laci's urine. That would show up on an urinalysis which she had done and there is no record of same in her medical records

[Miss Bootsie]

Yet you provide no source for your theory that she was inactive while held captive. In fact, you don't have any evidence to her being held anywhere by anyone.




To think an expert forensic pathologist, who has performed over 5000 autopsies wouldn't know kidney stones when he saw them. I'm sure he has seen thousands of every type and size kidney stone known to medical science. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/s_giggle.gif

Dr. P. was quick to point out, he is not an expert in geology, but because of his medical training and experience doing autopsies, he was able to say positively that the stones were not crystalline.

[TopGunner]

[QUOTE=Miss Bootsie;8934806]To think an expert forensic pathologist, who has performed over 5000 autopsies wouldn't know kidney stones when he saw them. I'm sure he has seen thousands of every type and size kidney stone known to medical science. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/s_giggle.gif

Dr. P. was quick to point out, he is not an expert in geology, but because of his medical training and experience doing autopsies, he was able to say positively that the stones were not crystalline.


Amen.

:seeya:

[deputydi]

I still don't understand why this is being HAMMERED on. It will NEVER EVER come up in the appeal issues.
:shrug:
I am so glad someone gets it! :beer:

[deputydi]

Please don't say never..or at least indicate that it is your opinion...!
IMO TG is correct --- it will NEVER EVER come up in the appeals.

[adnoid]

Theories are usually based on some kind of fact...

Not always. Only the ones that make any sense.

You have inadvertently addressed your own concern.

[TopGunner]

IMO TG is correct --- it will NEVER EVER come up in the appeals.

DD, you just said IMO and NEVER EVER together.

I think you have to choose one or the other. I was told "say IMO OR NEVER EVER." !

[deputydi]

DD, you just said IMO and NEVER EVER together.

I think you have to choose one or the other. I was told "say IMO OR NEVER EVER." !

Oops, my mistake. This will NEVER EVER be part of the appeals. Is that better?

[Miss Bootsie]

IMO, there is a strong possibility the level of calcium was high in Laci's urine ..why? Prolonged inactivity increases urinary calcium..my theory is based on Laci being held captive for weeks----> "inactivity"

*Snipped



Sorry, you struck out again.


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gifCALCIUM OXALATE
Calcium oxalate crystals in the urine are the most common constituent of human kidney stones, and calcium oxalate crystal formation is also one of the toxic effects of ethylene glycol poisoning.


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

[attorneywan2be]

Sorry, you struck out again.


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gifCALCIUM OXALATE



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

My theory:

Let me start by reiterating that my theory has nothing to do with passing Kidney stones, I only made reference to them as it relates to the minerals that comprise them because the source is urine in both cases..

You need to understand the difference between the formation of stones inside the body and the formation of stones outside the body..they are based on 2 different concepts..you keep misinterpreting my theory by referring to the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants as kidney stones..based on my theory, the only common factor between kidney stones and the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants is the type of minerals that comprise them...the formation process is totally different..the formation of kidney stones is not about wetting and drying..certain conditions had to be present for the crystal structure to form..temperature for example, on the other hand, the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants are the result of repeated cycles of wetting the crotch area of her pants due to urination then the evaporation of that urine...their appearance would depend on the main mineral that comprise them..

This is an explanation of how kidney stones form and the crystal nature of their structure...AGAIN, that is not the way the mineral deposits would have formed on her pants...:

Quote:

How Do Stones Occur?

To form a stone, a crystal has to form within the urine. This solid crystal formation is affected by temperature, the pH of the urine and the amount of certain substances in the urine. Although in some cases how a stone was formed is understood, for many people it is unclear. Examples of well-understood cases include cystine stones that are due to a genetic error; calcium stones caused by a high level of calcium in the bloodstream from primary hyperparathyroidism; and uric acid stones that are associated with gout.


http://sciencedaily.healthology.com/kidney-health/article898.htm

[Pampster]

Trying to understand this theory - you're saying that the 'kidnappers' were willing to give Laci fluids to drink but refused to allow her to use the bathroom? Would this be the same kidnappers that risked being caught by allowing her to urinate by the side of a busy road?

[attorneywan2be]

i

Skip


You keep defending your theory when you know full well Dr. Peterson stated.....

Quote:

Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones

Urine contains a high percentage of salt.

Give it up, the testimony doesn't support your theory.


You are giving a lot of weight to what is, IMO, a stupid statement on the ME's part..


I just read the ME's testimony about the mineral deposits not having the crystalline look..that was a response to a question on whether or not those mineral deposits appeared to be salt crystals...(the question you didn't quote) what exactly did he mean by "Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones"???..what he said doesn't make any sense whatsoever...since some stones don't have the crystal like look and some do, but they are still considered stones!!..I think he was basically responding to the question on whether or not they were salt crystals hence the distinction he made about them being stones..

David Harris: And in terms of the noting whether it was fresh water or salt water, if we're talking about these minerals that you saw in the clothing, did these appear to be salt crystals?
Brian Peterson: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones

[I'mSun]

Trying to understand this theory - you're saying that the 'kidnappers' were willing to give Laci fluids to drink but refused to allow her to use the bathroom? Would this be the same kidnappers that risked being caught by allowing her to urinate by the side of a busy road?It is difficult, if at all even possible, to understand a theory that makes absolutely no sense.

[attorneywan2be]

Trying to understand this theory - you're saying that the 'kidnappers' were willing to give Laci fluids to drink but refused to allow her to use the bathroom? Would this be the same kidnappers that risked being caught by allowing her to urinate by the side of a busy road?

Yep..it's possible they are the same kidnappers that allowed her to urinate by the side of a busy street..the alternative would have been letting her urinate in their van...having her DNA in their van...keep in mind, that I believe that Harshman saw that incident on the 24th BEFORE Laci was reported missing and BEFORE her picture was all over the news..he reported it on Dec 28th ..according to the tip, he stated that he saw the incident 3 to 4 days earlier..so there is a strong possibility he saw her the day she was kidnapped, so the kidnappers didn't take a risk of getting caught since no one knew that Laci was missing at that point..in addition, according to the report, one of the guys restricted her movement and IMO, he definitely threatened to kill her if she would scream or make a scene..

[Miss Bootsie]

My theory:

Let me start by reiterating that my theory has nothing to do with passing Kidney stones, I only made reference to them as it relates to the minerals that comprise them because the source is urine in both cases..

You need to understand the difference between the formation of stones inside the body and the formation of stones outside the body..they are based on 2 different concepts..you keep misinterpreting my theory by referring to the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants as kidney stones

You are the one that suffers from a lack of understanding AW.

YOU do not understand that those minerals you are referring to contain salt. You do not understand that in either case, the urine would form crystals.

Do you not understand why Dr. Peterson was able to state positively that the stones were not crystalline?


You also don't understand that stones would not form from the residual amount of urine left on clothing after someone urinates in their pants.
There might be some crusting, but it would take more than a residual amount of urine to form a stone.

[Pampster]

I have little faith in a theory that totally disregards the known facts and relies on statements like, " I believe what he really meant....". Stones formed by urine would be immediately identifiable when examined under a microscope. Do you really believe Mark Geragos, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Lee, and the other defense experts were not smart enough to look into something so simple that would have immediately exonerated Scott?

[Miss Bootsie]

I have little faith in a theory that totally disregards the known facts and relies on statements like, " I believe what he really meant....". Stones formed by urine would be immediately identifiable when examined under a microscope. Do you really believe Mark Geragos, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Lee, and the other defense experts were not smart enough to look into something so simple that would have immediately exonerated Scott?

Thank-You Pampster

[attorneywan2be]

You are the one that suffers from a lack of understanding AW.

YOU do not understand that those minerals you are referring to contain salt. You do not understand that in either case, the urine would form crystals.

Do you not understand why Dr. Peterson was able to state positively that the stones were not crystalline?


You also don't understand that stones would not form from the residual amount of urine left on clothing after someone urinates in their pants.
There might be some crusting, but it would take more than a residual amount of urine to form a stone.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree..because I think you are the one suffering from a lack of understanding..evidenced by the fact that you do not understand the ME's testimony you have been quoting..he stated they didn't LOOK crystalline they were stones..he meant they weren't salt crystals they were stones...reading the prosecution's question should make it clear to you...I hope..

[Pampster]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree..because I think you are the one suffering from a lack of understanding..evidenced by the fact that you do not understand the ME's testimony you have been quoting..he stated they didn't LOOK crystalline they were stones..he meant they weren't salt crystals they were stones...reading the prosecution's question should make it clear to you...I hope..

Since when does, "They didn't look crystalline AT ALL" translate into "they could have been crystalline but not salt?"

[attorneywan2be]

I have little faith in a theory that totally disregards the known facts and relies on statements like, " I believe what he really meant....". Stones formed by urine would be immediately identifiable when examined under a microscope. Do you really believe Mark Geragos, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Lee, and the other defense experts were not smart enough to look into something so simple that would have immediately exonerated Scott?


Dr. Wecht and Dr. Lee were not allowed to examine Laci's clothing according to judge Girolami's ruling..

Why didn't Mark Geragos investigate if the minral deposits found on her pants were from freshwater for example? in other words, the fact that he did not look into it has no bearing on the validity of my theory...

[Lavindar]

You are giving a lot of weight to what is, IMO, a stupid statement on the ME's part..


I just read the ME's testimony about the mineral deposits not having the crystalline look..that was a response to a question on whether or not those mineral deposits appeared to be salt crystals...(the question you didn't quote) what exactly did he mean by "Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones"???..what he said doesn't make any sense whatsoever...since some stones don't have the crystal like look and some do, but they are still considered stones!!..I think he was basically responding to the question on whether or not they were salt crystals hence the distinction he made about them being stones..

David Harris: And in terms of the noting whether it was fresh water or salt water, if we're talking about these minerals that you saw in the clothing, did these appear to be salt crystals?
Brian Peterson: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones


Crystals have a destinct shape to them. Very different that stones which do NOT have to have a distinct shape to them. He said they were not crystalline which means they do not have that particular molecular shape to them.

[attorneywan2be]

Since when does, "They didn't look crystalline AT ALL" translate into "they could have been crystalline but not salt?"

Please read the prosecution question then read the ME's response..and note that the ME's stated they didn't LOOK crystalline and but they looked like stones...why do you think he made a distinction between not looking crystalline vs looking like stones..keep in mind that some stones still have the crystal like look?

David Harris: And in terms of the noting whether it was fresh water or salt water, if we're talking about these minerals that you saw in the clothing, did these appear to be salt crystals?

Brian Peterson: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones

[Pampster]

Please read the prosecution question then read the ME's response..and note that the ME's stated they didn't LOOK crystalline and but they looked like stones...why do you think he made a distinction between not looking crystalline vs looking like stones..keep in mind that some stones still have the crystal like look?

David Harris: And in terms of the noting whether it was fresh water or salt water, if we're talking about these minerals that you saw in the clothing, did these appear to be salt crystals?

Brian Peterson: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones

"THEY DIDN'T LOOK CRYSTALLINE AT ALL" rules out stones with a crystalline look. It's clear as a bell - which does not look like toothbrush even if someone says, "The bell does not look like a toothbrush at all."