Scott Peterson's appeal

[attorneywan2be]

the problem is you're assuming there wasn't a gun or a knife or a lamp...you're assuming that since there isn't any evidence of a crime it must be b/c the crime was a 'soft kill'...

the old saying of "When you hear hoof beats, think horses - not zebras" comes to mind....

Sure CE is good enough to convict someone... I believe it over DE like someone testifying how they felt, what they heard, what they thought when the heard someone else say something...that kind of stuff changes per your perception and how well your attorney preps you and how much $$ you want your book to make...

what I want of out CE tho is stuff that I can't give an innocent application to....... I cannot explain the Euro-trip call, I cannot explain the car selling and the porn.... I understand it yes, I can see how it could be innocent.. but IMO at the very least it leads me think he didn't care that she was missing...

what I also can't do is make the leap from there to he murdered her... I can't fathom a plan that cleans the house,truck,warehouse and boat so faultlessly that only one single strand of hair that matches her and 1 in 112 others is found, and nothing else....the plan was so well created and accomplished that there is no proof was even committed..... but a plan this intricate doesn't include a fool-proof body dump?

sure he "fixed" it so his fishing lic was legal... but he didn't care that the boat and trailer weren't legal? huh? and then he takes used equipment and hopes that it works 90 miles from home? huh? while at the same time methodically planning this death on arguably the biggest 'eve' of the year? huh? No, sorry, I can't buy it..

This is a person who has never had a parking ticket.... who up until Amber Frey everyone believed to be completely in love with and devoted to his wife... a person who never had any anger issues that anyone before and after Amber could come up with... and person who was faulted by his MIL b/f for being too nice and too giving and making him look bad....and this person murders his wife and baby, totes their body to his truck and lets them sit there a few feet away while he emails Christmas greetings?


I keep hearing that he was able to do this and able to fool everyone b/c he's got some mental faults.... says who? What shrink testified to these psychological problems of his? You can pay a shrink to say pretty much anything... just turn on the TV and you can see that...... but where is guy who actually examined Scott? what does this person say about him? Right.... there isn't one.... and the only way he could have done this crime is if he was a sociopath of some kind.... except by everyones accounts, including Sharon Rocha's he was a kind man who loved Laci was was devastated when she was missing..

it doesn't add up.... the CE for murder in the 1st isn't there..Voluntary manslaughter maybe....but premeditated 1st degree murder? Nope.... not a chance.. or the CE tells me they just got the wrong guy....:shrug:

Excellent post...:beer:

However, I don't think the CE was there for a voluntary manslaughter either..IMO, the CE points to Scott preparing to go fishing in the bay by searching fishing sites ..fishing regulations for different type of fish..etc..and IMO, the killers took advantage of the fact that his alibi was all over the news and decided to plant the bodies there...if the bodies were found somewhere in Arizona for example, none of this would have happened..! the fact that he bought a boat on Dec 9th..the fact that he zoomed on the tides/currents chart for few seconds would have meant nothing except that he was preparing for a fishing trip..so IMO, if the defense had called the experts to challenge the prosecution's theory specifically regarding the bodies washing ashore where they were found..the outcome would have been different...

[deputydi]

Excellent post...:beer:

However, I don't think the CE was there for a voluntary manslaughter either..IMO, the CE points to Scott preparing to go fishing in the bay by searching fishing sites ..fishing regulations for different type of fish..etc..and IMO, the killers took advantage of the fact that his alibi was all over the news and decided to plant the bodies there...if the bodies were found somewhere in Arizona for example, none of this would have happened..! the fact that he bought a boat on Dec 9th..the fact that he zoomed on the tides/currents chart for few seconds would have meant nothing except that he was preparing for a fishing trip..so IMO, if the defense had called the experts to challenge the prosecution's theory specifically regarding the bodies washing ashore where they were found..the outcome would have been different...
Maybe he should have googled "proper gear for sturgeon fishing". He was totally unprepared for that activity.

[ekg]

It sounds to me that, in hindsight, you have thought of better ways that Scott could have committed this crime. None of us can get into Scott's head and exactly what he was thinking/planning.

1)
Perhaps he thought if he bought the boat in a fictitious name and the seller happened to read about disappearance of Laci and saw his picture in the news, he might call LE and say, "Hey, I sold that guy a boat only a few weeks before this happened." That would look REAL bad for Scott.

2 & 3)
Similar to #1. If LE found out about a rented storage area or that he tried to "dump" the boat right away, it looks pretty suspicious.

4)
Leaving the leash on Mac wouldn't seem like "hard" evidence to me at all. He knew whoever returned Mac to his yard would be able to say they found him that way, dragging a leash.

5)
He was seen at the Marina by at least 2 men. If they had contacted LE and said they saw him that day, BIG trouble for Scott. I think he thought it would be a good alibi since he was 90 miles away when Laci supposedly was abducted in Modesto. Also, since he had the boat in the warehouse, he might have thought that LE would go there that night and see it and could tell it had been in the water recently.

6)
If Laci was straggled or smothered and wrapped in a tarp right away, what forensic or DNA evidence would there be? Sometimes there really ISN'T any, despite was Law & Order or Forensic Files show us on TV repeatedly. There's plenty of cold cases where no DNA was found. They sometimes get solved years later with purely CE.

snipped

JMO

Hi EM.........

~wouldn't starting an affair 3 weeks before you kill your wife and having LE find out about the affair by themselves would be really bad also..

~taking pictures with your paramour 2 weeks before you kill your wife would also be REAL bad for him

~Telling your paramour and her bff 2 weeks before you kill your wife that it's your 1st Christmas since you lost her..... only to go ahead and plan and commit her murder would be REAL bad for him too I would think.

I can't imagine anyone taking the chances he took in some areas of this crime...... especially when he took such amazing care in other areas..... it just doesn't add up...

I know I can't expect to think like a killer... but why did he take so much care to commit the perfect crime and then go on to implicate himself over and over again. If he would have never called Amber after the 24th,told LE about Amber w/i the 1st 48hrs, never sold the car, never spoke to the media.... he coulda been set... but instead he went about his normal life like he didn't have a care in the world b/c he didn't commit a crime....and after months of intense scrutiny and then arrest and more months sitting in his cell...... he never once caved..

Jessie Davis' b/f caved after only a week of very very VERY light scrutiny and he was a cop...

Mark Hacking confessed after a short time also...

noone, other than OJ, has ever been under the kind of pressure that Scott was under.... name another suspect that was treated the way he was...and he never once missed a beat..

if he was guilty of the crime he was convicted of... and lived up to that kind of pressure... he truly is a madman..... and if he truly is a madman someone, somewhere throughout his life would have seen some kind of indication of it...... but noone ever did..it's just too much to accept...

[Hey Paula]

the problem is you're assuming there wasn't a gun or a knife or a lamp...you're assuming that since there isn't any evidence of a crime it must be b/c the crime was a 'soft kill'...

Soft kill was proposed not solely because there were no large quantities of blood found either in the house or warehouse, but also because Laci's torso remains showed no signs of blunt force trauma, stab wounds, gunshot wounds or of being severed.

<<<<<<Respectfully Snipped In Some Place For Emphasiss>>>>>>>

what I want of out CE tho is stuff that I can't give an innocent application to....... I cannot explain the Euro-trip call, I cannot explain the car selling and the porn.... I understand it yes, I can see how it could be innocent.. but IMO at the very least it leads me think he didn't care that she was missing...

A man who doesn't that his pregnant wife is missing, and that harm might have come to her and his soon-to-be-born first son, sells her car, tries to sell the house, almost gives Conner furniture to family members, orders porn, carries on with Amber, all within 2 weeks of his wife's disappearance, can easily be viewed as having killed her, especially when viewing this and all the other CE, in the aggregate.

what I also can't do is make the leap from there to he murdered her... I can't fathom a plan that cleans the house,truck,warehouse and boat so faultlessly that only one single strand of hair that matches her and 1 in 112 others is found, and nothing else....the plan was so well created and accomplished that there is no proof was even committed..... but a plan this intricate doesn't include a fool-proof body dump?

The kitchen floor having been mopped after Ms Nava had just cleaned it and no cooking took place (Scott & Laci had pizza on the 23rd and Laci hadn't cooked anything on the 24th for obvious reasons) is a sign some cleaning took place. Scott also did quite a bit of cleaning in the laundry area. Strangulation or asphyxiation wouldn't involve a lot of cleanup after the fact.

The warehouse was messy due to Scott having made the anchors, which he intended to clean later on. The mess he left behind was the reason why he lied about a power failure, as he didn't want LE to see the cement residue and anchor outlines. I have no doubt Det Brocchini picked up on Scott's lie, feigning that he'd forgotten his keys and pad simply to see Scott's reaction. When Scott returned to clean the mess, he was denied access as LE was posted outside.

If Laci's body was wrapped in tarp the entire time, what evidence would there be of her in the boat?

sure he "fixed" it so his fishing lic was legal... but he didn't care that the boat and trailer weren't legal? huh? and then he takes used equipment and hopes that it works 90 miles from home? huh? while at the same time methodically planning this death on arguably the biggest 'eve' of the year? huh? No, sorry, I can't buy it..

Scott knew he had 30 days in which to legitimize ownership of the boat, and that's why he didn't register it. I never believed Scott intended to keep that unsophisticated boat, which wasn't his style. That boat was bought with a singular purpose in mind and Scott never intended for anyone to see it or know about it. That's why he cursed and threw the flashlight to the ground, as his plans sunk after he sank Laci.

I keep hearing that he was able to do this and able to fool everyone b/c he's got some mental faults.... says who? What shrink testified to these psychological problems of his? You can pay a shrink to say pretty much anything... just turn on the TV and you can see that...... but where is guy who actually examined Scott? what does this person say about him? Right.... there isn't one.... and the only way he could have done this crime is if he was a sociopath of some kind.... except by everyones accounts, including Sharon Rocha's he was a kind man who loved Laci was was devastated when she was missing..

It isn't normal not to have compassion or remorse when your pregnant wife disappears, whether or not you are the person who made her disappear. Scott was even trying to seduce Anne Bird's babysitter. This is the mindset of someone with APD, which can be diagnosed, from such blatant behaviors, without clinicians having to seeing him in person. Laci's family isn't the first to believe her husband loved her and wouldn't harm her. I've heard it so many times before and after, the most recent from Patty Porter, who said the Bobby Cutts who murdered her daughter, Jessie Davis, isn't the same Bobby Cutts she knew before. These men are chameleons whose appearance changes with their current environment.

it doesn't add up.... the CE for murder in the 1st isn't there..Voluntary manslaughter maybe....but premeditated 1st degree murder? Nope.... not a chance.. or the CE tells me they just got the wrong guy....:shrug:

That Scott told Amber he'd lost his wife, two weeks before Laci disappeared, bought a boat which he kept secret, bought cement and made 5 anchors, told Amber he would spend more time with her in January is powerful CE of Laci's murder having been premeditated.

Hi Ekg! :seeya:

ETA: Oops, if forgot to add, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Maybe he should have googled "proper gear for sturgeon fishing". He was totally unprepared for that activity.

Hi DD..

Can you find any place in the TS where anyone (including police officers...detectives) testified that Scott told them he went fishing for Sturgeons?

He did search extensively for Striped Bass..Green Sturgeons..in addition, he went to the department of fish and game website to read about fishing regulations...however, according to testimony, the ocean rod that was found in his boat and the lure that was found in his tackle box that was in his boat were suitable for fishing in the bay for Striped Bass.....

[ekg]

The problem I have with your post here is that all these points have been fully addressed just since I have been here. So, either you have ignored them, dismissed them, or haven’t read them. So, what is your purpose for this debate if you are unwilling to be objective? Is this an exercise in proving your debating skills? Seriously, why are you here in this specific forum on this case?

I like ya Frydaddy, you know that....so don't take this the wrong way...

with that said..... I could ask you or any G the same thing...

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked why I don't agree with the verdict. What my definition of CE is, why can't I see that all the CE points in only one direction b/c it's so overwhelming,I must not believe in CE,How can I expect to think like a killer,explain how someone else could have done it, explain why someone else would have done it... etc etc etc...

the point is we're here b/c we're here...we're here not for the die hards but for the new ones to the case who might not know WTH happened.. we're here for the support of Laci's family and we're here to keep supporting Scott and his... I can't change your mind can I? AW2B can't change adnoids mind.....why do we argue whether something is appealable or not? we're not lawyers or 9th circuit judges nothing we think matters..right?

'"If nothing can change your mind then why are you here?" is a question better left unasked wouldn't you agree?

[deputydi]

<snip>I know I can't expect to think like a killer... but why did he take so much care to commit the perfect crime and then go on to implicate himself over and over again. If he would have never called Amber after the 24th,told LE about Amber w/i the 1st 48hrs, never sold the car, never spoke to the media.... he coulda been set... but instead he went about his normal life like he didn't have a care in the world b/c he didn't commit a crime....and after months of intense scrutiny and then arrest and more months sitting in his cell...... he never once caved.. <snip>
Scott is the poster child of narcissistic behavior. :read:

He truly believed that the world would see him exactly as he sees himself. The perfect son, husband, lover, neighbor, law abiding citizen and would never seriously consider him a suspect. Scott will never implicate himself because to do so would be to admit he isn't the perfect anything. The closest he came to confessing was when he told Amber "I didn't do it, but I know who did." I think he has even convinced himself that he is innocent.

[TopGunner]

Hi DD..

Can you find any place in the TS where anyone (including police officers...detectives) testified that Scott told them he went fishing for Sturgeons?

He did search extensively for Striped Bass..Green Sturgeons..in addition, he went to the department of fish and game website to read about fishing regulations...however, according to testimony, the ocean rod that was found in his boat and the lure that was found in his tackle box that was in his boat were suitable for fishing in the bay for Striped Bass.....



In ISP first recorded interview w/Brochinni on the evening of the 24th he said he was fishing for sturgeon.

[deputydi]

Hi DD..

Can you find any place in the TS where anyone (including police officers...detectives) testified that Scott told them he went fishing for Sturgeons?

He did search extensively for Striped Bass..Green Sturgeons..in addition, he went to the department of fish and game website to read about fishing regulations...however, according to testimony, the ocean rod that was found in his boat and the lure that was found in his tackle box that was in his boat were suitable for fishing in the bay for Striped Bass.....
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/072604_ctv.html
When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

The kind of conspiracy needed to conceal a live Laci for 2, 3 or 4 months just can't be kept secret. Someone always gets ticked off and tells someone else who tells someone else who tells . . . . . This is exactly how those conspirators always get caught.

But People did talk..

1-The Aponte's report ...I have no reason to doubt Lt. Aponte's report..he had nothing to gain, he didn't even talk to the media..he had no motive to lie..he named the people that talked about the confrontation between Laci and Todd, the burglar..Adam Tenbrink and his brother Shawn Tenbrink had that conversation according to Aponte..

2-Mr. R...he sent a letter to the prosecution that he had information regarding the ABDUCTION of Laci Peterson...the prosecution turned it over to the defense close to the end of the trial..when the defense investigator interviewed Mr. R...he supplied them with names including Adam Tenbrink..when the defense ran those names on their database..they found the notation about the Aponte's report that the prosecution had turned over to them..so Mr R. info basically corroborated the Aponte's report..

IMO, two independent sources led to the same conclusion: that Laci had an encounter with the burglars that led to her abduction according to Mr. R..
The defense investigator interviewed Adam Tenbrink who told them that Todd approached him on Dec 24th to help him in a burglary that had already started...

[attorneywan2be]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/072604_ctv.html

When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.




I searched the entire TS..no officer had testified that Scott told him he was fishing for Sturgeons..if someone has that testimony ..please post it...TIA

[attorneywan2be]

In ISP first recorded interview w/Brochinni on the evening of the 24th he said he was fishing for sturgeon.

No he didn't...I read the entire interview..please post a link to it..TIA

[TopGunner]

Yes he did. It's in Criers book.

[Hey Paula]

No he didn't...I read the entire interview..please post a link to it..TIA

Hi Aw2B!

Here is an excerpt, followed by a link, to Harriet Ryan's CTV trial notes:

EXCERPT:

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — The San Francisco Bay's preeminent sturgeon fishing expert testified Monday that it was all but impossible for Scott Peterson to catch one of the massive fish with the equipment he carried to the bay the day his wife vanished.

Prosecutors called Angelo Cuanang, a commercial fisherman and author of two guides to sturgeon fishing, to cast doubt on the double-murder defendant's angling alibi.

The prosecution contends the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman used the Christmas Eve 2002 fishing trip as a cover story to dispose of his wife Laci's body.

When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.

LINK:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/072604_ctv.html

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Aw2B!

Here is an excerpt, followed by a link, to Harriet Ryan's CTV trial notes:

EXCERPT:

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — The San Francisco Bay's preeminent sturgeon fishing expert testified Monday that it was all but impossible for Scott Peterson to catch one of the massive fish with the equipment he carried to the bay the day his wife vanished.

Prosecutors called Angelo Cuanang, a commercial fisherman and author of two guides to sturgeon fishing, to cast doubt on the double-murder defendant's angling alibi.

The prosecution contends the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman used the Christmas Eve 2002 fishing trip as a cover story to dispose of his wife Laci's body.

When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.

LINK:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/072604_ctv.html

Hi Paula..

Thanks for the link..but I would not consider it a reliable report simply because there was ample opportunity for the officers or detectives to testify in court that Scott told them he went fishing for Sturgeons...they didn't..in addition, Scott didn't say he was fishing for sturgeons to Brocchini in the recorded interview...

[TopGunner]

Hi Paula..

Thanks for the link..but I would not consider it a reliable report simply because there was ample opportunity for the officers or detectives to testify in court that Scott told them he went fishing for Sturgeons...they didn't..in addition, Scott didn't say he was fishing for sturgeons to Brocchini in the recorded interview...


So you are saying that ISP never said he was fishing for Sturgeon? I know he did, so now I have to go and dig it up.........fine.

[TopGunner]

OK, this is more of what Paula posted and then I'll go upstairs and get Crier's book. My question here is to you AW2B. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the LE made up the Sturgeon story? Then why didn't the defense bring that up during cross?

"Most recreational fisherman don't have near the knowledge of sturgeon fishing that you do," asked Harris.

"On the average, no," Cuanang said.

The expert admitted that the technique he used was the ideal, but not the only way to catch fish.

"People go out in the bay and catch sturgeon without these ideal conditions?" Harris asked.

"Yes," Cuanang said.

Regarding something heavier

Both sides also tried to use the expert fisherman's testimony to address whether Peterson could have pushed his 157-pound wife's body out of the boat without capsizing it. Cuanang said he had no problem returning a 90-pound sturgeon to the water after catching it.

"You keep pushing them, eventually there's enough body weight forward and it'll just slide right in," he said.

During cross-examination, Harris tried to downplay the statement, saying Cuanang was not speaking of a 150- to 200-pound fish. The fisherman, however, said he felt he could push out the larger fish too. Trying to recover from the apparently unexpected answer, Harris suggested Cuanang did not mean he could do so while the boat was moving, only when it was securely anchored.

"I could do it anchored or drifting," Cuanang replied

[ekg]

I am certainly not an advocate of innocent people being convicted, but I'm also pretty sure if there was a fool-proof way to decide, it'd be in place.

I'm also curious to know if because innocent people have been convicted (although the percentages are small), does that mean all the guilties should walk? I really don't understand the point.

The article was clear on where they came up with these stats. They said Northwest. They also said: The study did not look at enough cases to prove that these numbers are true across the country, Spencer cautioned.

the point was AW2B and FD were talking about ppl being exonerated after the being convicted... and the article was in today's drudge and related to what they were talking about..... so I posted it

[attorneywan2be]

The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

:tongue:

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Published on behalf of The Society for Empirical Legal Studies and Cornell Law School

Edited by:
Theodore Eisenberg, Michael Heise, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Stewart J. Schwab, and Martin T. Wells

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) fills a gap in the legal and social science literature that has often left scholars, lawyers, and policymakers without basic knowledge of legal systems. Always timely and provocative, studies published in JELS have been covered in leading news outlets such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Forbes Magazine, the Financial Times, and USA Today.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1740-1453&site=1

[attorneywan2be]

OK, this is more of what Paula posted and then I'll go upstairs and get Crier's book. My question here is to you AW2B. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the LE made up the Sturgeon story? Then why didn't the defense bring that up during cross?

Snip



The LE didn't testify that Scott told them he went fishing for sturgeons...so there was no reason for the defense to question them about it during cross!!

[ekg]

Because it depends on a couple of things. Give me your scenario - I'll give you mine:

I believe the evidence shows that Scott killed Laci sometime after she spoke with Sharon on 12/23 and the morning of 12/24, took her body to the bay with Conner still in her uterus, dumped them in the bay with weights attached, and months later their bodies washed up on the shore. Therefore I only need Scott, and I only need him active on 12/23 to 12/24.

Now, if you think Laci was kept alive and Conner was born alive, you've got to have enough people involved to watch her 24/7 so she doesn't escape, care for her and Conner (non trivial even for a routine delivery, to say nothing of a never before recorded method of C-section), get them food and water, etc. If some of those people are the burglars, you're going to need people to spell them while the burglars are in custody. If some of those people are Ron, Amber, Brent, Sharron, Dennis, etc. you're going to need people to spell them for all the time they were known to be searching for Laci.

If you think Laci and Conner's bodies were decomposed in a giant salt water tank also used for breeding barnacles to attach to Laci's body, you're going to need a location for such an installation, people that know how to keep salt water dwelling arthropods alive in an environment of decaying flesh, and enough people to move and transport the bodies to where they were "placed" on the shore.

Regardless, you've got to find people not motivated by the $500,000 reward that was offered, and criminals so honorable that not a one of them would turn in their conspirators for that same reward.

No, I'm not real bright, I'll admit that. But I just can't see how Scott could be framed. And I haven't even touched on WHY someone would want to frame Scott.

So, tell me what YOU think happened, and I'll tell you how many people I figure would have to conspire to do it.


I don't know what happened but I know it wouldn't take more than one person to do it....

Michael J. Devlin kidnapped Shawn Aker by himself and kept him for what? 4 years?

the woman who killed Bobbi Jo Stinnett and cut her baby from her didn't have any help

only 2 ppl stole and kept Elizabeth Smith

Kelsey Smith was abducted from a parking lot in broad daylight by one man

Shasta Groene and her brother were kidnapped and held by one man who killed her whole family to get to them...

why would it take more than one person to abducted and hold Laci?

why would Scott be framed? If you did it and you killed her and you didn't want to get caught.. maybe you kept her in an abandoned building for a few days and she died so you took her to a marshy-like area around town... but were getting scared that she'd be found.... where is the best place to put her to get the cops off of you? who could you implicate to get the cops off you? in fact where is the only place you can put her where you are guaranteed to get away with it? why do that? b/c if she's found anywhere other than the bay LE releases Scott as a suspect and starts to look at other ppl..

was there an unstable person around Scott or Laci? a person who did irrational things like breaking into house and trying on the wedding dress? a person who lived in the area where the dogs trailed Laci's scent but were taken off b/c the handler didn't think the dogs were right? a person who had a crush on Scott maybe? or like to pretend to be his wife and maybe wanted to pretend to be the mother of his child?


did the ME completely rule out that there wasn't a c-section? I don't remember...could the 'worn away' part of the uterus actually been sliced and then worn thin by water? like a pair of jeans would do if you slice them and the wash and dry them repeatedly? Like would have also been needed have the calcium deposits on her pants, how is that possible for her to wet and then dry if she's on the bottom of the bay? It can't be that she was floating.. there wasn't enough left of her to float was there?

Why is there caffeine in her system and not Connors? Caffeine crosses the placenta so if she ingested it while Connor was still inside her, it would have been found in him.....so why wasn't it?

could she have been in the marshy albany bulb the whole time? isn't that a better track for her body to then be located where it was washed up?

she only needed to be in the bay for 12hrs to have the barnacles attached remember? I know you don't like that fact but I did post numerous literature showing that they only need (at the least) 6 hrs to form..so theoretically she didn't have to be there that long..

I can't come up with every detail of how the crime could be done.. I just don't have the imagination/capability to do that.......

[ekg]

This is an interesting article, but I'd like to know more. For instance -- of the 290 cases that were examined, how did they determine that 17% of the jury verdicts were wrong? Did someone look at the transcript and decide the defendant had to be innocent? Was it because they were found not guilty at a retrial? Were they actually exonerated and, if so, how?

The Innocence Project is a worthy endeavor and has freed many wrongly convicted men and women (not really sure about "many" women). It's unfair IMO to use this as an example of wrongful convictions TODAY, however. The vast majority of men being exonerated due to the Project were originally convicted of rape at a time when DNA testing was either non-existent or in its infancy. DNA testing has proven the eyewitness testimony that played a huge part in convicting them was WRONG.

I don't want to see any innocent man or woman railroaded into a conviction but I also don't want to see a guilty man go unpunished either. Scott's not going to be executed IMO -- ever. I truly believe the 9th Circuit will commute his sentence to LWOP. Even if they don't, he will have 20 years to prove he didn't murder Laci and Conner.

I think the the Duke/Nifong thing proves that even in this day and age the good guys aren't always good..

I dont know much about the innocence project.. I'd like to,I just haven't checked into it.... I don't know if Barry Scheck is part of it, but I think he's consulted on the WM3 murders......(which is the crime that brought me into the Peterson case ).. but it seems like they do a pretty good job when it comes to DNA stuff. problem is not all crimes have DNA...

anyway...my long drawn out point was(lol) that I don't know enough to answer your questions.... I'm sorry...

[cookiewench]

maybe you kept her in an abandoned building for a few days and she died so you took her to a marshy-like area around town... but were getting scared that she'd be found.... where is the best place to put her to get the cops off of you? who could you implicate to get the cops off you? in fact where is the only place you can put her where you are guaranteed to get away with it? why do that? b/c if she's found anywhere other than the bay LE releases Scott as a suspect and starts to look at other ppl..



did the ME completely rule out that there wasn't a c-section?

Why is there caffeine in her system and not Connors? Caffeine crosses the placenta so if she ingested it while Connor was still inside her, it would have been found in him.....so why wasn't it?


she only needed to be in the bay for 12hrs to have the barnacles attached remember?

First of all: yes, the ME did completely rule out a C-section, the reason Conner didn't have caffeine in his system was explained at trial, and I think we already established that newly-attached barnacles would have been so microscopically-small that the ME would have definitely noted that they were newly-attached. He also said that her body showed evidence of having been in a "marine environment" for 3-6 months.


What I would like to know, though, is - how did this mystery person get Scott to do all of the guilty things that he did and said, and why would this person have the cops "on them"? We already know that by that time the main suspect was Scott, and only Scott. No matter where her body had been found, there was no one else under suspicion but Scott. There was no "heat" on anyone else.

How did this person manage to kidnap Laci in the few minutes between the time Scott left and the dog was found?

How did they get Scott to tell two different people almost a month before that this would be his first Christmas without his "lost" wife?

How did they get him to make anchors and then have them disappear along with the concrete he made them with, how did they get him to switch from golfing to fishing because it was "too cold" (which make NO sense), how did they get him to say he was fishing but not be able to say what he was fishing for, and to have unused tackle which showed that he hadn't fished for anything?

How did they get him to take his boat tarp and put it under a leaky grass blower in his shed? Is there ONE other person in this universe who'd have his wife abducted and then immediately start moving his boat tarp around to odd places? Who would even think of a boat cover at a time like that?

How did this person get Scott to tell three people that he'd been golfing while telling others he'd been fishing? How did they get him to smile and call Amber during Laci's vigil? How did they get him to do that whistle when he found that it wasn't Laci's body that was located in the bay? How did they get him to behave in ways that indicated that he knew Laci wasn't coming home again (ordering porn, selling car, trying to sell house, continuing affair with Amber)?

[cookiewench]

The LE didn't testify that Scott told them he went fishing for sturgeons...so there was no reason for the defense to question them about it during cross!!

IIRC, the sturgeon was mentioned to Sharon, not to LE. Sharon asked Scott one night what he had been fishing for, and he just stared at her and smirked. Then Janey answered for him, and said "Sturgeon".

[Wearing A Halo]

But People did talk..

1-The Aponte's report ...I have no reason to doubt Lt. Aponte's report..he had nothing to gain, he didn't even talk to the media..he had no motive to lie..he named the people that talked about the confrontation between Laci and Todd, the burglar..Adam Tenbrink and his brother Shawn Tenbrink had that conversation according to Aponte..

2-Mr. R...he sent a letter to the prosecution that he had information regarding the ABDUCTION of Laci Peterson...the prosecution turned it over to the defense close to the end of the trial..when the defense investigator interviewed Mr. R...he supplied them with names including Adam Tenbrink..when the defense ran those names on their database..they found the notation about the Aponte's report that the prosecution had turned over to them..so Mr R. info basically corroborated the Aponte's report..

IMO, two independent sources led to the same conclusion: that Laci had an encounter with the burglars that led to her abduction according to Mr. R..
The defense investigator interviewed Adam Tenbrink who told them that Todd approached him on Dec 24th to help him in a burglary that had already started...

#1.

Who is this defense investigator who interviewed AT; what is his (or her) name?

#2.

Do you know what ever became of Lt. X. Aponte, of the infamous Aponte report?

[attorneywan2be]

IIRC, the sturgeon was mentioned to Sharon, not to LE. Sharon asked Scott one night what he had been fishing for, and he just stared at her and smirked. Then Janey answered for him, and said "Sturgeon".

It was important for the prosecution to show that Scott told people that he went fishing for sturgeons..why? because they had evidence that the rod and the lure he had on his boat were not suitable for sturgeons but were suitable for Striped Bass..they didn't have anyone testify that Scott ever mentioned that he went fishing for Sturgeons..NO ONE testified to that...period!

[cookiewench]

It was important for the prosecution to show that Scott told people that he went fishing for sturgeons..why? because they had evidence that the rod and the lure he had on his boat were not suitable for sturgeons but were suitable for Striped Bass..they didn't have anyone testify that Scott ever mentioned that he went fishing for Sturgeons..NO ONE testified to that...period!


Are you saying that you don't believe that Scott ever mentioned that he was Sturgeon fishing to anyone? Do you believe they just made that up? The rod & lure hadn't been used anyway - so, he couldn't have been fishing for anything.

[attorneywan2be]

#1.

Who is this defense investigator who interviewed AT; what is his (or her) name?

#2.

Do you know what ever became of Lt. X. Aponte, of the infamous Aponte report?


1- The prosecution interviewed Mr R then turned over the interview to the defense few weeks before the end of the trial..then the defense sent their investigator Carl Jensen and Pat Harris to interview Mr R..
2-The tip from Lt Aponte was received by MPD..during discovery the prosecution turned over to the defense a small notation regarding the Aponte's report..no details were given..
3-Defense investigator Carl Jensen interviewed Adam Tenbrink (AT)


From the defense motion for a new trial:

A. Background Facts

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.

Investigator Jensen contacted NORCO officials and was eventually put in touch with a Lt. Xavier Aponte. Lt. Aponte stated that the tape recorded conversation, although over a year and one half old, might still be retrievable because they had put in a new system prior to that phone call that preserved tapes over a longer time period. Since then, he began making efforts to secure the tape. He also told Investigator Jensen that he recalled the conversation and had even made a separate recording because he thought it might be important at a later date. Most importantly, he had contacted Modesto Police about it at the time and they had responded a short time later. Lt. Aponte did not recall whether they came to the facility and interviewed ST directly or whether the MPD did the interview over the phone. Either way, he knew that ST was interviewed sometime in early 2003. (See signed interview of Lt. Aponte, attached as Exhibit A.)

None of the interview notes of ST or any record of Modesto Police conversations with Lt. Aponte or any follow-up interviews the police may have done were ever provided to the defense.

Investigator Jensen also tracked down AT in Modesto and spoke with him. AT acknowledged that Stephen Todd was a close friend and that Todd had approached him on the evening of December 24, 2002, about helping him with a burglary that was already started. This directly contradicts Todd's prior statement that the burglary occurred on December 26th. When Jensen began to question AT about the prison phone calls or about Todd confronting Laci Peterson, he refused to talk further.

After further conversations with Lt. Aponte, it was determined that he could not locate the taped recordings. The defense then subpoenaed the phone call records from NORCO. Officials at NORCO were very cooperative but after a lengthy search and several delays, they too were unable to locate the tapes. As a result, Investigator Jensen traveled to NORCO and interviewed Lt. Aponte in person. After completing the interview, Jensen wrote a report which Lt. Aponte then read and initialed and dated to indicate his approval. (See attached Exhibit A; see also Declaration of Pat Harris, post.)

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

DECLARATION OF PAT HARRIS

I, PAT HARRIS, declares as follows:

1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if called as a witness I could and would completely testify thereto.

2. I am co-counsel representing Scott Lee Peterson in the criminal matter currently pending before this Court.

3. Near the completion of the prosecution's case against Scott Peterson, I received a report and a letter from the Stanislaus District Attorney's Investigators about an inmate in a Stanislaus County jail who allegedly had information about the abduction of Laci Peterson.

4. Defense Investigator Carl Jensen and I traveled to Modesto and met with the inmate. He provided us with several names of people he felt would be of interest. When the names were run on the computer database, it led to the discovery of a tip buried in the hundreds of pages of discovery. This tip was a very brief notation of a phone call from the state prison in NORCO to Modesto Police alerting them to a potential lead in the Laci Peterson investigation.

5. I asked Mr. Jensen to follow-up on this lead and to arrange to get tapes of the phone call. When he was unable to procure the tapes, I sent Mr. Jensen to NORCO to deliver a subpoena for the tapes and to interview the prison officials. Mr. Jensen then provided the defense with an interview of Lt. Xavier Aponte from December 24, 2004, which is included in this motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: February 25, 2005



[signature]

PAT HARRIS

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

[attorneywan2be]

Are you saying that you don't believe that Scott ever mentioned that he was Sturgeon fishing to anyone? Do you believe they just made that up? The rod & lure hadn't been used anyway - so, he couldn't have been fishing for anything.

The lure I'm referring to was a used lure that was found in the tackle box that was in his boat..the rod was an ocean rod that was found in his boat..and according to testimony, both the rod and the lure are suitable for fishing for Striped Bass in salt water

The point is: no one testified that Scott said he went fishing for sturgeons..both Brocchini and Grogan interviewed him..in the recorded interview with Brocchini, he stated that he was trolling and that he went there to get his boat in the water...

[cookiewench]

The lure I'm referring to was a used lure that was found in the tackle box that was in his boat..the rod was an ocean rod that was found in his boat..and according to testimony, both the rod and the lure are suitable for fishing for Striped Bass in salt water

The point is: no one testified that Scott said he went fishing for sturgeons..both Brocchini and Grogan interviewed him..in the recorded interview with Brocchini, he stated that he was trolling and that he went there to get his boat in the water...


I was actually asking if you, personally, believe that Scott never told LE (or Sharon - through Janey) that he had been fishing for Sturgeon?

Do you believe that they just made this up?

[attorneywan2be]

I was actually asking if you, personally, believe that Scott never told LE (or Sharon - through Janey) that he had been fishing for Sturgeon?

Do you believe that they just made this up?

No, my personal opinion.. I think there was some kind of misunderstanding..I believe Scott was eventually planning to fish for sturgeons at one point..he did research the fishing sites for sturgeons among other fish..he probably talked about it, as far as I remember, I'm not positive, but I think Janey mentioned on a TV program, maybe LKL, that Scott talked about reading an article about Sturgeons...so it's quite possible they thought he went fishing for sturgeons that day..but I strongly believe that had Scott told the police that he went fishing for sturgeons they would have testified about it..again they didn't...

[cookiewench]

I don't recall when and to how many people Scott said that he was sturgeon fishing - but it must have been public enough that it was accepted fact.

I can't find where Geragos tried to block the testimony about sturgeon fishing - which he would have if he were ready to argue that Scott never claimed that he was sturgeon fishing.

Also, Pat Harris defended Scott's choice of lure & pole to the "sturgeon" witness, when he was asked if it were possible to fish for sturgeon with Scott's equipment, even though it wouldn't have been the best choice.

Perhaps Scott's claims about sturgeon fishing were presented at the preliminary hearing?


As a funny aside........if you do a search of "Peterson - sturgeon" you'll get a link to the "Sturgeon-Peterson Family Tree" on rootsweb.

[cookiewench]

No, my personal opinion.. I think there was some kind of misunderstanding..I believe Scott was eventually planning to fish for sturgeons at one point..he did research the fishing sites for sturgeons among other fish..he probably talked about it, as far as I remember, I'm not positive, but I think Janey mentioned on a TV program, maybe LKL, that Scott talked about reading an article about Sturgeons...so it's quite possible they thought he went fishing for sturgeons that day..but I strongly believe that had Scott told the police that he went fishing for sturgeons they would have testified about it..again they didn't...

Do you believe that Sharon was lying when she said that she asked Scott and that he just sat there staring/smirking at her - til Janey finally said that he had been fishing for sturgeon?

Do you also believe that, if Scott hadn't told LE that he was sturgeon fishing and it wasn't in the record somewhere, that Geragos wouldn't have fought (and won!) having the sturgeon testimony presented?

[cookiewench]

It would have been:

Pros: "We are now going to present our sturgeon-fishing witness."

Geragos: "Objection! There is no evidence that the defendent ever claimed he was sturgeon fishing!"

Judge: "Objection sustained. Sturgeon-fishing witness denied."



Geragos is kinda goofy - but he would have NEVER let that one get by him.

[Wearing A Halo]

1- The prosecution interviewed Mr R then turned over the interview to the defense few weeks before the end of the trial..then the defense sent their investigator Carl Jensen and Pat Harris to interview Mr R..
2-The tip from Lt Aponte was received by MPD..during discovery the prosecution turned over to the defense a small notation regarding the Aponte's report..no details were given..
3-Defense investigator Carl Jensen interviewed Adam Tenbrink (AT)


From the defense motion for a new trial:

A. Background Facts

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.

Investigator Jensen contacted NORCO officials and was eventually put in touch with a Lt. Xavier Aponte. Lt. Aponte stated that the tape recorded conversation, although over a year and one half old, might still be retrievable because they had put in a new system prior to that phone call that preserved tapes over a longer time period. Since then, he began making efforts to secure the tape. He also told Investigator Jensen that he recalled the conversation and had even made a separate recording because he thought it might be important at a later date. Most importantly, he had contacted Modesto Police about it at the time and they had responded a short time later. Lt. Aponte did not recall whether they came to the facility and interviewed ST directly or whether the MPD did the interview over the phone. Either way, he knew that ST was interviewed sometime in early 2003. (See signed interview of Lt. Aponte, attached as Exhibit A.)

None of the interview notes of ST or any record of Modesto Police conversations with Lt. Aponte or any follow-up interviews the police may have done were ever provided to the defense.

Investigator Jensen also tracked down AT in Modesto and spoke with him. AT acknowledged that Stephen Todd was a close friend and that Todd had approached him on the evening of December 24, 2002, about helping him with a burglary that was already started. This directly contradicts Todd's prior statement that the burglary occurred on December 26th. When Jensen began to question AT about the prison phone calls or about Todd confronting Laci Peterson, he refused to talk further.

After further conversations with Lt. Aponte, it was determined that he could not locate the taped recordings. The defense then subpoenaed the phone call records from NORCO. Officials at NORCO were very cooperative but after a lengthy search and several delays, they too were unable to locate the tapes. As a result, Investigator Jensen traveled to NORCO and interviewed Lt. Aponte in person. After completing the interview, Jensen wrote a report which Lt. Aponte then read and initialed and dated to indicate his approval. (See attached Exhibit A; see also Declaration of Pat Harris, post.)

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

DECLARATION OF PAT HARRIS

I, PAT HARRIS, declares as follows:

1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if called as a witness I could and would completely testify thereto.

2. I am co-counsel representing Scott Lee Peterson in the criminal matter currently pending before this Court.

3. Near the completion of the prosecution's case against Scott Peterson, I received a report and a letter from the Stanislaus District Attorney's Investigators about an inmate in a Stanislaus County jail who allegedly had information about the abduction of Laci Peterson.

4. Defense Investigator Carl Jensen and I traveled to Modesto and met with the inmate. He provided us with several names of people he felt would be of interest. When the names were run on the computer database, it led to the discovery of a tip buried in the hundreds of pages of discovery. This tip was a very brief notation of a phone call from the state prison in NORCO to Modesto Police alerting them to a potential lead in the Laci Peterson investigation.

5. I asked Mr. Jensen to follow-up on this lead and to arrange to get tapes of the phone call. When he was unable to procure the tapes, I sent Mr. Jensen to NORCO to deliver a subpoena for the tapes and to interview the prison officials. Mr. Jensen then provided the defense with an interview of Lt. Xavier Aponte from December 24, 2004, which is included in this motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: February 25, 2005



[signature]

PAT HARRIS

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

"Burglarizing the house next door."

The house next door to whom?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip


Geragos is kinda goofy -


Snip




You're too kind....LOL

I think Geragos was a disaster..that's why I don't rely on the argument "if it's true ..Geragos would've ..."

[cookiewench]

You're too kind....LOL

I think Geragos was a disaster..that's why I don't rely on the argument "if it's true ..Geragos would've ..."

What about Pat Harris, who defended Scott's use of that rod & lure for sturgeon?

With all of the people on Geragos's team, I really think it's impossible that one of them would have realized it if Scott hadn't made some statement, somewhere to LE or in a public venue.

[attorneywan2be]

"Burglarizing the house next door."

The house next door to whom?


I think they were referring to the Medina's house..it is not next door to Laci's.. it is across the street from Laci's..

[attorneywan2be]

What about Pat Harris, who defended Scott's use of that rod & lure for sturgeon?

With all of the people on Geragos's team, I really think it's impossible that one of them would have realized it if Scott hadn't made some statement, somewhere to LE or in a public venue.

I think Pat Harris is as goofy as Geragos if not worse..IMO, his cross examination should be taught in law schools as an example of what a defense attorney should not do..

[Wearing A Halo]

I think they were referring to the Medina's house..it is not next door to Laci's.. it is across the street from Laci's..

The report was/is all wrong. Wrong house, wrong time and wrong tip. This report will never be brought up again. MG had this info way before the trial started and he tried to bring in as a last ditch effort, but not.

BTW-did you ever find out what happend to Lt. X. Aponte? Re: his job at Norco?

[Synopsis]

I think they were referring to the Medina's house..it is not next door to Laci's.. it is across the street from Laci's..

Hi atty,
It's been so long since I have been "hangin' out" I have forgotten MOST of the true facts of the Peterson case. Rather details of the facts. But I agree the Medina house was the one in reference.

As for the Sturgeon fishing, IIRC the only comment about "sturgeon fishing" was made by Janey and it quickly turned into a buzz phrase by LE......namely Brocchini, IMO.

It has always amazed me how very widespread and far-reaching the rumors and inuendos about what Scott was fishing for and what he was fishing with, when he clearly told Brocchini in the initial interview that his main objective was "just to get his boat in the water."

Good to see ya again!:beer:

[Synopsis]

Do you believe that Sharon was lying when she said that she asked Scott and that he just sat there staring/smirking at her - til Janey finally said that he had been fishing for sturgeon?

Do you also believe that, if Scott hadn't told LE that he was sturgeon fishing and it wasn't in the record somewhere, that Geragos wouldn't have fought (and won!) having the sturgeon testimony presented?

I remember that Janey Peterson made the comment on an LKL show in February 2003, but I don't remember her responding to a question asked of Scott by Sharon.:shrug:

Which is not to say that wasn't reported, I just don't remember ever reading that. ...it's been a long time. :D

[frydaddy]

I like ya Frydaddy, you know that....so don't take this the wrong way...

with that said..... I could ask you or any G the same thing...

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked why I don't agree with the verdict. What my definition of CE is, why can't I see that all the CE points in only one direction b/c it's so overwhelming,I must not believe in CE,How can I expect to think like a killer,explain how someone else could have done it, explain why someone else would have done it... etc etc etc...

the point is we're here b/c we're here...we're here not for the die hards but for the new ones to the case who might not know WTH happened.. we're here for the support of Laci's family and we're here to keep supporting Scott and his... I can't change your mind can I? AW2B can't change adnoids mind.....why do we argue whether something is appealable or not? we're not lawyers or 9th circuit judges nothing we think matters..right?

'"If nothing can change your mind then why are you here?" is a question better left unasked wouldn't you agree?

Actually, I've answered why I am here before. In short, it's because I like the people who post here and because I am interested in both why people think SP is innocent and if they will come up with new theories/facts that might cause a successful appeal. We've gone over this point before, YOU have acknowledged far more than any other as far as Scott's potentially being guilty. And, I seldom, if ever, see you dodge a question or issue. So, it's not a valid question to ask you. But it is valid for others, IMO. Doesn't it ever surprise you that people acknowledge nothing negative towards Scott and they seldom answer the tougher questions? Why is it that you end up being the spokesmodel? <--Sly reference to Star Search - remember that? LOL

Also, a question for you to consider. SII's have a pretty high standard for finding guilt in a defendant. You think many of them have ever considered that maybe they are the ones who aren't ideal candidates to be jurors, that they expect too much of the criminal justice system in proving guilt? I know I've considered the inverse many times over. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that most advocates would never let that thought enter their mind. Relative to the CJ system as a whole, that is troubling for me.

At any rate, you have a good day E, TGIF!

[Miss Bootsie]

It was important for the prosecution to show that Scott told people that he went fishing for sturgeons..why? because they had evidence that the rod and the lure he had on his boat were not suitable for sturgeons but were suitable for Striped Bass..they didn't have anyone testify that Scott ever mentioned that he went fishing for Sturgeons..NO ONE testified to that...period!


We just had a discussion not long ago on the "Points to Innocence thread" about the rod and lure - Striped Bass.


I see you chose to ignore what has already been proven to you.Cuanang (fishing expert), did not testify the rod and lure were suitable for Striped Bass.
Much the opposite.




Originally posted by Miss Bootsie:
If you read Cuanang's testimony in it's entirety, it doesn't take an avid fisherman to recognize the fact, Scott didn't have the appropriate bait to fish for Sturgeon or Striped bass.
Also, note the testimony about the rod. lol



DISTASO: Let me ask you about Striped Bass fishing. Striped Bass fishing can also be done in the bay; is that right?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: And when is the primary season that people fish for Striped Bass?

CUANANG: Spring, summer, early fall.

DISTASO: And why is that? Why are those good times to fish for this particular kind of fish?

CUANANG: These are, when the fish move down into the system from the Delta region, they feed actually in the Bay system. There are lots of bait fish down there. The Anchovies, Sardines, small bait fish, they come to feed.

DISTASO: In the wintertime, does the Striped Bass, do they feed differently?

CUANANG: They do. Once the water cools off, when it starts getting colder, the metabolism of the Striper changes. They are not chasing as actively. Then they settle down to the bottom. They feed more on the bottom like a Sturgeon.

DISTASO: If you were going to fish for Striped Bass in the wintertime, what type, what kind of rig or terminal tackle would you use?

CUANANG: I would use a rig like what I showed you, and I would go anchor fishing up in the San Pablo Bay.

DISTASO: So you would basically, in a sense, do the same thing you are doing for the Sturgeon?

CUANANG: Correct.

DISTASO: Would you use the same kind of baits?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: And what are, just what are some of the baits you could use?

CUANANG: The primary baits up in that region at that time, your ghost shrimp, grass shrimp, and mud shrimps.

DISTASO: During the spring and summer months, can you fish for Striped Bass with lures?

CUANANG: ]Yes.

DISTASO: And a lure is, just for the jury's information, is how would you describe the lure?

CUANANG: It's an artificial, made out of metal or wood, with hooks attached to it. Of course, when moving through the water, it represents a bait fish. And the predatory fish like Stripers, of course, tries to eat this imitation.

DISTASO: So during the spring, summer, and early fall months, the fish are feeding on bait fish more than on bottom species?

CUANANG: Correct.

DISTASO: And then they, as the water cools, their metabolism slows down, they kind of switch to a different feeding style?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: Now, as part of this case were you asked to look at some particular fishing equipment?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: Let me show you this rod here. Defense V-1. Defendant's V, as in Victor, 1. And have you seen this rod?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: You have previously looked at this?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: Would you say this rod is rigged for Sturgeon fishing?

CUANANG: No.

DISTASO:And this lure that's on the end of it here, what primarily would this lure be used for?


CUANANG: Fresh water Black Bass.

DISTASO: Do you see any other kind of terminal tackle that you would need on this particular rod to fish for bait for either Sturgeon or Striped Bass in the wintertime?

CUANANG: No.

Quote:

DISTASO: What about for Striped Bass? What about for Striped Bass fishing?

CUANANG: Yes, you could use it for Stripers.

DISTASO: And it has a lure weight of one to three ounces. What does that mean?

CUANANG: That is the weight that works best with that particular type of rod.

DISTASO: And what do you mean by works best?

CUANANG: Easy to cast, is not too heavy, won't break the rod tip when you cast.

DISTASO: The kind of weights that you need to use for Sturgeon fishing or Striped Bass fishing with bait are from what size? Like this sinker here is how many ounces?

CUANANG: That's four ounces, all the way up to a pound. Because the currents really move very quickly in the bay at times. Up to a pound.

DISTASO: So for bait fishing on the bottom, you need to use weights from anywhere from roughly four ounces to a full pound?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: Would you be able to cast a full pound weight from that particular rod that I just showed you?

CUANANG: Not easily. I could do it, but not very easily.

DISTASO: Would it take someone who has a lot of experience fishing?

CUANANG: Yeah, I would say so. Yes.

DISTASO: These other rods, this is defendant's V-3. This rod doesn't even have a handle. Do you see that?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: In your opinion this would just not be functional?

CUANANG: That's not nothing functional.

DISTASO: And people's, I mean Defendant's V-2. This particular rod still has the tags on it. So it hasn't been used; is that right?

CUANANG: No line. Nothing on there.

[adnoid]

I don't know what happened but I know it wouldn't take more than one person to do it....<snip>...I can't come up with every detail of how the crime could be done.. I just don't have the imagination/capability to do that.......

Well, I agree that one person could have done it, I just believe that one person is Scott Peterson while you believe Scott Peterson is the only person on the face of the Earth that could NOT have done it.

What I presented was a concise scenario that explains the events consistent with the facts. Even if you don't believe Scott did it, can you argue any of the facts presented are in conflict with that scenario?

Instead, I believe you are arguing that while Scott's whereabouts were either unknown (night of 12/23 to morning of 12/24) or independently documented (after he reported Laci's disappearance), some other person was holding Laci or Laci's body. This is the SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It) defense, but to make it work we need the dude. I mean, someone could say I did it - I was never interviewed by the MPD. Simply throwing out a name or saying it could have been someone else does nothing.

Again, I laid out what I believe happened. Do you have a theory on what happened? Or are you just saying you refuse to believe Scott did it?

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*

I don't recall when and to how many people Scott said that he was sturgeon fishing - but it must have been public enough that it was accepted fact.

*Snipped*



Regardless of whether Scott told LE he was fishing for sturgeon, he did tell them he went fishing in SF Bay.

I don't know the California regulations that were in place in 2002, but I do know there are restrictions on what type of fish you are allowed to catch during different seasons of the Year.

The fishery on Sturgeon and Striped Bass is open all year.

[frydaddy]

Well, I agree that one person could have done it, I just believe that one person is Scott Peterson while you believe Scott Peterson is the only person on the face of the Earth that could NOT have done it.

What I presented was a concise scenario that explains the events consistent with the facts. Even if you don't believe Scott did it, can you argue any of the facts presented are in conflict with that scenario?

Instead, I believe you are arguing that while Scott's whereabouts were either unknown (night of 12/23 to morning of 12/24) or independently documented (after he reported Laci's disappearance), some other person was holding Laci or Laci's body. This is the SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It) defense, but to make it work we need the dude. I mean, someone could say I did it - I was never interviewed by the MPD. Simply throwing out a name or saying it could have been someone else does nothing.

Again, I laid out what I believe happened. Do you have a theory on what happened? Or are you just saying you refuse to believe Scott did it?

Question for you and the others here...I've never been a huge fan of or expert on dog scenting, so I steer away from discussions on the issue. My question though is, did dogs scent Laci at the marina and if yes, how then do the various theorists of SODDI reconcile that fact? The only facts on this is that we know Scott was there and if the dogs did scent Laci, that she was there. There's no evidence, regardless of adjective, that someone, anyone else fits the equation.

One other thing...for the group...the SII argument is much easier isn't it? If the case debate fails to free Scott, there's blaming LE for not pursuing SODDI. If blaming LE fails, there blaming MG for being a poor defender. Not to mention all the other scapegoats along the way.

Ad - your statement of "Scott was the only one who couldn't have done it" is quite astute. I'll never understand his allure to those who are willing to trash a multitude of good people to defend him...ever! What is it about this guy? :shrug:

[Miss Bootsie]

It has always amazed me how very widespread and far-reaching the rumors and inuendos about what Scott was fishing for and what he was fishing with, when he clearly told Brocchini in the initial interview that his main objective was "just to get his boat in the water."


I don't think it was during the initial interview that Scott told Brocchini, "he just wanted to get the boat in the water."
If I recall correctly, this is a statement he made to Grogan later on.

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*

the point is we're here b/c we're here...we're here not for the die hards but for the new ones to the case who might not know WTH happened
*Snipped*



Will you please elaborate on this comment ekg?

[frydaddy]

I don't think it was during the initial interview that Scott told Brocchini, "he just wanted to get the boat in the water."
If I recall correctly, this is a statement he made to Grogan later on.

G'morning Boots! Actually, Scott did mention this in the initial interview...

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?

PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.

However, this passage below was before that portion...

BROCCHINI: When did you realize you were gonna go fishin'?

PETERSON: Well, that was the morning decision, it's either

BROCCHINI: That’s a morning decision…

PETERSON: go play golf at the club, or go fishin…

Now when you add the fact that he had purchased a fishing license and lures and told Evers he was fishing ALL DAY, I'd say the fishing aspect is pretty compelling conversation. Much more so than the so called "main objectiive" or "a lot of the reason" of getting the boat in the water.

Bottom line is that Scott lied about fishing to pretend he was out doing an innocuous activity that everyone does and it just so happened that his wife went missing while he was doing it. He wasn't fishing at all and he wasn't in the water all day, not to mention that he never mentioned his purpose to Evers as being anything other than a half-wit fishing trip and NOT "getting the boat in the water to see, you know".

Having said that, I am amazed that some folks are willing to give an accused murderer a free pass on virtually everything he said that turned out to be a lie.

[attorneywan2be]

We just had a discussion not long ago on the "Points to Innocence thread" about the rod and lure - Striped Bass.


I see you chose to ignore what has already been proven to you.Cuanang (fishing expert), did not testify the rod and lure were suitable for Striped Bass.
Much the opposite.

I simply don't agree...keep in mind that according to testimony, Scott went to an area that is about 3' to 10' deep max depending on the tide...

Rick Distaso: Now, this particular rod is rated for a line weight of 18 to 20 pounds. Would this be a rod that you would take out Sturgeon fishing?
Angelo Cuanang: No.
Rick Distaso: What about for Striped Bass? What about for Striped Bass fishing?
Angelo Cuanang: Yes, you could use it for Stripers.

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

Rick Distaso: This tackle box. Let me show you Defendant's W. Have you looked inside this before?
Angelo Cuanang: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Let me just put it here on the ground in front of you. If you had to give an opinion as to what the, primarily what the equipment in there was used for, what would you say that was primarily used for?
Angelo Cuanang: I would say fresh water Black Bass, and maybe some trout.
Rick Distaso: Is there, just so we're a hundred percent clear, is there any equipment in there that at some time of the year could be used in the San Francisco Bay?
Angelo Cuanang: You could possibly use these here.
Rick Distaso: Okay. Can you pull those out, just show them to the jury?
Angelo Cuanang: Okay. Little top water plugs, you can work at times for Striped Bass when they are feeding on the surface. And this diving plug can also be used.
Rick Distaso: Those particular plugs, would these be a good lure to use when the fish are in the wintertime feeding along the bottom?
Angelo Cuanang: No.
Rick Distaso: How do, do these lures operate on the bottom? Or do they operate somewhere in the water?
Angelo Cuanang: These operate right on the surface. That one will dive.
Rick Distaso: That means it dives down. Do you know how deep it goes?
Angelo Cuanang: I'm not sure exactly how deep that one dives.
Rick Distaso: Can you give us, give the jury some estimate or some range of how far these things go down?
Angelo Cuanang: That particular lure, five to eight feet.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi atty,
It's been so long since I have been "hangin' out" I have forgotten MOST of the true facts of the Peterson case. Rather details of the facts. But I agree the Medina house was the one in reference.

As for the Sturgeon fishing, IIRC the only comment about "sturgeon fishing" was made by Janey and it quickly turned into a buzz phrase by LE......namely Brocchini, IMO.

It has always amazed me how very widespread and far-reaching the rumors and inuendos about what Scott was fishing for and what he was fishing with, when he clearly told Brocchini in the initial interview that his main objective was "just to get his boat in the water."

Good to see ya again!:beer:


Hi Synopsis..LTNS :beer:

Yep..it was on LKL where Janey said that she thinks he was fishing for sturgeons..

CALLER: Janey, I was wondering why do you think Scott traveled so far on a busy holiday leaving his pregnant wife to go fishing in the bay area when there are so many good places at the delta?

J. PETERSON: Saltwater. I think she was sturgeon fishing and that's a -- he's a fisherman and you know, when they baby comes you're not going to be fishing on Saturday mornings, you know? It was a day off for him.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/19/lkl.00.html

[Miss Bootsie]

G'morning Boots! Actually, Scott did mention this in the initial interview...

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?

PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.

However, this passage below was before that portion...

BROCCHINI: When did you realize you were gonna go fishin'?

PETERSON: Well, that was the morning decision, it's either

BROCCHINI: That’s a morning decision…

PETERSON: go play golf at the club, or go fishin…

Now when you add the fact that he had purchased a fishing license and lures and told Evers he was fishing ALL DAY, I'd say the fishing aspect is pretty compelling conversation. Much more so than the so called "main objectiive" or "a lot of the reason" of getting the boat in the water.

Bottom line is that Scott lied about fishing to pretend he was out doing an innocuous activity that everyone does and it just so happened that his wife went missing while he was doing it. He wasn't fishing at all and he wasn't in the water all day, not to mention that he never mentioned his purpose to Evers as being anything other than a half-wit fishing trip and NOT "getting the boat in the water to see, you know".

Having said that, I am amazed that some folks are willing to give an accused murderer a free pass on virtually everything he said that turned out to be a lie.

Thanks FD. If unsure, I usually check it out before I post, but failed to do so this time.

There is not a reasonable explanation of why he drove 90 miles to the Bay (only to stay for an hr.),instead of going to a nearby Lake. imo

[frydaddy]

Thanks FD. If unsure, I usually check it out before I post, but failed to do so this time.

There is not a reasonable explanation of why he drove 90 miles to the Bay (only to stay for an hr.),instead of going to a nearby Lake. imo

No need to thank me or explain yourself to me, it's impossible to recall every snippet with 100% accuracy. You do a fine job in my eyes! ;)

Yep, I agree! A nearby lake would likely be warmer, more convenient for fishing and boating, and he could have been home in plenty of time for dinner and picking up the basket. And he could have unloaded those umbrellas that he forgot even though they were staring him in the face while hitching the boat trailer.

[attorneywan2be]

The report was/is all wrong. Wrong house, wrong time and wrong tip. This report will never be brought up again. MG had this info way before the trial started and he tried to bring in as a last ditch effort, but not.

BTW-did you ever find out what happend to Lt. X. Aponte? Re: his job at Norco?

Unfortunately, the defense goofed again..the term "next door" was mentioned in the defense recap of the Aponte's report..however, the summary of the interview that was signed by Lt. Aponte didn't refer to the house that was burglarized..Aponte just stated that Adam Tenbrink told his brother that Laci happened to walk up while Todd was doing the burglary and Todd made some type of verbal threat to her..

No, I don't have any idea what happened to Lt. Aponte..

From the defense motion for a new trial - The summary of the interview signed by Lt. Aponte:

Lt. Aponte first became aware of [Shawn Tenbrink] talking about Laci Peterson within a couple of weeks of her missing. Shawn was talking about Laci missing while he was out in his housing unit. A housing staff person left a message on Lt. Aponte's voice mail and he immediately called the Modesto Police Department Hotline. He called a second time within the same week because he did not receive a call back from his first telephone call. Lt. Aponte said it was at least a week before anyone got back to him. Lt. Aponte said a detective called him back and arrangements were made for the detective to interview [Shawn]. Lt. Aponte believes that it was after he spoke to the detective that he listened to the recorded conversation between [Shawn] and his brother [Adam Tenbrink}. To the best of his recollection, [Shawn/Adam] talked to [Adam/Shawn] about Laci Peterson missing and [Adam] mentioned that Laci happened to walk up while Steve Todd was doing the burglary and Todd made some type of verbal threat to Laci.

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

[TopGunner]

Catherine Crier, Pg. 11

The bald and bespectacled Sergeant Duerfeldt waited on the curb for a report from his officers, then called his supervisor, Sergeant Carter. Duerfeldt told Carter that his officers were uncomfortable with some of Scott's early answers - especially his eagerness to provide a receipt from the Berkeley Marina when asked what he had been doing that day. As Duerfeldt made clear, his men hadn't asked for any proof.

There was more. At first, Scott couldn't say what he was fishing for; moments later he declared he was fishing for sturgeon, but couldn't say what kind of bait he used.

Page 30:

"Did you troll?"

"Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know." Scott had told the police earlier that he was fishing for sturgeon, but they would learn that his experience with sturgeon fishing was limited at best. If that was truly what he'd been doing, he'd choosen the wrong season and the wrong equipment. Furthermore, it was actually illegal to troll for fish that day.

Page 45:

That Tuesday morning was his first outing with the new boat. On the twenty-second, he had obtained a two-day licence and some fishing lurers at Big 5 Sporting Goods. Just hours before, Scott had been unable to give Officer Evers even the sketchiest account of his plans. Now, with Grogan, he was very detailed. He would be fishing for sturgeon and striper in the bay.

Page 177:

In a subsequent call, Brocchini asked Heather's husband, Mike Richardson, to help the investigation by asking Scott about his activities on Christmas Eve. Mike agreed, and in mid-January he talked with Scott. Scott told Mike that after reading an article saying that sturgeon were running in the bay, he'd decided to go fishing Christmas Eve. Scott remembered speaking with five people at the marina that day.

[Miss Bootsie]

I simply don't agree...keep in mind that according to testimony, Scott went to an area that is about 3' to 10' deep max depending on the tide...

Rick Distaso: Now, this particular rod is rated for a line weight of 18 to 20 pounds. Would this be a rod that you would take out Sturgeon fishing?
Angelo Cuanang: No.
Rick Distaso: What about for Striped Bass? What about for Striped Bass fishing?
Angelo Cuanang: Yes, you could use it for Stripers.

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

Rick Distaso: This tackle box. Let me show you Defendant's W. Have you looked inside this before?
Angelo Cuanang: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Let me just put it here on the ground in front of you. If you had to give an opinion as to what the, primarily what the equipment in there was used for, what would you say that was primarily used for?
Angelo Cuanang: I would say fresh water Black Bass, and maybe some trout.
Rick Distaso: Is there, just so we're a hundred percent clear, is there any equipment in there that at some time of the year could be used in the San Francisco Bay?
Angelo Cuanang: You could possibly use these here.
Rick Distaso: Okay. Can you pull those out, just show them to the jury?
Angelo Cuanang: Okay. Little top water plugs, you can work at times for Striped Bass when they are feeding on the surface. And this diving plug can also be used.
Rick Distaso: Those particular plugs, would these be a good lure to use when the fish are in the wintertime feeding along the bottom?
Angelo Cuanang: No.
Rick Distaso: How do, do these lures operate on the bottom? Or do they operate somewhere in the water?
Angelo Cuanang: These operate right on the surface. That one will dive.
Rick Distaso: That means it dives down. Do you know how deep it goes?
Angelo Cuanang: I'm not sure exactly how deep that one dives.
Rick Distaso: Can you give us, give the jury some estimate or some range of how far these things go down?
Angelo Cuanang: That particular lure, five to eight feet.


Frankly, I don't think you are willing to acknowledge any testimony that puts Scott in a bad light - even when there can be no other interpretation. imo

Instead of me going to the trouble of writing a summary of Cuanang's testimony that clearly proves Scott didn't have the appropriate rod, bait or lure, I will quote the info. in the link someone else provided.

Anyone can go out in a boat and attempt to catch a fish using a stick with a string attached, but that doesn't make it suitable. I'm sure if asked, Cuanang would say, - Well, it's not ideal.....it will be a miracle if you catch a fish.....but you CAN possibly use a stick and string.


Here we have a man who drove 90 miles on Christmas Eve claiming he went fishing, but didn't have a suitable rod, bait or lure to catch a fish in SF Bay.
However, he did have a suitable rod and lures to fish in a nearby freshwater Lake which would have been more convenient to him.

Out of all the research he supposedly did for information on fishing, he drove 90 miles to fish, but fails to take what is suitable to catch a fish.
Scott also said he just wanted to get the boat in the water.

He drives 90 miles to put the boat in the SF Bay to stay for approximately an hour, when he could have tried the boat out in a nearby Lake and fished with the freshwater tackle he had.



The San Francisco Bay's preeminent sturgeon fishing expert testified Monday that it was all but impossible for Scott Peterson to catch one of the massive fish with the equipment he carried to the bay the day his wife vanished.
Prosecutors called Angelo Cuanang, a commercial fisherman and author of two guides to sturgeon fishing, to cast doubt on the double-murder defendant's angling alibi.

The prosecution contends the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman used the Christmas Eve 2002 fishing trip as a cover story to dispose of his wife Laci's body.

When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.

Cuanang, who estimated he has reeled in a thousand sturgeon in 40 years on the bay, told the jury Peterson was not well-prepared to fish for either species.

He said Peterson had the wrong bait, tackle and anchor to fish for the bottom-dwelling fish and was relying on an unsuitable, and illegal, trawling method in an area of the bay far from their known breeding ground. As a result, Cuanang said, his only hope for catching a fish was by hooking it in its side as it swam by.
'The wrong anchor'

Using maps, fishing rods and photos from his own books to illustrate his testimony, Cuanang listed a number of problems with the account Peterson gave police. He said he used metal lures designed for freshwater bass and ocean reefs when sturgeon fishermen bait their hooks with live crabs. He said Peterson's fishing line was not strong enough for sturgeon, which can weigh up to 1,500 pounds.

Pointing to the five-pound homemade anchor police found in Peterson's boat, Cuanang said, "Any kind of current or any kind of wind, you are going to be drifting. There is nothing on this anchor to grip the bottom."

To catch bass or sturgeon, he said, a fisherman needs a claw-like anchor to hold his boat steady. Trawling for sturgeon, as Peterson said he did Dec. 24, is illegal in California, Cuanang testified.

[TopGunner]

The lure I'm referring to was a used lure that was found in the tackle box that was in his boat..the rod was an ocean rod that was found in his boat..and according to testimony, both the rod and the lure are suitable for fishing for Striped Bass in salt water

The point is: no one testified that Scott said he went fishing for sturgeons..both Brocchini and Grogan interviewed him..in the recorded interview with Brocchini, he stated that he was trolling and that he went there to get his boat in the water...



REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — The San Francisco Bay's preeminent sturgeon fishing expert testified Monday that it was all but impossible for Scott Peterson to catch one of the massive fish with the equipment he carried to the bay the day his wife vanished.

Prosecutors called Angelo Cuanang, a commercial fisherman and author of two guides to sturgeon fishing, to cast doubt on the double-murder defendant's angling alibi.

The prosecution contends the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman used the Christmas Eve 2002 fishing trip as a cover story to dispose of his wife Laci's body.

When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.

Cuanang, who estimated he has reeled in a thousand sturgeon in 40 years on the bay, told the jury Peterson was not well-prepared to fish for either species.

He said Peterson had the wrong bait, tackle and anchor to fish for the bottom-dwelling fish and was relying on an unsuitable, and illegal, trawling method in an area of the bay far from their known breeding ground. As a result, Cuanang said, his only hope for catching a fish was by hooking it in its side as it swam by.

'The wrong anchor'

Using maps, fishing rods and photos from his own books to illustrate his testimony, Cuanang listed a number of problems with the account Peterson gave police. He said he used metal lures designed for freshwater bass and ocean reefs when sturgeon fishermen bait their hooks with live crabs. He said Peterson's fishing line was not strong enough for sturgeon, which can weigh up to 1,500 pounds.

Pointing to the five-pound homemade anchor police found in Peterson's boat, Cuanang said, "Any kind of current or any kind of wind, you are going to be drifting. There is nothing on this anchor to grip the bottom."

To catch bass or sturgeon, he said, a fisherman needs a claw-like anchor to hold his boat steady. Trawling for sturgeon, as Peterson said he did Dec. 24, is illegal in California, Cuanang testified.

[attorneywan2be]

Catherine Crier, Pg. 11

The bald and bespectacled Sergeant Duerfeldt waited on the curb for a report from his officers, then called his supervisor, Sergeant Carter. Duerfeldt told Carter that his officers were uncomfortable with some of Scott's early answers - especially his eagerness to provide a receipt from the Berkeley Marina when asked what he had been doing that day. As Duerfeldt made clear, his men hadn't asked for any proof.

Evers's testimony on direct at the Prelim:

9 Q. And were you present during some of Detective
10 Brocchini's investigation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And when I mean "present," what was your purpose in
13 that? Were you with him, following him around? What was
14 your -- or were you just standing there? Explain that to
15 the Court.
16 A. I just accompanied him wherever Scott went with
17 the -- with Brocchini, then I went with him.
18 Q. Did -- were you present when -- were you present --
19 did Detective Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he
20 had any type of receipt or anything to show where he'd gone
21 fishing that day?
22 A. Did the detective ask him that?
23 Q. Yeah.
24 A. No, I asked him that.
25 Q. And what did he say?
26 A. He said that he had a parking receipt from the
27 marina.
28 Q. And did he show you that?

483
1 A. Yes, he did.


There was more. At first, Scott couldn't say what he was fishing for; moments later he declared he was fishing for sturgeon, but couldn't say what kind of bait he used.

Page 30:

"Did you troll?"

"Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know." Scott had told the police earlier that he was fishing for sturgeon, but they would learn that his experience with sturgeon fishing was limited at best. If that was truly what he'd been doing, he'd choosen the wrong season and the wrong equipment. Furthermore, it was actually illegal to troll for fish that day.


Page 45:

That Tuesday morning was his first outing with the new boat. On the twenty-second, he had obtained a two-day licence and some fishing lurers at Big 5 Sporting Goods. Just hours before, Scott had been unable to give Officer Evers even the sketchiest account of his plans. Now, with Grogan, he was very detailed. He would be fishing for sturgeon and striper in the bay.

Page 177:

In a subsequent call, Brocchini asked Heather's husband, Mike Richardson, to help the investigation by asking Scott about his activities on Christmas Eve. Mike agreed, and in mid-January he talked with Scott. Scott told Mike that after reading an article saying that sturgeon were running in the bay, he'd decided to go fishing Christmas Eve. Scott remembered speaking with five people at the marina that day.

"He would be fishing for Sturgeon and Striper"

Yes, I believe that he was planning to go fishing for sturgeons in the bay at one point..after all, he did research it, but Scott didn't say that he went to fish for Sturgeons on Dec 24th..when he was asked about his fishing trip to the bay by Brocchini..he stated that he was there to get the boat in water and to troll a bit..it is illegal to troll for Sturgeons..he read the fishing regulations..no one testified that Scott told him he trolled for Sturgeons...however, it is not illegal to troll for Striped Bass..and I believe that is what he was doing....

[TopGunner]

Evers's testimony on direct at the Prelim:

9 Q. And were you present during some of Detective
10 Brocchini's investigation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And when I mean "present," what was your purpose in
13 that? Were you with him, following him around? What was
14 your -- or were you just standing there? Explain that to
15 the Court.
16 A. I just accompanied him wherever Scott went with
17 the -- with Brocchini, then I went with him.
18 Q. Did -- were you present when -- were you present --
19 did Detective Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he
20 had any type of receipt or anything to show where he'd gone
21 fishing that day?
22 A. Did the detective ask him that?
23 Q. Yeah.
24 A. No, I asked him that.
25 Q. And what did he say?
26 A. He said that he had a parking receipt from the
27 marina.
28 Q. And did he show you that?

483
1 A. Yes, he did.




"He would be fishing for Sturgeon and Striper"

Yes, I believe that he was planning to go fishing for sturgeons in the bay at one point..after all, he did research it, but Scott didn't say that he went to fish for Sturgeons on Dec 24th..when he was asked about his fishing trip to the bay by Brocchini..he stated that he was there to get the boat in water and to troll a bit..it is illegal to troll for Sturgeons..he read the fishing regulations..no one testified that Scott told him he trolled for Sturgeons...however, it is not illegal to troll for Striped Bass..and I believe that is what he was doing....


AW2B - OK, now I'm just laughing. I admire your passion, determination and ahhhhhh...stubborness. It is all over this case, in the trial, books, interviews, etc. - both defense and pros. that ISP said he was fishing for sturgeon. Even his "best" friend Mike was in on it. It is clear to me, but a shame as well, that rather than be informative and credible, you'd rather be right.

:D

[attorneywan2be]

Frankly, I don't think you are willing to acknowledge any testimony that puts Scott in a bad light - even when there can be no other interpretation. imo

Instead of me going to the trouble of writing a summary of Cuanang's testimony that clearly proves Scott didn't have the appropriate rod, bait or lure, I will quote the info. in the link someone else provided.

Anyone can go out in a boat and attempt to catch a fish using a stick with a string attached, but that doesn't make it suitable. I'm sure if asked, Cuanang would say, - Well, it's not ideal.....it will be a miracle if you catch a fish.....but you CAN possibly use a stick and string.


Here we have a man who drove 90 miles on Christmas Eve claiming he went fishing, but didn't have a suitable rod, bait or lure to catch a fish in SF Bay.
However, he did have a suitable rod and lures to fish in a nearby freshwater Lake which would have been more convenient to him.

Out of all the research he supposedly did for information on fishing, he drove 90 miles to fish, but fails to take what is suitable to catch a fish.
Scott also said he just wanted to get the boat in the water.

He drives 90 miles to put the boat in the SF Bay to stay for approximately an hour, when he could have tried the boat out in a nearby Lake and fished with the freshwater tackle he had.


It's one thing not to have the IDEAL fishing equipments..it is quite another not to have any fishing equipments that could serve the purpose..and Scott had what it would take to troll for Striped Bass..

You are ignoring the part of Cuanang's testimony where he testified that the rod that was found in Scott's boat could be used in the bay to fish for Striped Bass..where he testified that a lure found in Scott's tackle box could be used for Striped Bass because it would dive 5' to 8'..and we know that the area around Brooks Island is very shallow, according to Brocchini, the depth there could be anywhere from practically nothing to 10' deep in high tide...

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B - OK, now I'm just laughing. I admire your passion, determination and ahhhhhh...stubborness. It is all over this case, in the trial, books, interviews, etc. - both defense and pros. that ISP said he was fishing for sturgeon. Even his "best" friend Mike was in on it. It is clear to me, but a shame as well, that rather than be informative and credible, you'd rather be right.

:D


LOL :D

..And you'd rather depend on a book published by someone unrelated to the case then use the trial official record where the transcripts of Brocchini's interview is available..where Scott clearly stated that he was there to get his boat in the water and troll a bit..(this is a recorded interview) it is not based on someone's claim or memory...

[Miss Bootsie]

It's one thing not to have the IDEAL fishing equipments..it is quite another not to have any fishing equipments that could serve the purpose..and Scott had what it would take to troll for Striped Bass..

You are ignoring the part of Cuanang's testimony where he testified that the rod that was found in Scott's boat could be used in the bay to fish for Striped Bass..where he testified that a lure found in Scott's tackle box could be used for Striped Bass because it would dive 5' to 8'..and we know that the area around Brooks Island is very shallow, according to Brocchini, the depth there could be anywhere from practically nothing to 10' deep in high tide...

I'm not ignoring anything at all.

First, kinda odd to me that you think Scott was trolling (out of season for Striped Bass) when (Sturgeon was the fish in season.)
Note: Cuanang testified the lure Scott had in his possession,would, (as you put it), serve the purpose in the Spring or Summer Months.
He said nothing about the lure being suitable during the Winter months when Striped Bass are not even in season.

Some people allege Scott did all the copious research for information on fishing. You said in your previous post, he read the regulations.
If you believe this to be true, how then can you defend Scott's lack of knowledge of not knowing what type of bait or rod to take with him to successfully catch a fish?

DISTASO: What is the primary time of year that you fish for Sturgeon?
CUANANG: Primarily for the bay system it would be the winter months. December on through maybe the early spring. March is our prime time.

DISTASO: And when is the primary season that people fish for Striped Bass?

CUANANG: Spring, summer, early fall.

DISTASO: During the spring and summer months, can you fish for Striped Bass with lures?

CUANANG: Yes.

Note: Cuanang replied "no" to Distaso's question.
Tackle not suitable for bait for either Sturgeon or Striped Bass in the Wintertime.
If you read the previous testimony I posted, Cuanang testified the lure was suitable for Striped Fishing in the Spring and Summer months.


DISTASO: Do you see any other kind of terminal tackle that you would need on this particular rod to fish for bait for either Sturgeon or Striped Bass in the wintertime?

CUANANG: No.


This is the testimony about the rod.
Cuanang testified, "Yes, you could use it for Stripers"
If you will read further, it is not all about the rod.
It also has to do with the lure weight of the rod.



DISTASO: What about for Striped Bass? What about for Striped Bass fishing?

CUANANG: Yes, you could use it for Stripers.

DISTASO: And it has a lure weight of one to three ounces. What does that mean?

CUANANG: That is the weight that works best with that particular type of rod.

DISTASO: And what do you mean by works best?

CUANANG: Easy to cast, is not too heavy, won't break the rod tip when you cast.

DISTASO: The kind of weights that you need to use for Sturgeon fishing or Striped Bass fishing with bait are from what size? Like this sinker here is how many ounces?

CUANANG: That's four ounces, all the way up to a pound. Because the currents really move very quickly in the bay at times. Up to a pound.

DISTASO: So for bait fishing on the bottom, you need to use weights from anywhere from roughly four ounces to a full pound?

CUANANG: Yes.

DISTASO: Would you be able to cast a full pound weight from that particular rod that I just showed you?

CUANANG: Not easily. I could do it, but not very easily.

**

CUANANG: You could possibly use these here.

DISTASO: Okay. Can you pull those out, just show them to the jury?

CUANANG: Okay. Little top water plugs, you can work at times for Striped Bass when they are feeding on the surface. And this diving plug can also be used.

DISTASO: Those particular plugs, would these be a good lure to use when the fish are in the wintertime feeding along the bottom?

CUANANG: No

The fishing equipment Scott had in his possession during his trip to the Bay was not suitable nor would it serve the purpose for Scott to catch Sturgeon or Striped Bass - during the Winter.

The lure Scott had would serve the purpose had he been fishing for Striped Bass during the Spring and Summer.

[adnoid]

...Some people allege Scott did all the copious research for information on fishing. You said in your previous post, he read the regulations.
If you believe this to be true, how then can you defend Scott's lack of knowledge of not knowing what type of bait or rod to take with him to successfully catch a fish?...

Or claiming he trolled for sturgeon, which is against the F&G regulations.

[frydaddy]

I'm not ignoring anything at all.

First, kinda odd to me that you think Scott was trolling (out of season for Striped Bass) when (Sturgeon was the fish in season.)
Note: Cuanang testified the lure Scott had in his possession,would, (as you put it), serve the purpose in the Spring or Summer Months.
He said nothing about the lure being suitable during the Winter months when Striped Bass are not even in season.

Some people allege Scott did all the copious research for information on fishing. You said in your previous post, he read the regulations.
If you believe this to be true, how then can you defend Scott's lack of knowledge of not knowing what type of bait or rod to take with him to successfully catch a fish?





Note: Cuanang replied "no" to Distaso's question.
Tackle not suitable for bait for either Sturgeon or Striped Bass in the Wintertime.
If you read the previous testimony I posted, Cuanang testified the lure was suitable for Striped Fishing in the Spring and Summer months.




This is the testimony about the rod.
Cuanang testified, "Yes, you could use it for Stripers"
If you will read further, it is not all about the rod.
It also has to do with the lure weight of the rod.





The fishing equipment Scott had in his possession during his trip to the Bay was not suitable nor would it serve the purpose for Scott to catch Sturgeon or Striped Bass - during the Winter.

The lure Scott had would serve the purpose had he been fishing for Striped Bass during the Spring and Summer.

I think the prosecution can rest on this issue...well done! :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

LOL :D

..And you'd rather depend on a book published by someone unrelated to the case then use the trial official record where the transcripts of Brocchini's interview is available..where Scott clearly stated that he was there to get his boat in the water and troll a bit..(this is a recorded interview) it is not based on someone's claim or memory...

I find it difficult to believe Grogan didn't press Scott on what type of fish he was fishing for in one of the interviews.

[Miss Bootsie]

I think the prosecution can rest on this issue...well done! :beer:

Give it a day or two, if that long, and it will be stated again, Scott had a rod and lure suitable to catch Striped Bass.....and people were out flying kites at Berkeley Marina. :seeya:

[cookiewench]

LOL :D

..And you'd rather depend on a book published by someone unrelated to the case then use the trial official record where the transcripts of Brocchini's interview is available..where Scott clearly stated that he was there to get his boat in the water and troll a bit..(this is a recorded interview) it is not based on someone's claim or memory...


Do you mind if I ask you this again?

Testimony aside, do you believe that Sharon was lying when she said that he told them he had gone fishing for sturgeon?

[Hey Paula]

LOL :D

..And you'd rather depend on a book published by someone unrelated to the case then use the trial official record where the transcripts of Brocchini's interview is available..where Scott clearly stated that he was there to get his boat in the water and troll a bit..(this is a recorded interview) it is not based on someone's claim or memory...

Hi A2WB!

By the time Scott was interviewed by Brocchini, he already knew he had the wrong lures, unopened lures, unassembled fishing pole, all of which were inappropriate for sturgeon fishing because LE members he'd spoken to previously told him so. In view of this, I'm not surprised Scott decided, when being interviewed and taped by Brocchini, that he'd changed from fishing for sturgeon to merely getting his boat in the water and trolling a bit. It's something most perps would do when previously caught in a story which didn't add up, and which caused him to curse and throw his flashlight on the ground.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

:tongue:

:eek: :tongue:

[Otter]

FWIW, I haven't been here in a while. I came here in the first place for some sort of discourse. A futile hope since I see DRISP's advocates are blind. They use different colored fonts along with bolded portions of their posts but do not read responses to their colors or bolded parts.

I don't want to be rude, not my intention. Just pointing out my observation.

The saddest part is, his advocates can't see themselves in tired theories. Its the same old and deja vu all over again.

Do they even try to understand the argument from the "other side"? Do they even read the posts?

No, IMO they don't. Although we do. I believe FD asked (if I'm wrong, my apologies) what is it with this guy?

[Synopsis]

*snipped*
Having said that, I am amazed that some folks are willing to give an accused murderer a free pass on virtually everything he said that turned out to be a lie.

It's really not so amazing if the facts are considered in the way some folks tend to do. IMO the keyword in your comment is "accused." And just because LE accused Scott Peterson of murder, that did not make it necessarily a true fact. And in the minds of some folks, the DA did not prove this accusation in court either.

And as for free passes for lies. I feel LE got their share of that also. And to me that is a total breach of public trust and there should be accountability.

[Synopsis]

AW2B - OK, now I'm just laughing. I admire your passion, determination and ahhhhhh...stubborness. It is all over this case, in the trial, books, interviews, etc. - both defense and pros. that ISP said he was fishing for sturgeon. Even his "best" friend Mike was in on it. It is clear to me, but a shame as well, that rather than be informative and credible, you'd rather be right.

:D

:lol: Hang in there AW2B! Some of us feel if you are "right" you are "credible."
And by golly "informative" to boot!

[attorneywan2be]

I find it difficult to believe Grogan didn't press Scott on what type of fish he was fishing for in one of the interviews.

As far as I know, unfortunately none of Grogan's interviews was recorded..however, I searched the TS again for Grogan's testimony regarding what Scott told him about what he was fishing for..I was surprised that the prosecution didn't bring it up, however, the defense did, Geragos asked Grogan about his interview where Scott told him that he was fishing for Sturgeon or Striped Bass and that Scott told him that he used freshwater lures because he forgot the saltwater lures that he purchased in his truck..I don't remember reading that part of the testimony before...and I'm surprised that no one found it and posted it to prove me wrong...LOL
But he also told Grogan that he went there primarily to try out his boat and that he trolled a bit...

Mark Geragos: Now, and that was a report that was prepared by McGill, who was one of the officers there?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Specifically one of the reports that you had indicated that, with your, during your interview with Scott, I did tell you, actually I think it's your affidavit, that during your interview with him, he told you he was fishing for Sturgeon or Striper, and he was using freshwater lures, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He told you he inadvertently left the salt water lures he had purchased for the trip in the truck, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. I don't know which search warrant that is..

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

Craig Grogan: Yes . He described going to an island a short distance north of the Berkeley Marina with trash around the island and he said that he had trolled, fishing, trolling on his way out there and back, I believe.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

[attorneywan2be]

:lol: Hang in there AW2B! Some of us feel if you are "right" you are "credible."
And by golly "informative" to boot!


I'm hanging in there..thanks Synopsis..

I hope we can see more of you...the NGs need all the support they can get...:D

[attorneywan2be]

Hi A2WB!

By the time Scott was interviewed by Brocchini, he already knew he had the wrong lures, unopened lures, unassembled fishing pole, all of which were inappropriate for sturgeon fishing because LE members he'd spoken to previously told him so. In view of this, I'm not surprised Scott decided, when being interviewed and taped by Brocchini, that he'd changed from fishing for sturgeon to merely getting his boat in the water and trolling a bit. It's something most perps would do when previously caught in a story which didn't add up, and which caused him to curse and throw his flashlight on the ground.

IMO


Hi Paula...

To my surprise I found Grogan's testimony on cross where he said that Scott did tell him he went fishing for Sturgeon or Striped Bass..I posted it in one of my previous post..

Brocchini was the first to interview him..I mean Scott left the house with Brocchini and Evers to show them the boat..then they went from the warehouse directly to the police station where he was interviewed...

[Miss Bootsie]

As far as I know, unfortunately none of Grogan's interviews was recorded..however, I searched the TS again for Grogan's testimony regarding what Scott told him about what he was fishing for..I was surprised that the prosecution didn't bring it up, however, the defense did, Geragos asked Grogan about his interview where Scott told him that he was fishing for Sturgeon or Striped Bass and that Scott told him that he used freshwater lures because he forgot the saltwater lures that he purchased in his truck..I don't remember reading that part of the testimony before...and I'm surprised that no one found it and posted it to prove me wrong...LOL
But he also told Grogan that he went there primarily to try out his boat and that he trolled a bit...

Mark Geragos: Now, and that was a report that was prepared by McGill, who was one of the officers there?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Specifically one of the reports that you had indicated that, with your, during your interview with Scott, I did tell you, actually I think it's your affidavit, that during your interview with him, he told you he was fishing for Sturgeon or Striper, and he was using freshwater lures, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He told you he inadvertently left the salt water lures he had purchased for the trip in the truck, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. I don't know which search warrant that is..

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

Craig Grogan: Yes . He described going to an island a short distance north of the Berkeley Marina with trash around the island and he said that he had trolled, fishing, trolling on his way out there and back, I believe.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

It just didn't make any sense that the pros would bring in a fishing expert and keep the main focus on Sturgeon, if there wasn't a reference somewhere in the trial record.
It had to be in Grogan's interviews.

Thanks for finding and posting the testimony AW.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula...

To my surprise I found Grogan's testimony on cross where he said that Scott did tell him he went fishing for Sturgeon or Striped Bass..I posted it in one of my previous post..

Brocchini was the first to interview him..I mean Scott left the house with Brocchini and Evers to show them the boat..then they went from the warehouse directly to the police station where he was interviewed...

Thanks, Aw2B!

I'm not surprised you found it in Grogan's testimony because he was the lead detective in the case, gathering info from all other LE working on Laci's case and reporting it, via his testimony, at Scott's trial.

Brocchini interviewed and recorded that interview with Scott at the MPD. However, IIRC, Brocchini was an hour's drive away, when he was contacted and told to return, inasmuch as he had planned on spending Christmas Eve with family, and while Evers, Spurlock, et al, awaited Brocchini's arrival, they'd spoken to Scott and he had told one of them (or more) that he was fishing for sturgeon and striped bass. IIRC, one of those LEOs was a fisherman and he knew the story was "fishy" (pun intended), so Scott tailored it until, by the time he underwent his taped interview with Brocchini, it reached the point where he merely put the boat into the water.

It was LE's unraveling of Scott's fishing tale which drove Scott to the boiling point, causing him to curse and throw his flashlight to the ground because he got caught in his lies, the secret boat was no longer secret and LE was closing in on him.

IMO

[Wearing A Halo]

It's really not so amazing if the facts are considered in the way some folks tend to do. IMO the keyword in your comment is "accused." And just because LE accused Scott Peterson of murder, that did not make it necessarily a true fact. And in the minds of some folks, the DA did not prove this accusation in court either.

And as for free passes for lies. I feel LE got their share of that also. And to me that is a total breach of public trust and there should be accountability.

What exactly do you mean by,

"If the facts are considered in a way some folks tend to do"?

Also,

Key phrase is "in the minds." Just what is "inside the minds of these said folks"?

[Wearing A Halo]

The testimony that keeps getting overlooked is the one by Douglas Kent Mansfield-CA DOJ. He had an interesting interview withd. The Ps keep insisting, via their website, that DRISP never lied and was consistant in his story telling. Well, DRISP was consistant alright. DRISP was consistantly inconsistant with his chronology.

[frydaddy]

It's really not so amazing if the facts are considered in the way some folks tend to do. IMO the keyword in your comment is "accused." And just because LE accused Scott Peterson of murder, that did not make it necessarily a true fact. And in the minds of some folks, the DA did not prove this accusation in court either.

And as for free passes for lies. I feel LE got their share of that also. And to me that is a total breach of public trust and there should be accountability.

What does any of this have to do with Scott's lies? Why do Scott's advocates always inject some tangent issue to try and counter-balance the negatives known about Scott? What LE did or what the DA proved are 100% irrelevant in the matter of assessing Scott's obvious lies about his alibi. If you want to discuss those LE and DA issues on their own merits, feel free. But to consider LE or the DA when analyzing Scott's actions BEFORE LE or the DA were ever involved is foolishness.

[Synopsis]

What exactly do you mean by,

"If the facts are considered in a way some folks tend to do"?

Also,

Key phrase is "in the minds." Just what is "inside the minds of these said folks"?

What exactly do I mean by "If the facts are considered in a way some folks tend to do"?

Well, let me see..........it's very obvious that some folks interpret or consider facts in one way, and some in another way. For instance, during the course of the trial I didn't see the real importance of the "to fish for Sturgeon or not to fish for Sturgeon" fiasco. And my basis for that is using my own actions as a reference. All the above comments concerning whether he told anyone or not were taken from the very early hours of the search for Laci. When frantic people, including Scott, were running around the park and adjacent areas looking for her, and policemen were questioning Scott.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, or at least NOT being predisposed to believing he had murdered his wife during that VERY EARLY time frame, if he was anything at all like me, and was innocent, there's no telling what he might say. That's not very clear, I realize, but if my husband was missing, and the panic mood was elevating..............there is absolutely no telling what would be in my mind and ultimately come out of my mouth.

But I would certainly hope my life & liberty would not be threatened at a later date based on a comment about a species of fish. But that's just me.......one of those "some folks" mentioned above. And I hope it answers your question as to what is in the minds of "some of these said folks."

[Hey Paula]

What exactly do I mean by "If the facts are considered in a way some folks tend to do"?

Well, let me see..........it's very obvious that some folks interpret or consider facts in one way, and some in another way. For instance, during the course of the trial I didn't see the real importance of the "to fish for Sturgeon or not to fish for Sturgeon" fiasco. And my basis for that is using my own actions as a reference. All the above comments concerning whether he told anyone or not were taken from the very early hours of the search for Laci. When frantic people, including Scott, were running around the park and adjacent areas looking for her, and policemen were questioning Scott.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, or at least NOT being predisposed to believing he had murdered his wife during that VERY EARLY time frame, if he was anything at all like me, and was innocent, there's no telling what he might say. That's not very clear, I realize, but if my husband was missing, and the panic mood was elevating..............there is absolutely no telling what would be in my mind and ultimately come out of my mouth.

But I would certainly hope my life & liberty would not be threatened at a later date based on a comment about a species of fish. But that's just me.......one of those "some folks" mentioned above. And I hope it answers your question as to what is in the minds of "some of these said folks."

Perhaps the species of fish might have been an issue because Scott made it as such to correspond with his computer searches.

IMO

[Synopsis]

What does any of this have to do with Scott's lies? Why do Scott's advocates always inject some tangent issue to try and counter-balance the negatives known about Scott? What LE did or what the DA proved are 100% irrelevant in the matter of assessing Scott's obvious lies about his alibi. If you want to discuss those LE and DA issues on their own merits, feel free. But to consider LE or the DA when analyzing Scott's actions BEFORE LE or the DA were ever involved is foolishness.

What does any of this have to do with Scott's lies?

Well to me, it was what became known as "Scott's lies" that got him convicted and sent to death row. IMO it certainly wasn't the prosecutor's case-in-chief that did it.

How can discussing any of his actions be considered "BEFORE LE?" The sturgeon comments (or lack of) were supposedly made TO LE.

And btw we may have a hint of agreement though, because I have always felt that ANYTHING about the "sturgeon fishing" was foolishness. However, the DA didn't seem to agree, since he made it a part of the court record via his "fisherman" witness..

[Synopsis]

Perhaps the species of fish might have been an issue because Scott made it as such to correspond with his computer searches.

IMO

That could also be true...If he specifically said "I was at the Bay Sturgeon fishing" then denied it, or even changed where he said he was fishing, or even said "I researched Sturgeon fishing on the web, then went to the Bay to give it a go"...anything at all similar may have given it more importance or weight.

But again, this seemed, to me, to be such a small factor in the larger scheme of things that I was amazed at the way it spread like wildfire and became #1 on various lists of "Scott's lies" on many forums and in the media.:shrug:

[frydaddy]

What does any of this have to do with Scott's lies?

Well to me, it was what became known as "Scott's lies" that got him convicted and sent to death row. IMO it certainly wasn't the prosecutor's case-in-chief that did it.

How can discussing any of his actions be considered "BEFORE LE?" The sturgeon comments (or lack of) were supposedly made TO LE.

And btw we may have a hint of agreement though, because I have always felt that ANYTHING about the "sturgeon fishing" was foolishness. However, the DA didn't seem to agree, since he made it a part of the court record via his "fisherman" witness..

Scott's lies were a portion of the conviction, as they were relevant not to just his character, but to the case itself via cooperation with LE or lack thereof. Those lies also went to the inconsistency of his stated care about Laci when obviously his actions proved otherwise.

What I meant about his actions before LE and the DA is that his actions took place in that bay and in the proceeding month, before LE ever got involved. (i.e. - net searches, the boat, the license, the equipment, the trip, planning, etc.)

As for agreement or disagreement, either way is fine. That the prosecution created possibilities is not a problem for me, the fishing expert proved that Scott did not fish and that was the main purpose, IMO.

Heading out and I normally don't post much on the weekend, so forgive any delayed responses, should one be required or needed. :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks, Aw2B!

I'm not surprised you found it in Grogan's testimony because he was the lead detective in the case, gathering info from all other LE working on Laci's case and reporting it, via his testimony, at Scott's trial.

Brocchini interviewed and recorded that interview with Scott at the MPD. However, IIRC, Brocchini was an hour's drive away, when he was contacted and told to return, inasmuch as he had planned on spending Christmas Eve with family, and while Evers, Spurlock, et al, awaited Brocchini's arrival, they'd spoken to Scott and he had told one of them (or more) that he was fishing for sturgeon and striped bass. IIRC, one of those LEOs was a fisherman and he knew the story was "fishy" (pun intended), so Scott tailored it until, by the time he underwent his taped interview with Brocchini, it reached the point where he merely put the boat into the water.

It was LE's unraveling of Scott's fishing tale which drove Scott to the boiling point, causing him to curse and throw his flashlight to the ground because he got caught in his lies, the secret boat was no longer secret and LE was closing in on him.

IMO


Hi Paula..

The officers that were with Scott before Brocchini arrived are: Evers, Letsinger, Spurlock and sergeant Duerfeldt..Spurlock was the only one that asked him what he was fishing for..according to his testimony, Scott paused and didn't respond to that question, then he asked him about what kind of bait he used, Scott told him that he used "silver lure" about 7" to 8" long...so he didn't mention Sturgeon to anyone except when he talked to Grogan..where they discussed in more details what he was doing in his fishing trip..he also told Grogan that he forgot the saltwater lures that he purchased so he used freshwater lures instead..BTW, "silver lure" is a freshwater lure...


Rick Distaso: And do you have any memory, as you sit here today, what time Detective Brocchini arrived?
Jon Evers: I think it was about 9:30.
Rick Distaso: And what happened next, then?
Jon Evers: Well, he arrived on scene, and I met with him along with Sergeant Duerfeldt.
Rick Distaso: Did you brief Detective Brocchini on the information you had learned so far?
Jon Evers: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And then did that include the information that Officer Spurlock told you?
Jon Evers: Yes.
Rick Distaso: As well as any of the other officers you had talked to?
Jon Evers: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Of the three of you, of officer, yourself, Evers, Letsinger and Spurlock, who was the one who basically was in charge or responsible for giving Detective Brocchini the rundown of what you had learned up to that point?
Jon Evers: That was me. I was the primary unit.
Rick Distaso: And what does that mean, "Primary Unit"?
Jon Evers: Well, I was responsible for handling the call. Because it was dispatched to me, I held the responsibility of handling that call.
Rick Distaso: And Officer Letsinger and Spurlock were assisting units?
Jon Evers: That's correct.

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

Jon Evers: There was two other officers and a sergeant that came to assist me on this call.
Rick Distaso: What were their names?
Jon Evers: Officer Letsinger, Officer Spurlock, and Sergeant Duerfeldt

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

Jon Evers: Officer Spurlock told me that, that Scott was unable to tell him what kind of fish he was fishing for in the Bay Area, and what kind of bait he was using.
Rick Distaso: And did you, at that point, question Mr. Peterson about that?
Jon Evers: No.

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

Rick Distaso: Okay. And so you personally were not having this conversation with Mr. Peterson?
Derrick Letsinger: No.
Rick Distaso: Go ahead. What did you hear, you heard Officer Spurlock ask him a question?
Derrick Letsinger: Right. And Mr. Peterson replied that he had been fishing today. And, by this time, we had kind of stopped right in this common area of the house. And Officer Spurlock asked what he had been fishing for. And Mr. Peterson didn't know.
Rick Distaso: And did you hear anything else about the conversation?
Derrick Letsinger: Officer Spurlock asked him what kind of lure or bait was he using. And Mr. Peterson indicated that he was using a silver lure about, and he put his fingers up in front of him, indicated about seven to eight inches long.
Rick Distaso: Did this conversation, have you reviewed Officer Spurlock's report?
Derrick Letsinger: Yes.
Rick Distaso: Is that is, this conversation documented in his report?
Derrick Letsinger: It is.
Rick Distaso: Did you put it in yours?
Derrick Letsinger: No.
Rick Distaso: Why is that?
Derrick Letsinger: I basically didn't put it in there, because I wasn't the one having the conversation with Mr. Peterson.
Rick Distaso: After Officer Spurlock had this conversation with Scott Peterson, what happened next?
Derrick Letsinger: We basically, I believe we excused Mr. Peterson and asked him to step back outside. And as he was leaving through the front door, got to about this area here, and the front door, I believe you could see through, or it was open, and I could see out. And Mr. Peterson threw his flashlight down on the ground. And then I heard something under his breath, like a curse word. I'm not quite sure what it was. But heard something mumbled under his breath.

[attorneywan2be]

That could also be true...If he specifically said "I was at the Bay Sturgeon fishing" then denied it, or even changed where he said he was fishing, or even said "I researched Sturgeon fishing on the web, then went to the Bay to give it a go"...anything at all similar may have given it more importance or weight.

But again, this seemed, to me, to be such a small factor in the larger scheme of things that I was amazed at the way it spread like wildfire and became #1 on various lists of "Scott's lies" on many forums and in the media.:shrug:

Hi Synopsis..

IMO, Scott didn't change his statement...he didn't mention sturgeon to anyone except when he talked in more details with Grogan at a later date..he told him that he was fishing for Sturgeons or Striped bass...on the 24th he told the officers he used "silver lure" which is a freshwater lure..and later on he told Grogan that he forgot the saltwater lures that he purchased in his truck and he used freshwater lure instead..he told Brocchini and Grogan that he was trolling and that he primarily went to the bay to try out his boat..IMO, he was very consistent...the fact that he didn't respond to Spurlock when asked what he was fishing for is understandable given the circumtances..that was couple of hours after realizing Laci was missing..he must have been frustrated beyond belief that the officers were asking him about his fishing trip rather than looking for Laci..

[ekg]

Actually, I've answered why I am here before. In short, it's because I like the people who post here and because I am interested in both why people think SP is innocent and if they will come up with new theories/facts that might cause a successful appeal. We've gone over this point before, YOU have acknowledged far more than any other as far as Scott's potentially being guilty. And, I seldom, if ever, see you dodge a question or issue. So, it's not a valid question to ask you. But it is valid for others, IMO. Doesn't it ever surprise you that people acknowledge nothing negative towards Scott and they seldom answer the tougher questions? Why is it that you end up being the spokesmodel? <--Sly reference to Star Search - remember that? LOL

Also, a question for you to consider. SII's have a pretty high standard for finding guilt in a defendant. You think many of them have ever considered that maybe they are the ones who aren't ideal candidates to be jurors, that they expect too much of the criminal justice system in proving guilt? I know I've considered the inverse many times over. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that most advocates would never let that thought enter their mind. Relative to the CJ system as a whole, that is troubling for me.

At any rate, you have a good day E, TGIF!

actually I see both sides 'selectively' avoiding questions or compromises.... for some G's every single thing Scott did or said was related to the murder,the planning of the murder, or some kind of guilt. I have rarely seen a SIG admit that some things just might not be a 'guilt prover'....each item has to be GUILTY, nothing can just be...

on the flip side I see some SII also refusing to see that some of his actions are guilty looking...

I don't see either side as refusing to answer tho...well, most of the time... I have been told to go find it myself a cpl times when asking for verification other than the op's opinion.. but even thats rare.

I think that what you are seeing is ppl not answering 1 -2 questions in a post with 15 questions... and there's nothing wrong with that... especially when you're one against 10 and you're getting 'round robined' like AW2B was.. she's trying to answer all of you and each poster is on a different subject so things get missed and overlooked b/c there just isn't time to take 100% of everything everyone is throwing at you when you're doing it alone.



now about the SII/SIG.. I can look at both sides and say.... yep, that's guilty looking.... and nope, nothing there..and it doesn't bother me one bit who it pisses off...LOL I've accepted that I can't know 100% either way and b/c of that I'm willing to bend..

it seems to me that ppl just don't want to see it the other way b/c they might think it tarnishes something.... Laci's memory, Sharon feelings, Scott's innocence.... whatever.. but it IS there on both sides..




I don't think SII have a higher standard.. in fact in other cases it's pretty funny to see some of them on the other side... and vice versa with the SIG's when they flip to the 'innocent' camp. I think both sides just absolutely believe they are right...... there is no evidence he killed her other than an affair and there is overwhelming evidence he killed in all the CE.

one of my favorite posters is a huge SII..... but we butted-heads so much on the Holloway case and the taylor biehl case that we stopped posting together..She was a total die hard GUILTY in those cases... I, otoh, was a 'lets wait and see' type which made me take the 'innocent' side in playing the devils advocate.

so no, I don't think the proof of guilt is higher...it's just in this case ppl can put an innocent spin on some things he did and even more than that, all the CE that adds up to guilt for the SIG just doesn't add up to anything for them...

I hope I don't piss anyone off by saying this....I'm not saying one is better than the other.. it's just my view of it....:beer:

[ekg]

Will you please elaborate on this comment ekg?

sure...... we're not here to inform and convince each other as much as we are here to help the ppl who might be new to the case or have a passing interest in it...

I can't convince you the boat wasn't secret and you can't convince me it was a secret.... but one of us might convince little Suzy Q one way or the other..

the die hards are here in hopes of gaining insight into the other side and b/c they like talking about the case with ppl they enjoy... whether that be ppl on the same side of the fence or not.... and we keep each other honest so to speak.... of course there is a chance to convert one from their side, but it's highly unlikely at this late date and without new evidence..

is that any better of an explanation?:)

[attorneywan2be]

{Snip to address one point}

on the flip side I see some SII also refusing to see that some of his actions are guilty looking...

Snip




Great post ekg!!..I would like to address that particular point..I personally do not see any of his actions looking guilty..I will explain..

Most people interpret the following as actions that demonstrate consiousness of guilt:

1-His calls to Amber
2-Selling Laci's car
3-His attempt to sell the house
4-His lack of grief as displayed in public..

Let me start by explaining my understanding of what constitutes "consciouness of guilt"..a guilty person is fully aware of his guilt, so he reacts in a manner to conceal his guilt to cover it up ..so no one would discover his guilt...examples, he would hide incriminating evidence..he would lie about his alibi..he would exaggerate his grief in public (Susan Smith comes to mind)..he would distance himself from his mistress (he would stop contacting his mistress, he would ask her to not call him ) in other words, he would do the exact opposite of what he thinks people would consider incriminating..he is out there tying to deny his guilt.. trying to convince people that he is innocent...on the other hand, a person with a perfect clear conscious would not even think what people would think or how they would interpret his actions...so he is himself..if he is by nature unemotional and can be calm in the face of tragedy, he would act exactly so..if cheating on his wife is not a big deal to him..he would act accordingly....IMO, Scott's actions were not consistent with consciouness of guilt...

[deputydi]

<snip>.... for some G's every single thing Scott did or said was related to the murder,the planning of the murder, or some kind of guilt. I have rarely seen a SIG admit that some things just might not be a 'guilt prover'....each item has to be GUILTY, nothing can just be...<snip>
Not necessarily true. Taken individually, I can find evidence pointing toward innocence in many of Scott's actions. The boat purchase, for instance. Scott could have purchased that boat intending for it to be a surprise for his father in law. That's not at all far fetched. It's the fact that he told absolutely no one about it. Not only was it a secret from Ron, it was a secret from his family, his best friend, his lover -- everyone. We'll never know whether Laci knew about it, but my guess is she didn't. She didn't share the information with anyone either. All the women I know would have told at least one person -- either complaining about him spending money they couldn't afford or bragging that he was doing this incredibly nice thing for her stepfather.

That is only one small example, but it applies to the rest of the CE also. When I put all of these benign circumstances together, step back and look at them collectively, the picture starts looking very suspicious. Then, the body washes ashore 90 miles from Modesto and, guess what -- that's exactly where Scott had been the day she was murdered. For me, that cinched it. I can find no plausible explanation for that. Not one.

Admittedly, Scott did some pretty stupid things. None of us know for an absolute certainty why he passed himself off as single when he had a very pregnant wife at home, why he continued to pursue Amber during a time when any sane person would have to know their every move was being monitored, why he made all those trips to the bay when it was being searched, and on and on and on . . .

My guess is Scott was so into himself that he never, ever believed anyone would seriously consider him a primary suspect. He probably knew LE would give him a cursory look and then decide he wasn't the murdering type and move on. He believed Laci's body would never be discovered so he thought he had picked the perfect dumping spot. That, I believe, is what he thought was the only thing that could tie him to her disappearance. It almost worked. Without the two bodies appearing where they did, I believe it would have been next to impossible to get a conviction. As I said before, that is the ONE piece of evidence for which there is no believable explanation.

[TopGunner]

Great post ekg!!..I would like to address that particular point..I personally do not see any of his actions looking guilty..I will explain..

Most people interpret the following as actions that demonstrate consiousness of guilt:

1-His calls to Amber
2-Selling Laci's car
3-His attempt to sell the house
4-His lack of grief as displayed in public..

Let me start by explaining my understanding of what constitutes "consciouness of guilt"..a guilty person is fully aware of his guilt, so he reacts in a manner to conceal his guilt to cover it up ..so no one would discover his guilt...examples, he would hide incriminating evidence..he would lie about his alibi..he would exaggerate his grief in public (Susan Smith comes to mind)..he would distance himself from his mistress (he would stop contacting his mistress, he would ask her to not call him ) in other words, he would do the exact opposite of what he thinks people would consider incriminating..he is out there tying to deny his guilt.. trying to convince people that he is innocent...on the other hand, a person with a perfect clear conscious would not even think what people would think or how they would interpret his actions...so he is himself..if he is by nature unemotional and can be calm in the face of tragedy, he would act exactly so..if cheating on his wife is not a big deal to him..he would act accordingly....IMO, Scott's actions were not consistent with consciouness of guilt...

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, SOCIOPATHY, AND PSYCHOPATHY
"When I'm good, I'm very good. When I'm bad, I'm better." (Mae West)

People who cannot contain their urges to harm (or kill) people repeatedly for no apparent reason are assumed to suffer from some mental illness. However, they may be more cruel than crazy, they may be choosing not to control their urges, they know right from wrong, they know exactly what they're doing, and they are definitely NOT insane.

List of Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits

Sense of entitlement; Unremorseful; Apathetic to others; Unconscionable behavior; Blameful of others; Manipulative and conning; Affectively cold; Disparate understanding; Socially irresponsible; Disregardful of obligations; Nonconforming to norms; Irresponsible

Clinical Symptoms for an Antisocial Personality Disorder Diagnosis

1. Failure to conform to social norms; 2. Deceitfulness, manipulativeness; 3. Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead; 4. Irritability, aggressiveness; 5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; 6. Consistent irresponsibility; 7. Lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person


GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied.
CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.
IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride

:seeya:

[deputydi]

List of Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits

Sense of entitlement; Unremorseful; Apathetic to others; Unconscionable behavior; Blameful of others; Manipulative and conning; Affectively cold; Disparate understanding; Socially irresponsible; Disregardful of obligations; Nonconforming to norms; Irresponsible

Can you find just ONE of those traits that wouldn't apply to Scott? I can't.

[ekg]

Great post ekg!!..I would like to address that particular point..I personally do not see any of his actions looking guilty..I will explain..

Most people interpret the following as actions that demonstrate consiousness of guilt:

1-His calls to Amber
2-Selling Laci's car
3-His attempt to sell the house
4-His lack of grief as displayed in public..

Let me start by explaining my understanding of what constitutes "consciouness of guilt"..a guilty person is fully aware of his guilt, so he reacts in a manner to conceal his guilt to cover it up ..so no one would discover his guilt...examples, he would hide incriminating evidence..he would lie about his alibi..he would exaggerate his grief in public (Susan Smith comes to mind)..he would distance himself from his mistress (he would stop contacting his mistress, he would ask her to not call him ) in other words, he would do the exact opposite of what he thinks people would consider incriminating..he is out there tying to deny his guilt.. trying to convince people that he is innocent...on the other hand, a person with a perfect clear conscious would not even think what people would think or how they would interpret his actions...so he is himself..if he is by nature unemotional and can be calm in the face of tragedy, he would act exactly so..if cheating on his wife is not a big deal to him..he would act accordingly....IMO, Scott's actions were not consistent with consciouness of guilt...

Hi AW2B

I totally agree with you... I don't think he acted with a 'consciousness of guilt' in almost everything he did and said..if anything he acted with a 'consciousness of innocence' and 'consciousness of I don't care'...

the lack of grief has never been an issue for me b/c I don't have a reference point...I don't know what he was like before this, did he show his emotions? Or was he even keeled?..... I look to the 'pre-Amber' family comments on how he was broken up and devastated when not in public. Those are the true indication of his grief to me... the non-tainted versions. Either he was crying and upset or he wasn't.... and Laci's family said he was... so to me he was... and he showed it to the ones that counted.


I will disagree on one thing in your list...... and that's Amber. I get why he felt the need to keep her around....and if someone were to say he was a sex addict I would believe it(and it would explain the porn upgrade)..But he should have respected Laci enough to let go of Amber..... and if not Laci then the situation... that's my complaint when it comes to her....

he just should have known better, ya know?

[ekg]

Not necessarily true. Taken individually, I can find evidence pointing toward innocence in many of Scott's actions. The boat purchase, for instance. Scott could have purchased that boat intending for it to be a surprise for his father in law. That's not at all far fetched. It's the fact that he told absolutely no one about it. Not only was it a secret from Ron, it was a secret from his family, his best friend, his lover -- everyone. We'll never know whether Laci knew about it, but my guess is she didn't. She didn't share the information with anyone either. All the women I know would have told at least one person -- either complaining about him spending money they couldn't afford or bragging that he was doing this incredibly nice thing for her stepfather.

That is only one small example, but it applies to the rest of the CE also. When I put all of these benign circumstances together, step back and look at them collectively, the picture starts looking very suspicious. Then, the body washes ashore 90 miles from Modesto and, guess what -- that's exactly where Scott had been the day she was murdered. For me, that cinched it. I can find no plausible explanation for that. Not one.

Admittedly, Scott did some pretty stupid things. None of us know for an absolute certainty why he passed himself off as single when he had a very pregnant wife at home, why he continued to pursue Amber during a time when any sane person would have to know their every move was being monitored, why he made all those trips to the bay when it was being searched, and on and on and on . . .

My guess is Scott was so into himself that he never, ever believed anyone would seriously consider him a primary suspect. He probably knew LE would give him a cursory look and then decide he wasn't the murdering type and move on. He believed Laci's body would never be discovered so he thought he had picked the perfect dumping spot. That, I believe, is what he thought was the only thing that could tie him to her disappearance. It almost worked. Without the two bodies appearing where they did, I believe it would have been next to impossible to get a conviction. As I said before, that is the ONE piece of evidence for which there is no believable explanation.

DD, you're the reason I changed my wording from 'every G' to 'some G's'--lol

you've been one of the few who have said that the secrecy of the boat isn't an issue... and there was another issue, that I can't remember right now, where you also didn't feel it was indicative of guilt...


:)

[TopGunner]

Most people interpret the following as actions that demonstrate consiousness of guilt:

1-His calls to Amber
2-Selling Laci's car
3-His attempt to sell the house
4-His lack of grief as displayed in public..

Let me start by explaining my understanding of what constitutes "consciouness of guilt"..a guilty person is fully aware of his guilt, so he reacts in a manner to conceal his guilt to cover it up ..so no one would discover his guilt...examples, he would hide incriminating evidence..he would lie about his alibi..he would exaggerate his grief in public (Susan Smith comes to mind)..he would distance himself from his mistress (he would stop contacting his mistress, he would ask her to not call him ) in other words, he would do the exact opposite of what he thinks people would consider incriminating..he is out there tying to deny his guilt.. trying to convince people that he is innocent...on the other hand, a person with a perfect clear conscious would not even think what people would think or how they would interpret his actions...so he is himself..if he is by nature unemotional and can be calm in the face of tragedy, he would act exactly so..if cheating on his wife is not a big deal to him..he would act accordingly....IMO, Scott's actions were not consistent with consciouness of guilt...


AW2B - nice spin, but IMO, doesn't come close to cutting it. ISP hid plenty of evidence, such as his boat and his mistress for starters. And those are fairly BIG pieces of evidence. He did lie about his alibi, golfing/fishing and when finally settled on fishing, he lied about the kind of fishing. His attny. advised him not to take a lie detector test, so he didn't. His attny. advised him to cut off communication w/Frey...he did not. If innocent people wouldn't think about how people would think or how they would interpret his actions, then why did the burglars, Amy, Bret, and Amber take the lie detector tests, why did they go in front of the media to beg for Laci's return? They were all innocent, and none of them were wearing baseball caps IIRC.:no: Lastly, even IF cheating on his wife was "no big deal" and clearly it wasn't since he did it from day 1, do you think that partying in Paris, on the phone with your lover, when your wife - who's carrying your son - has been literally GONE without a trace for almost a full week points to "cheating is no big deal" or simply a man WITHOUT consciousness?

This is where you and I agree: He did not act like a man with a guilty consciousness.

Because he is a man (monster) without consciousness, PERIOD.

[I'mSun]

AW2B - nice spin, but IMO, doesn't come close to cutting it. ISP hid plenty of evidence, such as his boat and his mistress for starters. And those are fairly BIG pieces of evidence. He did lie about his alibi, golfing/fishing and when finally settled on fishing, he lied about the kind of fishing. His attny. advised him not to take a lie detector test, so he didn't. His attny. advised him to cut off communication w/Frey...he did not. If innocent people wouldn't think about how people would think or how they would interpret his actions, then why did the burglars, Amy, Bret, and Amber take the lie detector tests, why did they go in front of the media to beg for Laci's return? They were all innocent, and none of them were wearing baseball caps IIRC.:no: Lastly, even IF cheating on his wife was "no big deal" and clearly it wasn't since he did it from day 1, do you think that partying in Paris, on the phone with your lover, when your wife - who's carrying your son - has been literally GONE without a trace for almost a full week points to "cheating is no big deal" or simply a man WITHOUT consciousness?

This is where you and I agree: He did not act like a man with a guilty consciousness.

Because he is a man (monster) without consciousness, PERIOD.

Well said, TopGunner. :beer: I agree with you on everything. Cheating was no big deal to him and lying seems to come naturally. He has no conscious and no no morals. But he does have friends in Paris :tongue:

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B

I totally agree with you... I don't think he acted with a 'consciousness of guilt' in almost everything he did and said..if anything he acted with a 'consciousness of innocence' and 'consciousness of I don't care'...

the lack of grief has never been an issue for me b/c I don't have a reference point...I don't know what he was like before this, did he show his emotions? Or was he even keeled?..... I look to the 'pre-Amber' family comments on how he was broken up and devastated when not in public. Those are the true indication of his grief to me... the non-tainted versions. Either he was crying and upset or he wasn't.... and Laci's family said he was... so to me he was... and he showed it to the ones that counted.


I will disagree on one thing in your list...... and that's Amber. I get why he felt the need to keep her around....and if someone were to say he was a sex addict I would believe it(and it would explain the porn upgrade)..But he should have respected Laci enough to let go of Amber..... and if not Laci then the situation... that's my complaint when it comes to her....

he just should have known better, ya know?

Exactly ekg..I think he made a big mistake by calling Amber..I totally agree..but I don't consider it an indication of guilt or lack of concern for Laci..his need to talk to Amber could be due to many reasons..for example, maybe he truly believed she cared about him and he needed some support because of what he was going thru...if we take into consideration the nightmare he was going thru...his pregnant wife was missing and he had no idea what was happening to her and his son...the media pressure, reporters following him everywhere he went...negative media reports that IMO, convicted him on a daily basis...the MPD pressure..detectives calling him accusing him of murdering his wife...I mean some people from a radio station were outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess...etc..etc..IMO, when under stress most people have a hard time thinking rationally...and he was definitely under tremendous stress...so I don't know if we are in a position to judge his actions...

[TopGunner]

Exactly ekg..I think he made a big mistake by calling Amber..I totally agree..but I don't consider it an indication of guilt or lack of concern for Laci..his need to talk to Amber could be due to many reasons..for example, maybe he truly believed she cared about him and he needed some support because of what he was going thru...if we take into consideration the nightmare he was going thru...his pregnant wife was missing and he had no idea what was happening to her and his son...the media pressure, reporters following him everywhere he went...negative media reports that IMO, convicted him on a daily basis...the MPD pressure..detectives calling him accusing him of murdering his wife...I mean some people from a radio station were outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess...etc..etc..IMO, when under stress most people have a hard time thinking rationally...and he was definitely under tremendous stress...so I don't know if we are in a position to judge his actions...



Absolutely none of the above had or was happening while he was in Paris the evening of Laci and Conner's vigil.

[cookiewench]

Exactly ekg..I think he made a big mistake by calling Amber..I totally agree..but I don't consider it an indication of guilt or lack of concern for Laci..his need to talk to Amber could be due to many reasons..for example, maybe he truly believed she cared about him and he needed some support because of what he was going thru...if we take into consideration the nightmare he was going thru...his pregnant wife was missing and he had no idea what was happening to her and his son...the media pressure, reporters following him everywhere he went...negative media reports that IMO, convicted him on a daily basis...the MPD pressure..detectives calling him accusing him of murdering his wife...I mean some people from a radio station were outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess...etc..etc..IMO, when under stress most people have a hard time thinking rationally...and he was definitely under tremendous stress...so I don't know if we are in a position to judge his actions...

He sure sounded like a happy-go-lucky man in the phone calls, it spite of all this.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

If innocent people wouldn't think about how people would think or how they would interpret his actions, then why did the burglars, Amy, Bret, and Amber take the lie detector tests, why did they go in front of the media to beg for Laci's return? They were all innocent

Snip





From the post you quoted:

a person with a perfect clear conscious would not even think what people would think or how they would interpret his actions...so he is himself..if he is by nature unemotional and can be calm in the face of tragedy, he would act exactly so..if cheating on his wife is not a big deal to him..he would act accordingly..

TopGunner....I'm going to explain my point using that particular example ---> "crying and begging in public for the return of a loved one".. not all people that cry and beg in public for the return of a loved one would be guilty...but IMO, all guilty people would cry and beg in public for the return of their supposedly loved one..in other words, the lack of crying in public or begging would be an indication of innocence not the other way around...why?

IMO

1- A guilty person whether he is emotional by nature or not, would do what he thinks would fool people into believing he is innocent..so he acts in a way to conceal his true feelings by exaggerating his grief..he's out there denying his guilt..his focus would be to tailor his actions to convey innocence..

2-An innocent person would be himself..so it depends on his personality..for example, an emotional person would cry and beg for the return of his loved one...an unemotional or a shy person would not go in front of cameras and beg...he's not out there trying to prove his innocence..innocence is a given to him.."what people might think" doesn't even cross his mind..

As to Scott, he didn't lie to the police about his alibi..he didn't lie to Sharon about his alibi..he called Laci from Berkeley using his cell phone ..he bought gasoline using his card..he basically documented where he was ...he didn't hide the boat, he stored it at his place of business, a business neighbor told the police that she let Laci use her bathroom few days before her disappearance..on Dec 24th he informed the police about his boat before Brocchini even arrived..he bought it using his correct name and address..he did nothing that indicates an effort on his part to conceal his alibi or the existence of his boat..

[Wearing A Halo]

Exactly ekg..I think he made a big mistake by calling Amber..I totally agree..but I don't consider it an indication of guilt or lack of concern for Laci..his need to talk to Amber could be due to many reasons..for example, maybe he truly believed she cared about him and he needed some support because of what he was going thru...if we take into consideration the nightmare he was going thru...his pregnant wife was missing and he had no idea what was happening to her and his son...the media pressure, reporters following him everywhere he went...negative media reports that IMO, convicted him on a daily basis...the MPD pressure..detectives calling him accusing him of murdering his wife...I mean some people from a radio station were outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess...etc..etc..IMO, when under stress most people have a hard time thinking rationally...and he was definitely under tremendous stress...so I don't know if we are in a position to judge his actions...

Who were these people from a radio station outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess?

[attorneywan2be]

Absolutely none of the above had or was happening while he was in Paris the evening of Laci and Conner's vigil.

On Dec 26h, the police obtained a search warrant to search his house and warehouse...during the search they impounded his boat and truck..that is not typical of an investigation of a missing person..the media reported that..on Dec 28th Modesto Bee reported that on Friday, Dec 27th, Scott left the press conference because reporters were asking him about his fishing trip..police told the newspaper that they were looking for evidence in Scott's computers and cars..etc..etc..he was under a lot of stress alright!



Officers scour more locations

By TY PHILLIPS
BEE STAFF WRITER

(Originally published Dec. 28, 2002)

Investigators expanded their hunt for clues Friday to a warehouse used by the Modesto man whose pregnant wife has been missing since Christmas Eve.

Also, police and FBI crime-scene analysts spent a second day working inside the La Loma neighborhood home that belongs to the missing woman, Laci Peterson, 27, and her husband, Scott, 30.

The warehouse, which Peterson uses in his work as an agricultural salesman, is on North Emerald Avenue near Kansas Avenue in Modesto. Police sealed the warehouse as well as the Peterson home.

In other developments:

Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were available about what detectives might have found out.

"At this point, he is not a suspect," Detective Doug Ridenour said. Police said they had no evidence of foul play in the disappearance.

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


Ridenour said investigators were looking for evidence in two computers and two vehicles seized Thursday night from the Peterson home.


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

Thursday, Peterson left a news conference shortly after it began at the Police Department, apparently upset that reporters were asking questions about the fishing trip.

He did not appear with other family members at either of two press conferences Friday.

"(Scott) is totally distraught, and he's really tired right now," said Lee Peterson, Scott's father. "It weighs on him that not only his wife and baby are gone, but that he's under suspicion."

At one of the Friday news conferences, as a reporter questioned police about Peterson's fishing trip, Lee Peterson stood and said that his son had provided detectives with a launch receipt that verified his trip. Later, Peterson also said his son had turned over a receipt from a Bay Area gas station.

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748322p-6703401c.html

[PsychNurse;~)]

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

Question from Go: How much will the boat rocking experiment come into play in the appeal process?

Robert Gottlieb: I guarantee that it will be point on appeal because the judge was wrong in allowing it to occur. The reason it was wrong is because the jury is not allowed to conduct their own experiment outside the evidence presented in the courtroom.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/1112peterson-gottlieb.html

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

Greta stated on her show that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..Bernie and Ted Williams agreed..

Link :see my initial post..

SNIPPED POST TO REPLY:

keep in mind that these people who are so sure isp will win this appeal also were positive he'd never be convicted.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi Paula..

The point of my theory is that he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank including the year....David Browne testified that the fishing license was a 2003 license...in other words, Scott could have used it anytime from the date of his purchase until Dec 31st of 2003...IMO, Scott entered the dates when he was sure he was going fishing, so I think he entered those dates on Dec 24th....he wrote "12/23/2002 AND 12/24/2002" because he had to enter 2 consecutive dates....


:confused:

that doesn't make any sense. why not fill in the 24th and 25th, since he stated it was a 'surprise' for ron! if it was truly a surprise for ron they could have taken it out for test run on the 25th.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

SNIPPED POST TO REPLY:

keep in mind that these people who are so sure isp will win this appeal also were positive he'd never be convicted.

cyn

There is a difference though..these people (attorneys) predicted that he will not be convicted based on the law..IMO, the jury didn't follow the jury instructions..if they properly applied the law they would not have convicted him..those attorneys are now predicting that he will win his appeal based on the law..and the appellate court would rule on the appeal based on the law...so I think this time they will be proven right...:D

[attorneywan2be]

:confused:

that doesn't make any sense. why not fill in the 24th and 25th, since he stated it was a 'surprise' for ron! if it was truly a surprise for ron they could have taken it out for test run on the 25th.

cyn


I do not recall that Scott said that it was a surprise for Ron..do you have link? TIA!

As far as I know, Laci was preparing for a Christmas party at her home..I don't think there was any plan to take the boat on the 25th..I think Scott wrote any consecutive dates as long as the 24th was one of them...

[Wearing A Halo]

On Dec 26h, the police obtained a search warrant to search his house and warehouse...during the search they impounded his boat and truck..that is not typical of an investigation of a missing person..the media reported that..on Dec 28th Modesto Bee reported that on Friday, Dec 27th, Scott left the press conference because reporters were asking him about his fishing trip..police told the newspaper that they were looking for evidence in Scott's computers and cars..etc..etc..he was under a lot of stress alright!



Officers scour more locations

By TY PHILLIPS
BEE STAFF WRITER

(Originally published Dec. 28, 2002)

Investigators expanded their hunt for clues Friday to a warehouse used by the Modesto man whose pregnant wife has been missing since Christmas Eve.

Also, police and FBI crime-scene analysts spent a second day working inside the La Loma neighborhood home that belongs to the missing woman, Laci Peterson, 27, and her husband, Scott, 30.

The warehouse, which Peterson uses in his work as an agricultural salesman, is on North Emerald Avenue near Kansas Avenue in Modesto. Police sealed the warehouse as well as the Peterson home.

In other developments:

Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were available about what detectives might have found out.

"At this point, he is not a suspect," Detective Doug Ridenour said. Police said they had no evidence of foul play in the disappearance.

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


Ridenour said investigators were looking for evidence in two computers and two vehicles seized Thursday night from the Peterson home.


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

Thursday, Peterson left a news conference shortly after it began at the Police Department, apparently upset that reporters were asking questions about the fishing trip.

He did not appear with other family members at either of two press conferences Friday.

"(Scott) is totally distraught, and he's really tired right now," said Lee Peterson, Scott's father. "It weighs on him that not only his wife and baby are gone, but that he's under suspicion."

At one of the Friday news conferences, as a reporter questioned police about Peterson's fishing trip, Lee Peterson stood and said that his son had provided detectives with a launch receipt that verified his trip. Later, Peterson also said his son had turned over a receipt from a Bay Area gas station.

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748322p-6703401c.html

Any stress that DRISP was experiencing was self-inflicted stress.(IMO, OC).

[attorneywan2be]

Who were these people from a radio station outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess?

quote:

Included among these are Ken Chiampou and John Kobylt from Los Angeles radio station KFI, who repeatedly badger Scott Peterson via a bullhorn, accusing him of killing Laci Peterson and offering him $64,000 to take a polygraph examination. "Nobody believes your story,"

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0301.htm

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

ROWLANDS: Yes, I tell you, you know, he decided to do a couple interviews today and of course, the Diane Sawyer interview. What that did was attract a lot of media and specifically a radio station came up here from the L.A. area, a guy with a bullhorn, he was barking out that he was going pay Scott $60, 000 to take a lie detector test. That brought out neighbors. Scott eventually called police.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/29/lkl.00.html

[Wearing A Halo]

quote:

Included among these are Ken Chiampou and John Kobylt from Los Angeles radio station KFI, who repeatedly badger Scott Peterson via a bullhorn, accusing him of killing Laci Peterson and offering him $64,000 to take a polygraph examination. "Nobody believes your story,"

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0301.htm

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

ROWLANDS: Yes, I tell you, you know, he decided to do a couple interviews today and of course, the Diane Sawyer interview. What that did was attract a lot of media and specifically a radio station came up here from the L.A. area, a guy with a bullhorn, he was barking out that he was going pay Scott $60, 000 to take a lie detector test. That brought out neighbors. Scott eventually called police.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/29/lkl.00.html

John and Ken from KFI AM 640-More Stimulating Talk Radio. NGs keep calling them DJs when they are not. They are talk show host and Bill Curtis called them "shock jocks" when they are not. John and Ken did the same thing to David Westerfield, so they are 2 for 2 in "badgering" murderers. BTW- they get along, extremely well, with MG.

[Synopsis]

Can you find just ONE of those traits that wouldn't apply to Scott? I can't.

Since I don't know him personally, I don't think I would attempt a true assessment of him as a person using the choices listed in the previous post. All we know is what we have heard or read based on interpretations by others (and some our own) of his actions and reactions.

In all fairness, there were some friends and acquaintances who voiced their feelings of Scott using terms in direct opposition to those listed. These people knew him personally, had a history of interactions and relationships with him, in the past and at the time Laci went missing. They didn't seem to view him as described, and seemed to be in total disbelief that he could or would have harmed Laci.

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped

I look to the 'pre-Amber' family comments on how he was broken up and devastated when not in public. Those are the true indication of his grief to me... the non-tainted versions. Either he was crying and upset or he wasn't.... and Laci's family said he was... so to me he was... and he showed it to the ones that counted.
*Snipped



He showed it to the ones that counted

People that are truly broken up and devastated can't turn their emotions on and off like a water faucet according to who they may be around at any given time.

When truly devastated, display of grief is involuntary.

Your comment speaks volumes.
Scott's display's were voluntary.
He could cut his emotions on and off accordingly.

He could turn his emotions on for support and sympathy from Laci's family.
He could turn his emotions on for his girl-friend to gain sympathy.

Scott's display of emotion were all about Scott.

[adnoid]

John and Ken from KFI AM 640-More Stimulating Talk Radio...BTW- they get along, extremely well, with MG.

As well they should - after all, they found an alibi witness (http://www.johnandkenshow.com/audio/files/priscillahaynes.wmx) to help Scott in his appeal!

[deputydi]

<snip>In all fairness, there were some friends and acquaintances who voiced their feelings of Scott using terms in direct opposition to those listed. These people knew him personally, had a history of interactions and relationships with him, in the past and at the time Laci went missing. They didn't seem to view him as described, and seemed to be in total disbelief that he could or would have harmed Laci.
Who?? His mother? His father? I can't think of anyone else who testified on his behalf who knew him in recent years. IIRC the character witnesses who spoke in Scott's defense were people who had little or no interaction with him for many years.

[attorneywan2be]

Who?? His mother? His father? I can't think of anyone else who testified on his behalf who knew him in recent years. IIRC the character witnesses who spoke in Scott's defense were people who had little or no interaction with him for many years.

What friends said about him..

Quote:

About Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson grew up in San Diego and graduated from the University of San Diego High School in 1990, his parents said. He moved to San Luis Obispo to attend college, where he met Laci Rocha. Friends said the two dated several years before marrying.

Friends said the couple moved to Modesto two years ago to start a family.

"In the short time I've known him, he's probably one of the nicest guys I've ever met," said Guy Miligi, a family friend. "He's always a gentleman with women. We'll be at dinner with them, and when my wife and Laci get up to go to the restroom, he'll always stand up. And he'll stand up again when she returns. You don't see that anymore."

Before reaching the later months of her pregnancy, Laci Peterson occasionally worked as a substitute teacher.

Scott Peterson is a salesman for Tradecorp, a Spanish company that manufactures and distributes a line of special fertilizers. He joined the Modesto Rotary Club about one year ago.

"He's the type of person that if you had broken down on the freeway, he'd be the guy who would stop and help you," said Kenni Friedman, president of the Downtown Rotary Club. "He's just a very compassionate, giving person."

Gregory Reed and his wife, Kristen, have known the Petersons for about a year. The couples became close in recent months when they attended Lamaze sessions together in the Reeds' La Loma home.

"They are very thoughtful people," Gregory Reed said. "When we had our baby, they came over multiple times, bringing meals and doing anything they could do to help. They were always together each time we saw them."

The Reeds are one of several Modesto couples who canceled holiday plans to stay closer to news about the case and to offer support in any way possible.

"It's had a big effect on my wife," Gregory Reed said. "I can't keep her from crying. She's absolutely devastated by this. We look at our baby and think about Laci. We cannot imagine where she is without wondering about her condition. Or her child's."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5748322p-6703401c.html

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

As the holiday season progressed, the Petersons held several parties at their home. Guests walking in noticed that the house no longer resembled the place that the Petersons had purchased.

"Scott remodeled the entire house, doing woodwork, tile, plumbing, a little bit of everything," said Guy Miligi, a friend of the Petersons'. "I know he put a lot of hours into making that baby room just right. He was real excited about having his first child. He talked about that all the time."

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5964484p-6923678c.html

[Miss Bootsie]

sure...... we're not here to inform and convince each other as much as we are here to help the ppl who might be new to the case or have a passing interest in it...

I can't convince you the boat wasn't secret and you can't convince me it was a secret.... but one of us might convince little Suzy Q one way or the other..



Just wanted to clarify. This is what I thought you meant.
I can't speak for the other G's, but I'm not here to convince "Suzy Q".
The SII's, (one in particular), I believe, are here to change public opinion. I've known that from the beginning.


I give people credit for having enough common sense to read the trial transcripts that are readily available,and make a decision on their own.

[deputydi]

What friends said about him..
<snip>
Early in the investigation even the Rocha's said glowing things about the "Scott they knew". Their confidence in him eroded as more and more information came out. How many of these supporters testified during the penalty phase? Haven't you ever wondered why?
In a letter from jail to his friend Guy Miligi, Scott thanks him and his wife Jodi for their
"help when Laci was missing." By this time, however, Miligi, who'd golfed with Scott
during the weeks before his arrest- may have had his own suspicions. Brocchini
noted in a report that whenever Miligi asked Scott about Laci's disappearance,
Scott seemed to "beat around the bush" and "would look down or away."
Heather and Mike Richardson:
But they said that their trust in Scott Peterson has been shaken.
"He was obviously two different people, he was who he had to be when he
was with different people," Richardson stated.
Kristen and Greg Reid:
The Reids say they have not tried to get in touch with Scott since Modesto Police arrested
him in San Diego, only days after the bodies of Laci and her unborn son washed ashore
in San Francisco Bay, three miles from where Peterson said he was fishing Christmas Eve.

"Scott is definitely in a difficult position," Greg Reid said. "There's a lot of information that
we're not even being provided that we're not seeing. So the only decision I think,
speaking for both of us, is that we just hope that justice prevails and every
piece of information and evidence that's available is provided."
Not one of them got on the stand and testified that Scott couldn't have done this in a million years. In all fairness, they haven't proclaimed him guilty either -- they all admit to very ambivalent feelings. Not completely convinced of his guilt or innocence.:shrug:

[ekg]

Exactly ekg..I think he made a big mistake by calling Amber..I totally agree..but I don't consider it an indication of guilt or lack of concern for Laci..his need to talk to Amber could be due to many reasons..for example, maybe he truly believed she cared about him and he needed some support because of what he was going thru...if we take into consideration the nightmare he was going thru...his pregnant wife was missing and he had no idea what was happening to her and his son...the media pressure, reporters following him everywhere he went...negative media reports that IMO, convicted him on a daily basis...the MPD pressure..detectives calling him accusing him of murdering his wife...I mean some people from a radio station were outside his house calling him a murderer and that he better confess...etc..etc..IMO, when under stress most people have a hard time thinking rationally...and he was definitely under tremendous stress...so I don't know if we are in a position to judge his actions...

That pressure is why I can understand his contact with Amber.. But he should have cut the euro-crap and told her what was going on...

that pressure is also an indication of his innocence to me.......he never cracked under it... IMO a Guilty person would have finally caved, just look at Hacking,John Couey, or even Bobby Cutts Jr. they didn't go thru one ounce of the pressure and they confessed.... OJ is the only one who comes to mind who went thru the same amount of pressure.. and he didn't confess(technically) but he ran with a gun pointed at his head(allegedly)... how Scott didn't cave or kill himself if he did it I'll never know.....:shrug:

[Hey Paula]

That pressure is why I can understand his contact with Amber.. But he should have cut the euro-crap and told her what was going on...

that pressure is also an indication of his innocence to me.......he never cracked under it... IMO a Guilty person would have finally caved, just look at Hacking,John Couey, or even Bobby Cutts Jr. they didn't go thru one ounce of the pressure and they confessed.... OJ is the only one who comes to mind who went thru the same amount of pressure.. and he didn't confess(technically) but he ran with a gun pointed at his head(allegedly)... how Scott didn't cave or kill himself if he did it I'll never know.....:shrug:

Hi Ekg!

Scott didn't confess to the MPD. However, he did tell Amber she guessed everything, which was as close to a confession as possible.

IMO

[ekg]

From the post you quoted:




2-An innocent person would be himself..so it depends on his personality..for example, an emotional person would cry and beg for the return of his loved one...an unemotional or a shy person would not go in front of cameras and beg...he's not out there trying to prove his innocence..innocence is a given to him.."what people might think" doesn't even cross his mind..
.


a perfect example of this is Dennis and Sharon....... both were broken up, but Dennis was by far the worse off of the two IMO..... it led me to believe he was just more emotional.... Not that Sharon wasn't... I'm not saying that.... she was just stronger than him and was able to handle it just a little bit better...

but in looking at the 2 of them at one of the 1st PC's.. you have 2 very different displays of grief...add in Ron,Amy and Brent and you have an assortment of public grief. I don't think Scott was any better or worse than any of them.....(with the exception of Dennis, I still can't watch him without my heartbreaking)

[ekg]

He showed it to the ones that counted

People that are truly broken up and devastated can't turn their emotions on and off like a water faucet according to who they may be around at any given time.

When truly devastated, display of grief is involuntary.

Your comment speaks volumes.
Scott's display's were voluntary.
He could cut his emotions on and off accordingly.

He could turn his emotions on for support and sympathy from Laci's family.
He could turn his emotions on for his girl-friend to gain sympathy.

Scott's display of emotion were all about Scott.

maybe you should watch that 1st PC with Dennis and the family again..

Sharon sure was able to control her grief there and at many other PC's..Sometimes as a mother, no matter how devastated you are, you have to turn it off and keep going... That's not a sign of anything but strength IMO....

[deputydi]

a perfect example of this is Dennis and Sharon....... both were broken up, but Dennis was by far the worse off of the two IMO..... it led me to believe he was just more emotional.... Not that Sharon wasn't... I'm not saying that.... she was just stronger than him and was able to handle it just a little bit better...

but in looking at the 2 of them at one of the 1st PC's.. you have 2 very different displays of grief...add in Ron,Amy and Brent and you have an assortment of public grief. I don't think Scott was any better or worse than any of them.....(with the exception of Dennis, I still can't watch him without my heartbreaking)
Whenever I think of strength, I remember Jackie Kennedy. No one saw her shed a tear in public but does anyone doubt her grief? Of course not. Scott's lack of tears on tv didn't mean a thing to me but the Diane Sawyer interview made me want to puke. God forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to me to be the worst acting job I've ever witnessed.

[deputydi]

<snip>that pressure is also an indication of his innocence to me.......he never cracked under it... IMO a Guilty person would have finally caved, just look at Hacking,John Couey, or even Bobby Cutts Jr. they didn't go thru one ounce of the pressure and they confessed.... OJ is the only one who comes to mind who went thru the same amount of pressure.. and he didn't confess(technically) but he ran with a gun pointed at his head(allegedly)... how Scott didn't cave or kill himself if he did it I'll never know.....:shrug:
Prisons are full of "innocent" people who never confessed. Not every murderer confesses and not every confession is truthful. I'm no psychologist, but maybe the ones who do admit what they did are the ones who actually have a conscience.

[ekg]

Hi Ekg!

Scott didn't confess to the MPD. However, he did tell Amber she guessed everything, which was as close to a confession as possible.

IMO

Hi Paula

do you have something from the TS on this? or is this the article from the NE?

[ekg]

Whenever I think of strength, I remember Jackie Kennedy. No one saw her shed a tear in public but does anyone doubt her grief? Of course not. Scott's lack of tears on tv didn't mean a thing to me but the Diane Sawyer interview made me want to puke. God forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to me to be the worst acting job I've ever witnessed.

I agree... it seemed forced...

[ekg]

Prisons are full of "innocent" people who never confessed. Not every murderer confesses and not every confession is truthful. I'm no psychologist, but maybe the ones who do admit what they did are the ones who actually have a conscience.

I wouldn't say Ted Bundy had a conscience...LOL, but I agree many don't confess...

I just don't see SP as a hardened enough criminal to live thru the pressure without cracking...

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula

do you have something from the TS on this? or is this the article from the NE?

LOL, it wasn't something which appeared in the NE. It was from one of the telecon transcripts between Scott and Amber which I read at the CTV site, and which was widely discussed.

Amber had told Scott that she'd suspected he might have had something to do with Laci's disappearance which he denied at that time, but in a subsequent telecon told her she had guessed it.

If there weren't so many transcripts and they weren't so lengthy I would try to find it and post the relevant portion.

[attorneywan2be]

Early in the investigation even the Rocha's said glowing things about the "Scott they knew". Their confidence in him eroded as more and more information came out. How many of these supporters testified during the penalty phase? Haven't you ever wondered why?



Not one of them got on the stand and testified that Scott couldn't have done this in a million years. In all fairness, they haven't proclaimed him guilty either -- they all admit to very ambivalent feelings. Not completely convinced of his guilt or innocence.:shrug:


Joanne farmer, a friend, she interacted with Scott since the time he was born:

Joanne Farmer: Oh, absolutely. Gosh, yeah. Yes. I'm Aunt Joanne. Yeah, he's, he definitely is a loving person.
---------------

Pat Harris: As someone who has watched Scott from the time he was born, has known him the entire time he's been alive, what effect would it have on you if he was put to death?
Joanne Farmer: Oh, God. I don't want to go there either. I was at work when I heard the verdict. And I just screamed. They heard me up and down the hall. I had to leave. And I can't think like that.

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

Mark Geragos: And do you have an opinion about that? Any reason why you think he shouldn't be put to death?
Sandra Bertram: I can't even imagine that happening. I do not believe that Scott is guilty of this crime. I don't believe that he could have done this. The person that I knew, the family that I knew, the child that I saw daily, he could not have done this. I do not want to see him put to death.

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

Aaron Fritz, scott's friend for 17 years

Pat Harris: What would you say that you cherished about Scott as a friend, obviously a close friend. What did you cherish about him as a friend? What did you find to be his traits?
Aaron Fritz: How many days do we have? I have got a lot of things to talk about that I cherish. Scott's the kind of friend that I would want, if I ever have a child, to have a friend like Scott. He's been the kind of person that's there no matter what. He's been there when you don't even think you need somebody else there. Just truly sincere. Truly very, very gracious and very, very thoughtful. There is a lot of people I think that are friends that you kind of know in little bits and pieces of your life. We have known each other than for 17 years, and few people have had the impact as a peer in my life, other than my parents, and a couple of choice very good friends that Scott has been for me.

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

Pat Harris: You mentioned he came from a fortunate background. By the time he had grown to be a teenager, his parents had done well in their business. Did he ever exude an arrogance? Was he ever arrogant to other people, rude?
Aaron Fritz: No. He was the opposite. I guess if you were from a background like that, it might be expected that you could easily be arrogant. But he wasn't. And very much the opposite is, he was always very caring and very, his conscientiousness was very contagious.

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

Coni Fritz: He is a gentle man.
Pat Harris: What does that mean to you?
Coni Fritz: To me it means respect, caring, considerate. That's the Scott we know.

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

Pat Harris: Talked a little bit about when you met Scott, about his smile. Would you tell me about that?
Coni Fritz: Scott has a twinkle in his eye. Had a twinkle in his eye and a little side smile. That was what I considered his logo.
Pat Harris: What do you mean by his logo?
Coni Fritz: AT&T has their logo. Scott has that little crooked smile that is his logo. It's part of who he is.
Pat Harris: You know, there's at least been some references made that perhaps the smile revealed some arrogance. Did you ever see that?
Coni Fritz: Never. I'm sure arrogance is not a word that he even knows how to spell, because that is not who he is.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

but the Diane Sawyer interview made me want to puke. God forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seemed to me to be the worst acting job I've ever witnessed.

I have to disagree..I don't think you can judge him based on an edited interview..Diane Sawyer stated that he would dissolve in tears and he was not able to pull it back and cry for a considerable amount of time.. they had to stop the camera..

Quote:

SAWYER: Well, you know, he was such a complex guy. At this time, as we know, she was not -- her body had not yet been found. And at this time, he was sometimes extremely composed, just talking to me very factually about her. And at other times, he would -- he would dissolve in tears, not be able to pull it back and cry for a considerable amount of time. Sometimes we even stopped the camera when he did.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/07/lkl.00.html

[deputydi]

Joanne farmer, a friend, she interacted with Scott since the time he was born:

Joanne Farmer: Oh, absolutely. Gosh, yeah. Yes. I'm Aunt Joanne. Yeah, he's, he definitely is a loving person.
---------------
<snip>
I honestly don't mean to be offensive here, but I'll bet I'm not the only one who skims over most of the quotes you offer because there are too many and they are too lengthy -- and, I've read them all before. You are trying so hard to sway others to your way of thinking and it just won't work. IMO the jury made the absolutely right decision and Scott is right where he belongs.

BTW, even Ann Rule was shocked to find out about Ted Bundy. She worked with him and never suspected he was a serial killer.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Ekg!

Scott didn't confess to the MPD. However, he did tell Amber she guessed everything, which was as close to a confession as possible.

IMO

Hi Paula

Let me start by saying that Scott was not referring to her questions that he answered..he answered her question about whether or not he had anything to do with Laci's disappearance..he told her that he had nothing to do with her disappearance..when he told her that she knew the answers, he was referring to her questions that he was refusing to answer and she was guessing the possible answers to her questions...!

FREY: …with her disappearance? Is that what you’re telling me?
PETERSON: I had nothing to do. My God, Amber, I had nothing to with her disappearance.
FREY: Then who did?
PETERSON: We don’t have any ideas

------------------------
Mark Geragos: Now, on that same tape on January 6th, once again he says in response to you, "I had nothing to do with her disappearance," correct?
Amber Frey: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he repeatedly tells you that. Then you ask him or suggest to him, that all you can do is pray that you don't have anything to do with this, meaning him, correct?
Amber Frey: Yes.

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


This is the part of the conversation you were referring to:

PETERSON I know and I’m not gonna frustrate you with it. Well, maybe I do frustrate you with it, but it’s easier not to say I can’t tell you because it just frustrates you. And, you know, when the time comes and we can sit down, you know, face to face, and, you know, there’s some resolution of this and time has passed. I mean, you know…you know all the answers to the things you want to know.
FREY: I do?
PETERSON About them all.
FREY: I do?
PETERSON Yes.
FREY: How do I know?
PETERSON I wish I could tell you, but you’ve…you’ve guessed the answers to all of them.
FREY: How do I have the answers, Scott?
PETERSON Well, you don’t have the answers, but you’ve guessed at them and you know them and it’s just gonna take time and trust for me to not trust, but time for to be able to tell you.
FREY: Hum! So what’s this you were saying last night about Sacramento?
PETERSON What’s that?
FREY: You said you would tell me today about Sacramento?
PETERSON No. I didn’t say I’d tell you today.
FREY: Oh, then I misunderstood.

[deputydi]

I have to disagree..I don't think you can judge him based on an edited interview..Diane Sawyer stated that he would dissolve in tears and he was not able to pull it back and cry for a considerable amount of time.. they had to stop the camera..

Quote:

SAWYER: Well, you know, he was such a complex guy. At this time, as we know, she was not -- her body had not yet been found. And at this time, he was sometimes extremely composed, just talking to me very factually about her. And at other times, he would -- he would dissolve in tears, not be able to pull it back and cry for a considerable amount of time. Sometimes we even stopped the camera when he did.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/07/lkl.00.html
I'm not talking about only the crocodile tears. I'm most offended by the LIES he told.

1. He couldn't bring himself to enter Conner's room until the "little guy" was in it. Meantime, he was using the space for storage.

2. Laci knew about the affair and wasn't upset. Not a chance in Hades.

3. He told the police about Amber "immediately".

4. He claimed to never have loved Amber, which may be true -- but he sure appeared to be obsessed with her.

[attorneywan2be]

I honestly don't mean to be offensive here, but I'll bet I'm not the only one who skims over most of the quotes you offer because there are too many and they are too lengthy -- and, I've read them all before. You are trying so hard to sway others to your way of thinking and it just won't work. IMO the jury made the absolutely right decision and Scott is right where he belongs.

Snip



All I can say is that I'm here to voice my opinion regarding this case..new members read here..if you think my quotes are not necessary..feel free to not read them or respond to them..I'm here to debate in a friendly and respectful manner..BTW, you did quote several of Scott's friends and my post was in response to yours..I didn't read your quotes either because I read them before, but I didn't feel the need to tell you so..!

IMO, I don't think justice was done..and Scott deserves justice...

[frydaddy]

Just a few comments about the posts from the last day or so...

Adnoid...I could have done without listening to the psychotic lady from the radio show. No doubt, she's a poster on a pro-SP message board somewhere! (Disclaimer: Not here, I'm not accusing any of our current advocates, for sure.)

I'm seeing a pattern here...has anyone notice that some posts begin "according to testimony" when it's favorable to Scott, then there are other posts where media reports are gospel, also when it's favorable to Scott. But when the testimony or the media reports are unfavorable, the opposite is trumpeted to offset the negative? Maybe it's just me? :shrug:

Di - You nailed it! Nearly every post seems to give Scott a free pass on EVERY ASPECT. Who on this planet is worthy of such a thing? It such a soul exists, it ain't Scott! Well done!

[deputydi]

All I can say is that I'm here to voice my opinion regarding this case..new members read here..if you think my quotes are not necessary..feel free to not read them or respond to them..I'm here to debate in a friendly and respectful manner..BTW, you did quote several of Scott's friends and my post was in response to yours..I didn't read your quotes either because I read them before, but I didn't feel the need to tell you so..!

IMO, I don't think justice was done..and Scott deserves justice...
As I said, I didn't mean any offense and I hope none is taken. I'm usually on and off several times a day or in the evening -- rarely am I on for any extended period. Your ability to draw on actual testimony and post it in such a timely manner is awe inspiring and I am not being critical of it. For me, it would be beneficial for you to post a synopsis or a few quoted lines and then a link to the entire testimony for anyone who is interested.

[Synopsis]

I honestly don't mean to be offensive here, but I'll bet I'm not the only one who skims over most of the quotes you offer because there are too many and they are too lengthy -- and, I've read them all before. You are trying so hard to sway others to your way of thinking and it just won't work. IMO the jury made the absolutely right decision and Scott is right where he belongs.

BTW, even Ann Rule was shocked to find out about Ted Bundy. She worked with him and never suspected he was a serial killer.

I think AW2B is fully aware of the fact that she will never "sway" anyone who feels Scott is guilty into believing the opposite. But she does know the legal points and aspects of the Peterson case thoroughly. She's a strong devoted advocate and to some, that's to be admired.

Yes, sometimes her posts are lengthy, but I believe she is trying to back up her comments and beliefs with legitimate facts and evidence, rather than just puking and name calling and obviously total disdain and hate for the man.:rolleyes:

[deputydi]

<snip>I'm seeing a pattern here...has anyone notice that some posts begin "according to testimony" when it's favorable to Scott, then there are other posts where media reports are gospel, also when it's favorable to Scott. But when the testimony or the media reports are unfavorable, the opposite is trumpeted to offset the negative? Maybe it's just me? :shrug:

Di - You nailed it! Nearly every post seems to give Scott a free pass on EVERY ASPECT. Who on this planet is worthy of such a thing? It such a soul exists, it ain't Scott! Well done!
I'm seeing the same pattern and it is becoming more and more apparent that this is exactly why many (if not all) SIIs can't quite grasp the concept of CE. Instead of looking at the evidence as a complete picture they pick out little pieces and say "look this proves he couldn't have done it".

[attorneywan2be]

As I said, I didn't mean any offense and I hope none is taken. I'm usually on and off several times a day or in the evening -- rarely am I on for any extended period. Your ability to draw on actual testimony and post it in such a timely manner is awe inspiring and I am not being critical of it. For me, it would be beneficial for you to post a synopsis or a few quoted lines and then a link to the entire testimony for anyone who is interested.

No offense is taken..thanks for the advice DD..the TS of the trial is stored in my computer..so I don't have a link..I just post the part of the testimony in question..

[attorneywan2be]

I think AW2B is fully aware of the fact that she will never "sway" anyone who feels Scott is guilty into believing the opposite. But she does know the legal points and aspects of the Peterson case thoroughly. She's a strong devoted advocate and to some, that's to be admired.

Yes, sometimes her posts are lengthy, but I believe she is trying to back up her comments and beliefs with legitimate facts and evidence, rather than just puking and name calling and obviously total disdain and hate for the man.:rolleyes:

Thanks for your support Synopsis...:seeya:

IMO, Scott is FACTUALLY innocent ..he didn't get a fair trial..seeing an innocent man sitting on death row breaks my heart..I hope one day justice will be done for Laci, Conner and Scott..

[deputydi]

No offense is taken..thanks for the advice DD..the TS of the trial is stored in my computer..so I don't have a link..I just post the part of the testimony in question..
I wondered how you did that. I have to Google anything I want a link to and sometimes it just takes way too long.

[Synopsis]

I'm not talking about only the crocodile tears. I'm most offended by the LIES he told.

1. He couldn't bring himself to enter Conner's room until the "little guy" was in it. Meantime, he was using the space for storage.

2. Laci knew about the affair and wasn't upset. Not a chance in Hades.

3. He told the police about Amber "immediately".

4. He claimed to never have loved Amber, which may be true -- but he sure appeared to be obsessed with her.

Interesting post - I have a response for #1 but I don't feel it would matter, and the other 3 are self explanatory.

It's all about the affair & Amber, Amber, Amber. Which is not to take anything away from the importance of that part of this case. It's what got him convicted.

No other person in the history of American juris prudence ever been so thoroughly prosecuted and convicted of adultery!

[attorneywan2be]

I wondered how you did that. I have to Google anything I want a link to and sometimes it just takes way too long.

You can go to this link..scroll down to "SII products to download"..you can download the TS of the trial..it's free

http://scottisinnocent.com

[deputydi]

Interesting post - I have a response for #1 but I don't feel it would matter, and the other 3 are self explanatory.

It's all about the affair & Amber, Amber, Amber. Which is not to take anything away from the importance of that part of this case. It's what got him convicted.

No other person in the history of American juris prudence ever been so thoroughly prosecuted and convicted of adultery!
No, actually for me the affair is only a small part of the picture. Location, location, location -- that was the event that locked together all the pieces of this puzzle. Once the bodies washed ashore, it would have taken an act of congress to convince me that everything else was just bad luck and/or bad timing.

[attorneywan2be]

No, actually for me the affair is only a small part of the picture. Location, location, location -- that was the event that locked together all the pieces of this puzzle. Once the bodies washed ashore, it would have taken an act of congress to convince me that everything else was just bad luck and/or bad timing.


IMO, that's exactly why the killers planted the bodies there..

You said " once the bodies washed ashore, it would take an act of congress to convince me...."

The fact is the bodies were found, no one saw them washing ashore..Dr Cheng could not prove based on the tidal/current conditions that both bodies traveled to shore from the same point of origin..he could not explain Laci's location...according to the prosecution's theory, Conner was in her uterus until the storm, then he exited from the opening and both bodies traveled to shore...if this is true, then Dr. Cheng should have been able to explain the location of both bodies in light of the tidal condition..but he couldn't...

[Synopsis]

No, actually for me the affair is only a small part of the picture. Location, location, location -- that was the event that locked together all the pieces of this puzzle. Once the bodies washed ashore, it would have taken an act of congress to convince me that everything else was just bad luck and/or bad timing.

Our current Congress has been known to act on many unbelievable and peculiar props!:patriot:

(no political pun intended):D

[JustMyOpinion]

It's all about the affair & Amber, Amber, Amber. Which is not to take anything away from the importance of that part of this case. It's what got him convicted.

No other person in the history of American juris prudence ever been so thoroughly prosecuted and convicted of adultery!

For me, it's all about the evidence proving pre-meditation, intent, deliberation, planning. For me it's all about the timeline. For me, it's all about evidence such as the concrete anchor, the missing concrete item molded in the bucket, the circular imprints of concrete residue, the cell phone records, the marina receipt, the fishing permit, the boat, the computer searches, the location of the bodies and the state they were in, the maternity blouse, the remnants of clothing on remains, the etc. It's about murder, murder, murder, and Scott Peterson had a well-resourced criminal defense team, a fair trial and a just verdict, IMO.

[Synopsis]

I'm seeing the same pattern and it is becoming more and more apparent that this is exactly why many (if not all) SIIs can't quite grasp the concept of CE. Instead of looking at the evidence as a complete picture they pick out little pieces and say "look this proves he couldn't have done it".

And this, to me, exactly defines what makes people and life in general, different and creatively interesting to boot!

I don't get the picture you are getting at all. To some It may appear we are "picking out little pieces," but not so. Each time there is a "little piece" defined by an SII, it is usually if not always in response to a "little piece" that has been pulled out by one who feels he is guilty. And it is usually followed by "look he lied about this - this proves it to me."

I don't think anyone who followed this trial and has a definite opinion 1 way or another could ever be guilty of not seeing the whole picture - whatever their interpretation may be.

[adnoid]

...I could have done without listening to the psychotic lady from the radio show. No doubt, she's a poster on a pro-SP message board somewhere! (Disclaimer: Not here, I'm not accusing any of our current advocates, for sure.)...

Scott should get a new trial because she was never interviewed by the MPD!

...has anyone notice that some posts begin "according to testimony" when it's favorable to Scott, then there are other posts where media reports are gospel, also when it's favorable to Scott. But when the testimony or the media reports are unfavorable, the opposite is trumpeted to offset the negative? Maybe it's just me?...

Nope.

Di - You nailed it! Nearly every post seems to give Scott a free pass on EVERY ASPECT. Who on this planet is worthy of such a thing? It such a soul exists, it ain't Scott! Well done!

It kind of reminds me of a phenomenon I have seen before - "Rooting for the underdog". Some folks feel that if the law is against someone they're going to stick up for that person. Just a few months ago there was the case of Ralph "Bucky" Phillips, (http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=39219) and despite the fact the guy is a total scumbag, he got support from friends and family (cue banjos) (http://theartofinsanity.blogspot.com/2006/06/run-bucky-run.html) who felt it wasn't "fair" that the cops were after him. Well, they were after him because he was a bad guy, but in some folks' eyes that makes him an underdog & they have to support him regardless - and most importantly, NEVER admit that a SINGLE THING HE DID IS WRONG, anything that looks bad was not his fault but was forced on him by others. An absolute total lack of introspection IMO. I've seen the same sentiments expressed by women on the Prison Talk (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=44) site, where they go on and on about the unfairness of it all, ignoring the fact that their "warriors" that the System is putting down did, in fact, harm others.

I really can't wrap my mind around it, honestly.

[Synopsis]

I think one of the things that has made this case so perplexing, and why it has held the interest of so many so long is the fact that IMO
1. There is not one "thing" whether it be hard evidence or CE that proves he did it

2. There is not one "thing" whether it be hard evidence or CE that proves he did NOT do it
GUILT:
1. I'm aware that to some the location of the bodies seems to cinch it. Well to many that turns the idea of his guilt on it's head! But I'm not going there, it's far too lengthy.
NOT GUILTY:
2. I'm aware that Connor's gestational age points to NG for some. But I'm not going there, it's far too lengthy.

[attorneywan2be]

I think one of the things that has made this case so perplexing, and why it has held the interest of so many so long is the fact that IMO
1. There is not one "thing" whether it be hard evidence or CE that proves he did it

2. There is not one "thing" whether it be hard evidence or CE that proves he did NOT do it
GUILT:
1. I'm aware that to some the location of the bodies seems to cinch it. Well to many that turns the idea of his guilt on it's head! But I'm not going there, it's far too lengthy.
NOT GUILTY:
2. I'm aware that Connor's gestational age points to NG for some. But I'm not going there, it's far too lengthy.


LOL..there is a thread devoted to "Conner's gestational age"..and I do believe he was older than 33 weeks when found...

IMO, the prosecution's theory doesn't make any sense whatsoever..I mean he supposedly killed his wife then worked on his home computer looking for a scarf and an umbrella stand with sunflower motif..then he transferred her body to the warehouse with possible Rigor Mortis setting in...he then visited several internet sites looking for instructions on how to assemble a mortiser..then he sent an electronic Christmas Card to his boss..assembled the mortiser..while supposedly his wife's body was decomposing..attached 5 anchors to her body...tansferred her body to the boat then to the bay..dumped a total weight of 193 pounds off his boat..IMO, that is totally ridiculous..!

[I'mSun]

IMO, that's exactly why the killers planted the bodies there..
You said " once the bodies washed ashore, it would take an act of congress to convince me...."

The fact is the bodies were found, no one saw them washing ashore..Dr Cheng could not prove based on the tidal/current conditions that both bodies traveled to shore from the same point of origin..he could not explain Laci's location...according to the prosecution's theory, Conner was in her uterus until the storm, then he exited from the opening and both bodies traveled to shore...if this is true, then Dr. Cheng should have been able to explain the location of both bodies in light of the tidal condition..but he couldn't...Well, this just doesn't make sense. How could "the killers" possibly have known this would become a highly publicized case? Why would they want to frame Scott - he wasn't rich or anything. In fact, he was nothing. The Coast Guard was searching before Berkeley Marina was ever mentioned publicly. So, when were the bodies 'planted'?

27) Craig Grogan: Yes, we, I requested someone to contact the U.S. Coast Guard and ask that a search of the San Francisco Bay be conducted that day. And I assigned Detective Phil Owen to follow up with them.
128) Judge Delucchi: This happened on the 27th?
129) Craig Grogan: Yes.
*

[Synopsis]

Scott should get a new trial because she was never interviewed by the MPD!


It kind of reminds me of a phenomenon I have seen before - "Rooting for the underdog". Some folks feel that if the law is against someone they're going to stick up for that person. *SNIPPED* - and most importantly, NEVER admit that a SINGLE THING HE DID IS WRONG, anything that looks bad was not his fault but was forced on him by others.*SNIPPED* An absolute total lack of introspection IMO.
I really can't wrap my mind around it, honestly.

There is another phenomenon in this same category. When the public, or more importantly, the jurors come into a courtroom and are faced with a defendant charged with a crime, the knee-jerk reaction sometimes is "he must be guilty of something or the police wouldn't have arrested him, and he wouldn't be charged with it."

People tend to have a complete belief and trust in their elected officials. They truly WANT to believe what they are saying about a person charged with a crime. It's a huge burden for the defense to get beyond. The "Innocence Project" and the recent Niphong case results MAY have an effect on past injustices.

Note:disclaimer: I am not anti-LE. I have a brother, and 2 nephews who are actively employed in the profession.

[Synopsis]

For me, it's all about the evidence proving pre-meditation, intent, deliberation, planning. For me it's all about the timeline. For me, it's all about evidence such as the concrete anchor, the missing concrete item molded in the bucket, the circular imprints of concrete residue, the cell phone records, the marina receipt, the fishing permit, the boat, the computer searches, the location of the bodies and the state they were in, the maternity blouse, the remnants of clothing on remains, the etc. It's about murder, murder, murder, and Scott Peterson had a well-resourced criminal defense team, a fair trial and a just verdict, IMO.

This is what I was talking about in an earlier post. It would be difficult for a poster to respond to the points you list. If they have a DIFFERENT opinion to one or more of the points you list that lead you to guilt, it would appear to some that the SII's were "pulling out those little pieces" and not really seeing the whole picture.

AW2B could respond to each of these points but it wouldn't change your opinion or how you feel about it. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! Having opinions and voicing them is your perrogative and your right. Some parts of our system DO work.:patriot:

[TopGunner]

I honestly don't mean to be offensive here, but I'll bet I'm not the only one who skims over most of the quotes you offer because there are too many and they are too lengthy -- and, I've read them all before. You are trying so hard to sway others to your way of thinking and it just won't work. IMO the jury made the absolutely right decision and Scott is right where he belongs.

BTW, even Ann Rule was shocked to find out about Ted Bundy. She worked with him and never suspected he was a serial killer.



I LOVE Ann Rule DD, and ITA with your post. How many friends and family members of those on death row say "I just KNEW he'd commit murder someday!" Even Jeffery Dahmer's parents didn't see it, Ted Bundy's mother REFUSED to believe it, until he confessed (even with all the "evidence") - there are hundreds if not thousands of men in prison (and woman) who are surrounded by people in their past who say "he was such a nice man, a great father...I never suspected". ISP had a history of cheating, stealing, drinking, exposing himself, pathological lying, etc. Just because he got away with it (until the murder), thus leaving many in shock and disbelief, doesn't mean he was the nice, helpful, sweet man some would like think. He never made a move in his life unless there was a personal agenda attached.

[attorneywan2be]

Well, this just doesn't make sense. How could "the killers" possibly have known this would become a highly publicized case? Why would they want to frame Scott - he wasn't rich or anything. In fact, he was nothing. The Coast Guard was searching before Berkeley Marina was ever mentioned publicly. So, when were the bodies 'planted'?

27) Craig Grogan: Yes, we, I requested someone to contact the U.S. Coast Guard and ask that a search of the San Francisco Bay be conducted that day. And I assigned Detective Phil Owen to follow up with them.
128) Judge Delucchi: This happened on the 27th?
129) Craig Grogan: Yes.
*

Again, they didn't frame Scott out of vendetta or anything..they simply wanted the police investigation to end...they wanted to make sure that they will never be caught..that's exactly what happened..the police arrested Scott, and the case was solved according to the police...

IMO, the bodies were planted the day they were found...

[I'mSun]

Again, they didn't frame Scott out of vendetta or anything..they simply wanted the police investigation to end...they wanted to make sure that they will never be caught..that's exactly what happened..the police arrested Scott, and the case was solved according to the police...

IMO, the bodies were planted the day they were found...How do you know this? Who are "they"? Please provide a link, thanks.

Also, if the bodies were planted, as you say, the day they were found, how do you explain the barnacles and mineral deposits on Laci which are consistent with having been in the water for a few months? Where are her missing limbs?

[attorneywan2be]

How do you know this? Who are "they"? Please provide a link, thanks.

LOL..you want me to provide a link to my theory..my post was a response to your question about my theory..

Also, if the bodies were planted, as you say, the day they were found, how do you explain the barnacles and mineral deposits on Laci which are consistent with having been in the water for a few months? Where are her missing limbs?

IMO, the fact that the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of her pants indicates to me (my theory) that they formed due to frequent urination..if they formed due to her body being in the bay then why they were no mineral deposits anywhere on her body or clothing other than the crotch area of her pants?? and IMO, barnacles don't take very long to attach to a body...for example, there are barnacles that would attach to mobile marine animals such as whales...

[I'mSun]

LOL..you want me to provide a link to my theory..my post was a response to your question about my theory..

You didn't say it was your opinion in your original post.

IMO, the fact that the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of her pants indicates to me (my theory) that they formed due to frequent urination..if they formed due to her body being in the bay then why they were no mineral deposits anywhere on her body or clothing other than the crotch area of her pants?? and IMO, barnacles don't take very long to attach to a body...for example, there are barnacles that would attach to mobile marine animals such as whales...Please explain what happened to her missing limbs. If someone was planting the bodies, as you claim, why not just put them together - why risk the time it would take and possibly being seen placing 2 bodies apart from each other? :shrug:

[TopGunner]

You didn't say it was your opinion in your original post.

Please explain what happened to her missing limbs. If someone was planting the bodies, as you claim, why not just put them together - why risk the time it would take and possibly being seen placing 2 bodies apart from each other? :shrug:

You rock! :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

Please explain what happened to her missing limbs. If someone was planting the bodies, as you claim, why not just put them together - why risk the time it would take and possibly being seen placing 2 bodies apart from each other? :shrug:

IMO, If Laci was in the bay then they should have found her head..and her missing limbs or at least one of them...I think the killers removed her limbs initially in an attempt to conceal her identity....however, later on they decided to plant her body close to where Scott went fishing so the police would end the investigation..

IMO, they figured if they would put the bodies together, people would wonder and consider it odd that somehow both bodies would wash ashore next to each other..so they figured to better plant them in different areas giving a false impression that they washed ashore..

[deputydi]

LOL..you want me to provide a link to my theory..my post was a response to your question about my theory..



IMO, the fact that the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of her pants indicates to me (my theory) that they formed due to frequent urination..if they formed due to her body being in the bay then why they were no mineral deposits anywhere on her body or clothing other than the crotch area of her pants?? and IMO, barnacles don't take very long to attach to a body...for example, there are barnacles that would attach to mobile marine animals such as whales...
How do you explain the condition of her body? I don't recall anyone disputing the fact that she had been in water for months. Laci's decomposed torso didn't get in that condition overnight. If she was placed there the day she was found, where was her decomposing body being kept? Why did the kidnappers wait 4 months before planting the body? What happened to her limbs?

[deputydi]

IMO, If Laci was in the bay then they should have found her head..and her missing limbs or at least one of them...<snip>

Not if her head and limbs washed out to the ocean as Scott believed all of her would.

[adnoid]

How do you explain the condition of her body? I don't recall anyone disputing the fact that she had been in water for months. Laci's decomposed torso didn't get in that condition overnight. If she was placed there the day she was found, where was her decomposing body being kept? Why did the kidnappers wait 4 months before planting the body? What happened to her limbs?

I have seen some SII folks posit that Laci's body was kept in an enormous salt water aquarium set up to mimic the chemistry of the SF Bay, so that it would look like she was in the bay. I can't imagine what such a setup would entail, keeping my own 30 gallon tank going is about all I can handle.

Of course, such a tank would have needed to be ready to go on Christmas eve or shortly thereafter, which seems to me to indicate a wide-ranging conspiracy of some sort.

[attorneywan2be]

How do you explain the condition of her body? I don't recall anyone disputing the fact that she had been in water for months. Laci's decomposed torso didn't get in that condition overnight. If she was placed there the day she was found, where was her decomposing body being kept? Why did the kidnappers wait 4 months before planting the body? What happened to her limbs?


I happened to believe that she didn't die the day she disappeared..I think she was held captive for several weeks..she died in February close to her due date...I think they kept their bodies in a small body of water..such as a bathtub..Conner's body was fully submerged due to his size..the lower part of Laci's body was fully submerged and her upper body was partially submerged...that would explain why Conner was less decomposed than Laci and why the lower part of Laci's body was less decomposed than the upper part of her body...I think they waited for the right opportunity to plant their bodies close to Scott's alibi..!

This is just a theory since I would have no idea what the killers did, however, I firmly believe that Laci was abducted..there is no question in my mind..and my number one suspects are the burglars...

[I'mSun]

I have seen some SII folks posit that Laci's body was kept in an enormous salt water aquarium set up to mimic the chemistry of the SF Bay, so that it would look like she was in the bay. I can't imagine what such a setup would entail, keeping my own 30 gallon tank going is about all I can handle.

Of course, such a tank would have needed to be ready to go on Christmas eve or shortly thereafter, which seems to me to indicate a wide-ranging conspiracy of some sort.Hiya Adnoid! Just when I think I've heard them all, here comes another. Are we back to the warehouse in Tracy and the aliens yet? ;)

[ekg]

LOL, it wasn't something which appeared in the NE. It was from one of the telecon transcripts between Scott and Amber which I read at the CTV site, and which was widely discussed.

Amber had told Scott that she'd suspected he might have had something to do with Laci's disappearance which he denied at that time, but in a subsequent telecon told her she had guessed it.

If there weren't so many transcripts and they weren't so lengthy I would try to find it and post the relevant portion.

Thanks HP...

I did a quick google and didn't find anything and was going to look a little harder but then, ya know... life came at me fast..... HA! so I'll do a better look tomorrow...

[attorneywan2be]

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.

The ME didn't testify on whether or not he measured the draw cords of her pants BEFORE untying them..he should have measured the length of the loop (the tied part) that would have given them Laci's waist right before she died...they could have determined if the measurement was that of a 7 1/2 month pregnant woman's waist or not...for example, if the measurement was as small as her waist when she was found that would have been exonerating evidence...unfortunately, no one asked that question...!!

IMO, the pants would have slipped off her body ..there was nothing left to hold those pants in place..let alone that they supposedly stayed on her during that violent storm..!

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks HP...

I did a quick google and didn't find anything and was going to look a little harder but then, ya know... life came at me fast..... HA! so I'll do a better look tomorrow...

Hi ekg..I found that part and I posted it in response to Paula..so you don't have to look for it..

[deputydi]

I happened to believe that she didn't die the day she disappeared..I think she was held captive for several weeks..she died in February close to her due date...I think they kept their bodies in a small body of water..such as a bathtub..Conner's body was fully submerged due to his size..the lower part of Laci's body was fully submerged and her upper body was partially submerged...that would explain why Conner was less decomposed than Laci and why the lower part of Laci's body was less decomposed than the upper part of her body...I think they waited for the right opportunity to plant their bodies close to Scott's alibi..!

This is just a theory since I would have no idea what the killers did, however, I firmly believe that Laci was abducted..there is no question in my mind..and my number one suspects are the burglars...
Do you have any idea how bad a decomposing body smells? This theory is a great example of grasping at straws. What happened to her limbs? If Conner was submerged in the bathtub for 2 months, why wasn't his body as decomposed as Laci's?

[Otter]

Oh for crying out loud. :rolleyes: I'd say more, but it would be rude.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

If Conner was submerged in the bathtub for 2 months, why wasn't his body as decomposed as Laci's?

IMO, he was in a plastic bag..I think Dr. Wecht theorized that is a possibility..I believe he was on Greta's show when he offered that theory...also, as far as I remember, MG asked the ME if a plastic bag would have provided the same protection to Conner as the uterus..and he agreed...

[adnoid]

...This is just a theory since I would have no idea what the killers did, however, I firmly believe that Laci was abducted..there is no question in my mind..and my number one suspects are the burglars...

In your theory, who was watching Laci while the burglars were in police custody?

[attorneywan2be]

In your theory, who was watching Laci while the burglars were in police custody?

I believe that the burglars that helped Todd complete the burglary of the Medina's house were his accomplices..Diane Jackson reported to the police that there were 3 dark-skinned men removing a safe from the Medina's house..that safe was found in Todd's possession...and we know that Todd and Pearce are white..so IMO, there were 3 more people involved in that burglary and they were never caught, they were watching Laci and they either killed her or she died as she was delivering Conner...

[TopGunner]

I believe that the burglars that helped Todd complete the burglary of the Medina's house were his accomplices..Diane Jackson reported to the police that there were 3 dark-skinned men removing a safe from the Medina's house..that safe was found in Todd's possession...and we know that Todd and Pearce are white..so IMO, there were 3 more people involved in that burglary and they were never caught, they were watching Laci and they either killed her or she died as she was delivering Conner...


Where's the hard evidence?:D

[deputydi]

I believe that the burglars that helped Todd complete the burglary of the Medina's house were his accomplices..Diane Jackson reported to the police that there were 3 dark-skinned men removing a safe from the Medina's house..that safe was found in Todd's possession...and we know that Todd and Pearce are white..so IMO, there were 3 more people involved in that burglary and they were never caught, they were watching Laci and they either killed her or she died as she was delivering Conner...
So how many people do you believe were involved in this complicated conspiracy?

I still want to know what happened to Laci's limbs. There were no tool marks found so maybe the kidnappers put sea creatures into the bathtub with her.

[I'mSun]

I believe that the burglars that helped Todd complete the burglary of the Medina's house were his accomplices..Diane Jackson reported to the police that there were 3 dark-skinned men removing a safe from the Medina's house..that safe was found in Todd's possession...and we know that Todd and Pearce are white..so IMO, there were 3 more people involved in that burglary and they were never caught, they were watching Laci and they either killed her or she died as she was delivering Conner...
Six people to rob one house in 2 shifts of 3? :confused:

BTW, Drs. Henry Lee and Cyril Wecht don't agree with your theory that Laci gave birth to Conner; they also felt Laci's body had been weighted down in the bay and, as decomposition progressed her extremities pulled away from the joints. You will find this on page 59 of Henry Lee's Forensic Files

[attorneywan2be]

Where's the hard evidence?:D

:D

I think there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that points to the burglars...


http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281025

[I'mSun]

Where's the hard evidence?:DLMAO!!!!!!:biggrin: All we need now are molecules and grass clippings.

[I'mSun]

:D

I think there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that points to the burglars...


http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281025I think there is none; that is why they were cleared.

[attorneywan2be]

So how many people do you believe were involved in this complicated conspiracy?

I still want to know what happened to Laci's limbs. There were no tool marks found so maybe the kidnappers put sea creatures into the bathtub with her.

I think 5 people were involved..Todd, Pearce and the 3 men that Diane saw..and it is not complicated at all...I think we have heard of cases where someone got kidnapped and kept alive for months..I think we have heard of cases where bodies were transported from the crime scene to another location...

The ME testified that there were no tool marks or fish bite marks where the limbs were cut..so it is a moot point.. it's possible that due to decomposition the tool marks could not be detected..

[Miss Bootsie]

MG asked the ME if a plastic bag would have provided the same protection to Conner as the uterus..and he agreed...

Will you quote the testimony please.

[Otter]

Oh for crying out loud. :rolleyes:

I realize I'm adding nothing to the "discussion". But what is there to add?

[deputydi]

I think 5 people were involved..Todd, Pearce and the 3 men that Diane saw..and it is not complicated at all...I think we have heard of cases where someone got kidnapped and kept alive for months..I think we have heard of cases where bodies were transported from the crime scene to another location...

The ME testified that there were no tool marks or fish bite marks where the limbs were cut..so it is a moot point.. it's possible that due to decomposition the tool marks could not be detected..
Tool marks on the bone would not just go away. Bone doesn't decompose.

[attorneywan2be]

I think there is none; that is why they were cleared.

Oh really? so you believe that anyone that was cleared by the police is definitely innocent of the crime? so you believe that the police never makes mistakes like clearing the real perpetrator for example..!!!

[attorneywan2be]

Tool marks on the bone would not just go away. Bone doesn't decompose.

Then please explain the fact that the ME didn't see any fish bite marks either..!

[I'mSun]

Oh really? so you believe that anyone that was cleared by the police is definitely innocent of the crime? so you believe that the police never makes mistakes like clearing the real perpetrator for example..!!!Please do not put words in my mouth or assume what I do/do not believe.

[deputydi]

Then please explain the fact that the ME didn't see any fish bite marks either..!
I don't want to get overly graphic here -- I have a weak stomach. The fish wouldn't feed on her bone. They would feed on her tissue. I would think it would be very unusual to find fish teeth marks.

[adnoid]

I believe that the burglars that helped Todd complete the burglary of the Medina's house were his accomplices..Diane Jackson reported to the police that there were 3 dark-skinned men removing a safe from the Medina's house..that safe was found in Todd's possession...and we know that Todd and Pearce are white..so IMO, there were 3 more people involved in that burglary and they were never caught, they were watching Laci and they either killed her or she died as she was delivering Conner...

So we've got 5 people:

--Todd
--Pearce
--Dark Skinned Stranger #1
--Dark Skinned Stranger #2
--Dark Skinned Stranger #3

(At least we don't have to worry about bushy haired strangers! (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/downs/2b.html)).

For some period of time both Todd and Pearce were in police custody, leaving the three DSSs alone with Laci - and none of them turned the rest of them in for the $500,000 reward that was offered. Interesting - do you think Todd & Pearce paid them each more than the $500,000 for their silence?

And, since non of the three DSSs has ever been identified, located or interviewed, can we be absolutely sure that, if they exist, they were not hired by Scott?

[attorneywan2be]

Will you quote the testimony please.

From the prelim - the ME testifying on cross

12 Q. Okay. Now, if you had known that there had been a
13 bag that was found that had some duct tape on it, and you
14 did know, 20/20 hindsight, so to speak, you did know that
15 there was duct tape that was found on Laci, and you saw this
16 tape, if you will, around the baby's neck, would that have
17 also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a
18 bag and this tape that was around the neck having been
19 looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the
20 water, the baby would have been in a protected environment?
21 Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that
22 you saw of the baby?
23 A. In terms of the first part of your question, the
24 details about the duct tape and the bag, I really can't
25 speak to that. I think the implication is that that's even
26 the same tape or the same duct tape. I have no way of
27 knowing that.
28 I think what I can get to, though, is would it have

1486
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.
5 But if we assume that somehow he was removed through
6 that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned
7 earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment,
8 and if we further assume that he was released from that at
9 about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's
10 possible.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't want to get overly graphic here -- I have a weak stomach. The fish wouldn't feed on her bone. They would feed on her tissue. I would think it would be very unusual to find fish teeth marks.

You know that we were talking about the missing limbs..if they were bitten off by a large fish ..the ME would have found fish bite marks ..but he didn't, so I think the lack of tool marks is a moot point..

[adnoid]

You know that we were talking about the missing limbs..if they were bitten off by a large fish ..the ME would have found fish bite marks ..but he didn't, so I think the lack of tool marks is a moot point..

Not really - if her limbs were removed by human action before her body was "placed" on the shore there WOULD be tool marks. But there were none.

[cookiewench]

You know that we were talking about the missing limbs..if they were bitten off by a large fish ..the ME would have found fish bite marks ..but he didn't, so I think the lack of tool marks is a moot point..


Do you think the ME doesn't know his business? Do you think he wouldn't have noticed it if there were supposed to be bite marks but were none? Was he in on the conspiracy to frame Scott?

When the flesh is gone, bones eventually separate from other bones.

[deputydi]

You know that we were talking about the missing limbs..if they were bitten off by a large fish ..the ME would have found fish bite marks ..but he didn't, so I think the lack of tool marks is a moot point..
I don't happen to believe they were bitten off. The marine life fed on her tissue and once that tissue and muscle was gone, there was nothing left to hold everything together and the limbs disarticulated. At that point, they probably drifted out to the ocean and her heavier torso washed onto the shore.

The lack of tool marks is not a moot point if we are to accept your bathtub theory. You can't come up with an explanation so now your claiming it's moot. If you want your theory to work, this is only one of the things for which you'll need a workable explanation.

[attorneywan2be]

Not really - if her limbs were removed by human action before her body was "placed" on the shore there WOULD be tool marks. But there were none.

On the other hand, if she was placed in water and her limbs were bitten off by a fish then there should have been fish bite marks..but there were none..! that's why I said the lack of tool marks is a moot point..!

[attorneywan2be]

I don't happen to believe they were bitten off. The marine life fed on her tissue and once that tissue and muscle was gone, there was nothing left to hold everything together and the limbs disarticulated. At that point, they probably drifted out to the ocean and her heavier torso washed onto the shore.

The lack of tool marks is not a moot point if we are to accept your bathtub theory. You can't come up with an explanation so now your claiming it's moot. If you want your theory to work, this is only one of the things for which you'll need a workable explanation.

That's exactly why I said it is a moot point..because you're saying the missing limbs were due to decomposition and that the muscles were gone that there was nothing left to hold everything together..that would also apply to my theory..her body was also decomposing..

[Hey Paula]

On the other hand, if she was placed in water and her limbs were bitten off by a fish then there should have been fish bite marks..but there were none..! that's why I said the lack of tool marks is a moot point..!

Hi AW2B!

Laci's limbs and head weren't bitten off by fish. They were disarticulated through a combination of those areas having been weighted, tidal action and decomposition.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Do you think the ME doesn't know his business? Do you think he wouldn't have noticed it if there were supposed to be bite marks but were none? Was he in on the conspiracy to frame Scott?

When the flesh is gone, bones eventually separate from other bones.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying..the ME testified that there were no fish bite marks on her body..!

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

Laci's limbs and head weren't bitten off by fish. They were disarticulated through a combination of those areas having been weighted, tidal action and decomposition.

IMO

Hi Paula..

I don't think decomposition would have caused it..I think she was dismembered and the tool marks were not detected due to decomposition..for example, as far as I remember, Dr. Baden stated that extremeties do seperate in water but not after 4 months not even after 4 years...

[I'mSun]

I don't think decomposition would have caused it...Drs. Lee and Wecht do, and so does the county ME. I would trust what those people say, as they know what they are talking about.

[adnoid]

On the other hand, if she was placed in water and her limbs were bitten off by a fish then there should have been fish bite marks..but there were none..! that's why I said the lack of tool marks is a moot point..!

I'm sorry, but I just don't follow. I know I'm not real bright, could you give me step by step to the point where lack of tool marks is consistent with the limbs being removed by the abductors?

[cookiewench]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying..the ME testified that there were no fish bite marks on her body..!


Exactly. And since he's seen other bodies that had been in the bay, he would have taken note if there should have been bites marks on bones - but weren't.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

I don't think decomposition would have caused it..I think she was dismembered and the tool marks were not detected due to decomposition..for example, as far as I remember, Dr. Baden stated that extremeties do seperate in water but not after 4 months not even after 4 years...

Decomposition cannot mask tool marks. The parts of Laci's body, which were missing, broke off. They weren't cut off. Disarticulation occurred because those parts of her body were weighted (i.e., limbs).

The weights pulling those parts of Laci's body downward, while the tides and passing ships were pulling them in opposite directions, together with the process of decomposition to those already weakened parts, is what caused them to disarticulate. They were not severed by tools or by the teeth of fish.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

From the prelim - the ME testifying on cross

12 Q. Okay. Now, if you had known that there had been a
13 bag that was found that had some duct tape on it, and you
14 did know, 20/20 hindsight, so to speak, you did know that
15 there was duct tape that was found on Laci, and you saw this
16 tape, if you will, around the baby's neck, would that have
17 also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a
18 bag and this tape that was around the neck having been
19 looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the
20 water, the baby would have been in a protected environment?
21 Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that
22 you saw of the baby?
23 A. In terms of the first part of your question, the
24 details about the duct tape and the bag, I really can't
25 speak to that. I think the implication is that that's even
26 the same tape or the same duct tape. I have no way of
27 knowing that.
28 I think what I can get to, though, is would it have

1486
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.


AW, You don't seem to understand - you just can't place the body in a plastic bag. It is more involved than that.


Brian Peterson: But they were -- they were both decomposed, but one was simply more protected than the other. I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes. I don't think it would have been quite -- I think it would have been more, though. *I think it's hard to create that level of protection outside of the uterine environment.*
As Dr. Peterson stated, "there would have been more".

It all has to do with the difference between Aseptic Autolysis and Autolysis.
7. MACERATION

Maceration is the aseptic autolysis of a fetus which has died in utero and remained enclosed within the amniotic sac. Bacterial putrefaction plays no role in the process.
Laci's body went through a maceration autolysis process because her body was submerged in water. However, her body was exposed to a bacterial environment.
Conner's body also went through a maceration process - but because of the sterile environment he was in, his body went through Aseptic autolysis.

In order for Conner's body to be in the condition it was in,his body would have had to be stored in a sterile environment from the time his body left the Uterus to very shortly before the body was found.
Once a fetus comes into contact with bacteria the body begins to go through bacterial putrefaction - (begins the decomposition process).
Conner's body was not decomposed.
When this process begins, it can't be reversed.


This is why Dr. Peterson stated:
*I think it's hard to create that level of protection outside of the uterine environment.*

Please explain to me how someone could have kept the body sterile where it met with no bacteria from the time his body left the Uterus until shortly before his body was discovered.

[deputydi]

Decomposition cannot mask tool marks. The parts of Laci's body, which were missing, broke off. They weren't cut off. Disarticulation occurred because those parts of her body were weighted (i.e., limbs).

The weights pulling those parts of Laci's body downward, while the tides and passing ships were pulling them in opposite directions, together with the process of decomposition to those already weakened parts, is what caused them to disarticulate. They were not severed by tools or by the teeth of fish.

IMO

Thanks, Paula. This is exactly what I have been trying to say but you said it much, much clearer. :seeya:

[Hey Paula]

Thanks, Paula. This is exactly what I have been trying to say but you said it much, much clearer. :seeya:

Good Morning DD! :seeya:

When thinking about Laci's body being weighted in those areas, the process if disarticulation seems so logical.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Then please explain the fact that the ME didn't see any fish bite marks either..!

AW, how many times has information been provided to you on how fish feed? :shrug:

lol, fish don't chew their prey like animals on land.

[Synopsis]

IMO, If Laci was in the bay then they should have found her head..and her missing limbs or at least one of them...I think the killers removed her limbs initially in an attempt to conceal her identity....however, later on they decided to plant her body close to where Scott went fishing so the police would end the investigation..

IMO, they figured if they would put the bodies together, people would wonder and consider it odd that somehow both bodies would wash ashore next to each other..so they figured to better plant them in different areas giving a false impression that they washed ashore..

Or, if placiing the bodies on the shore was to be carried out on the same night, having it be done by 2 seperate parties would make it much easier and faster to accomplish. Minimizing the time involved and the risk of being seen or caught before it was accomplished.

I realize it seems ghoulish and unbelievable that this could happen. But murder is most foul by any sense of the word. And there have been some "doozies" that were hard to fathom, once the truth was known. Dahmer and Gacy come to my mind as two that would be unbelievable if we didn't know the facts. There was another case (I don't know or remember the names) where a woman killed a pregnant woman and actually cut the baby out with her car keys!

But it DOES seem surreal (after reading the TS) of the efforts that went into searching that bay for Laci & baby and finding absolutely nothing - that both bodies would just "float" to the shore from an area LE had searched just the previous day!

And the theory being that the baby had remained in utero up until approximately 24 hours earlier, and was expelled through an existing hole, that was big enough for him to get out, yet no fish ever came in to feed. Let's face it, the hole wasn't formed in a day.

But that issue pales in comparison when trying to figure out the disparity in the size of the fetus, and the size of Laci's uterus. But that's another issue all together.:confused:

[Miss Bootsie]

Hi Paula..

I don't think decomposition would have caused it..I think she was dismembered and the tool marks were not detected due to decomposition..for example, as far as I remember, Dr. Baden stated that extremeties do seperate in water but not after 4 months not even after 4 years...

AW, you are now contradicting yourself.

In the past, you acknowledged that decomposition caused the disarticulation.

If you recall your acknowledgement came from one of my posts.
You stated the info. I provided proved to you the disarticulation was a normal part of the decomposition process - rather than marine life causing the decomposition.

lol, how easily we forget.:no:

[deputydi]

Or, if placiing the bodies on the shore was to be carried out on the same night, having it be done by 2 seperate parties would make it much easier and faster to accomplish. Minimizing the time involved and the risk of being seen or caught before it was accomplished.<snip>

Do you have any idea how decomposed Laci's body was when found? Just think about what was left of her and imagine someone -- anyone -- transporting her from wherever and placing her body on the shore. How realistic do you believe this theory is now?

[Synopsis]

Not if her head and limbs washed out to the ocean as Scott believed all of her would.

If he wanted her body to "wash out into the ocean" why on earth would he put all those anchors on her? Seems like that would be in hopes of holding her in place?

[deputydi]

If he wanted her body to "wash out into the ocean" why on earth would he put all those anchors on her? Seems like that would be in hopes of holding her in place?
Because the gases from a decomposing body would make her rise to the surface way too soon. He had to have something holding her on or near the bottom of the bay until she was sufficiently decomposed and the gases released.

[Synopsis]

*snip*
I still want to know what happened to Laci's limbs. There were no tool marks found so maybe the kidnappers put sea creatures into the bathtub with her.

If by asking "what happened to Laci's limbs?" you mean how did they come off, the ME went into great detail as to his opinion of *how* and he opined it was disarticulation.

If by asking "what happened to Laci's limbs?" you mean where did they go, that was always questionable to me. It would seem like if they could pinpoint so closely where Laci *HAD BEEN* resting, why not go post haste to that area and search for them. (But I know-that's far too simple a resolution)
If we are to assume Laci was placed in the bay by Scott, then we have to assume she still had her limbs at that time, otherwise there goes the anchors evidence.

But it seems like your points about the tool marks are made leaning toward belief that the limbs were removed rather than disarticulated. Maybe not.

All that being said - if Laci's body was kept for a time in a water environment by persons unknown - any movement of her body especially lifting could cause the disarticulation.

BUT>>>>IMMHO Laci's limbs were removed shortly after her death to avoid having her identified. Didn't she have a tattoo on the ankle of the leg that was gone mid calf? Can't remember.

[Synopsis]

Because the gases from a decomposing body would make her rise to the surface way too soon. He had to have something holding her on or near the bottom of the bay until she was sufficiently decomposed and the gases released.

I guess I don't understand:shrug:

His goal was to hold her down, slow her movement, so she wouldn't be found??? In an area of the bay that sometimes has a * wading * depth?? Hum-m-m.

Well I guess it worked - they didn't find her!! Even though according to the ME's testimony the mineral deposits were produced by a wetting & drying process. And she couldn't have "dried" at the bottom or near bottom of any part of the bay.

[Wearing A Halo]

If by asking "what happened to Laci's limbs?" you mean how did they come off, the ME went into great detail as to his opinion of *how* and he opined it was disarticulation.

If by asking "what happened to Laci's limbs?" you mean where did they go, that was always questionable to me. It would seem like if they could pinpoint so closely where Laci *HAD BEEN* resting, why not go post haste to that area and search for them. (But I know-that's far too simple a resolution)
If we are to assume Laci was placed in the bay by Scott, then we have to assume she still had her limbs at that time, otherwise there goes the anchors evidence.

But it seems like your points about the tool marks are made leaning toward belief that the limbs were removed rather than disarticulated. Maybe not.

All that being said - if Laci's body was kept for a time in a water environment by persons unknown - any movement of her body especially lifting could cause the disarticulation.

BUT>>>>IMMHO Laci's limbs were removed shortly after her death to avoid having her identified. Didn't she have a tattoo on the ankle of the leg that was gone mid calf? Can't remember.

"BUT>>>>IMMHO Laci's limbs were removed shortly after her death to avoid having her identified."

Well then, what would be the point in framing DRISP with no identifiable parts of Laci's body and including Connor's?

After all, the sole purpose to frame Scott would be to keep the bodies together with all extremities and appendages in order for easy identification from anyone associated with the investigation and easily say, 'yes, this is Laci' and not have to do DNA testing for the sole purpose of id-ing the body, thus implicating Scott with a frame up by planting the corpses.

Remember, both were Jane Doe and Baby Doe before DNA test were done, so these framers forgot all about DNA testing, but still wanted everyone to know that these were Laci and Connor with no identifiable parts?

[Miss Bootsie]

I happened to believe that she didn't die the day she disappeared..I think she was held captive for several weeks..she died in February close to her due date...I think they kept their bodies in a small body of water..such as a bathtub..Conner's body was fully submerged due to his size..the lower part of Laci's body was fully submerged and her upper body was partially submerged...that would explain why Conner was less decomposed than Laci and why the lower part of Laci's body was less decomposed than the upper part of her body...I think they waited for the right opportunity to plant their bodies close to Scott's alibi..!




This is just a theory since I would have no idea what the killers did, however, I firmly believe that Laci was abducted..there is no question in my mind..and my number one suspects are the burglars...

AW, no offense, but it's like you are writing a fictional novel here instead of discussing a real crime case. imo

I mean, anyone can go through most trial transcripts and use their imagination to create an alternative fictional theory.

You do have quite an imagination, but when it comes to people being interested in true real life crime cases, I don't think many will buy this fiction. imo

[deputydi]

If by asking "what happened to Laci's limbs?" you mean how did they come off, the ME went into great detail as to his opinion of *how* and he opined it was disarticulation.

If by asking "what happened to Laci's limbs?" you mean where did they go, that was always questionable to me. It would seem like if they could pinpoint so closely where Laci *HAD BEEN* resting, why not go post haste to that area and search for them. (But I know-that's far too simple a resolution)
If we are to assume Laci was placed in the bay by Scott, then we have to assume she still had her limbs at that time, otherwise there goes the anchors evidence.

But it seems like your points about the tool marks are made leaning toward belief that the limbs were removed rather than disarticulated. Maybe not.
<snip>
I don't think you are following the discussion closely enough. AW2B believes Laci's limbs were removed -- not me. I was responding to her bathtub theory and her assumption that decomposition eroded any tool marks caused by the removal of her limbs. I simply wanted to know what the kidnappers did with her head and limbs if they were amputated while she was in the bathtub.

I agree with Miss Bootsie. I think she's making up stuff as she goes along. She's too smart to have put much thought into her "theory".

I can't wait to read her response to Wearing A Halo. If these 5 kidnappers went to so much trouble to frame Scott, why remove all traces of identification? That is just plain stupid IMO. Let's see -- they kept her alive for 2 months (for what reason has never been explained), kept her body submerged in a bathtub for another 2 months waiting for the "right" time to plant the two corpses on the shore near where Scott had been "fishing" but made certain there was nothing left of her that would identify the body.

C'mon people what part of "REASONABLE" do you not understand?

[ekg]

Hi ekg..I found that part and I posted it in response to Paula..so you don't have to look for it..

Thankee-Sai:D

I don't believe he was confessing....or semi-confessing... or even saying he had a part in it..

[attorneywan2be]

AW, no offense, but it's like you are writing a fictional novel here instead of discussing a real crime case. imo

I mean, anyone can go through most trial transcripts and use their imagination to create an alternative fictional theory.

You do have quite an imagination, but when it comes to people being interested in true real life crime cases, I don't think many will buy this fiction. imo


Bootsie....IMO, the prosecution presented a fictional theory that Scott killed Laci...where is the evidence that he did?.. they didn't try to demonstrate that one can throw a body (dummy weighting 153 pounds) with 5 anchors attached off Scott's boat..why is that? I think they realized that it is impossible to do...
IMO, The evidence presented doesn't indicate a crime even occurred let alone by Scott..

[Synopsis]

Do you have any idea how decomposed Laci's body was when found? Just think about what was left of her and imagine someone -- anyone -- transporting her from wherever and placing her body on the shore. How realistic do you believe this theory is now?

My questions were not to be construed as a theory. And they truly were questions, because I had so many unanswered ones during and after this trial.

You ask if I have any idea the condition of Laci’s decomposed body – yes I can visualize it based on the ME’s description. But the body managed to make it thru the storm and onto the rocks (by some theories) with some semblance of a human remain left. Also from the ME’s testimony, it was “handled” (moved onto the table etc.) and he still had a skeleton more or less to work with. With such a small amount of tissue left, I don’t think it was completely “falling all apart.” He used terms such as "intact" and was able to get viable measurements etc - so that's my idea of the condition of the body. Laci's body-that is.

[cookiewench]

.. they didn't try to demonstrate that one can throw a body (dummy weighting 153 pounds) with 5 anchors attached off Scott's boat..why is that? I think they realized that it is impossible to do...


What I think that they, and the jurors, easily realized - is that it is, of course, entirely impossible to do that.

Why wouldn't it be? People swim off of the sides of those boats and climb in and out of them while they're on the water. I have done it myself.

[ekg]

AW, You don't seem to understand - you just can't place the body in a plastic bag. It is more involved than that.



As Dr. Peterson stated, "there would have been more".

It all has to do with the difference between Aseptic Autolysis and Autolysis.
7. MACERATION

Laci's body went through a [B]maceration autolysis process because her body was submerged in water. However, her body was exposed to a bacterial environment.
Conner's body also went through a maceration process - but because of the sterile environment he was in, his body went through Aseptic autolysis.

In order for Conner's body to be in the condition it was in,his body would have had to be stored in a sterile environment from the time his body left the Uterus to very shortly before the body was found.
Once a fetus comes into contact with bacteria the body begins to go through bacterial putrefaction - (begins the decomposition process).
Conner's body was not decomposed.
When this process begins, it can't be reversed.


This is why Dr. Peterson stated:


Please explain to me how someone could have kept the body sterile where it met with no bacteria from the time his body left the Uterus until shortly before his body was discovered.


please explain how the uterus stayed a sterile environment when it was 'worn' away.... there would be different levels of 'wearing' so to speak right? like a pair of jeans with the knees worn out... .

like this
http://eaglewings-eyrie.com/MVC-090-DRte66JeansFront.JPG

so how did the uterus stay sterile.......

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think you are following the discussion closely enough. AW2B believes Laci's limbs were removed -- not me. I was responding to her bathtub theory and her assumption that decomposition eroded any tool marks caused by the removal of her limbs. I simply wanted to know what the kidnappers did with her head and limbs if they were amputated while she was in the bathtub.

Whether they were amputated or disarticulated, it would not make a difference..that was the point I was trying to explain, in one of my previous post I told you if you believe her limbs were disarticulated due to decomposition then that would also apply to my theory...however, my personal belief the killers removed her limbs and possibly destroyed them to conceal her identity, then later on they decided to plant her body close to where Scott went fishing..


I can't wait to read her response to Wearing A Halo. If these 5 kidnappers went to so much trouble to frame Scott, why remove all traces of identification? That is just plain stupid IMO. Let's see -- they kept her alive for 2 months (for what reason has never been explained), kept her body submerged in a bathtub for another 2 months waiting for the "right" time to plant the two corpses on the shore near where Scott had been "fishing" but made certain there was nothing left of her that would identify the body.

C'mon people what part of "REASONABLE" do you not understand?

If you and Wearing A Halo read my theory, you would not have asked that question..the point I made several times as I discussed my theory is that their initial plan was to conceal her identity, then later on they decided to pin it on Scott so they planted the body close to were he went fishing..

[Synopsis]

"BUT>>>>IMMHO Laci's limbs were removed shortly after her death to avoid having her identified."

Well then, what would be the point in framing DRISP with no identifiable parts of Laci's body and including Connor's?

After all, the sole purpose to frame Scott would be to keep the bodies together with all extremities and appendages in order for easy identification from anyone associated with the investigation and easily say, 'yes, this is Laci' and not have to do DNA testing for the sole purpose of id-ing the body, thus implicating Scott with a frame up by planting the corpses.

Remember, both were Jane Doe and Baby Doe before DNA test were done, so these framers forgot all about DNA testing, but still wanted everyone to know that these were Laci and Connor with no identifiable parts?

I should have written that so as not to sound so much like a statement of fact, but again, a theory or a point in question. BUT>>> I did feel for quite some time that her limbs were removed rather than disarticulated, based on the fact of *where* the were seperated. It seemed to me that if someone anchored her down, it would have come apart at that point. But being mid calf was curious to me. Still is.

Second, the place where her head seperated was a peculiar place to come apart if it was done by disarticulation.

Also, it was quite a "spell" between the disappearance of Laci and the bodies appearing by whatever means. If she was kidnapped and killed, with all the media attention developing, I would think that would be something a kidnapper would do early on....(remove the limbs to delay identification) but later the plan could have changed.

[Synopsis]

please explain how the uterus stayed a sterile environment when it was 'worn' away.... there would be different levels of 'wearing' so to speak right? like a pair of jeans with the knees worn out... .

like this
http://eaglewings-eyrie.com/MVC-090-DRte66JeansFront.JPG

so how did the uterus stay sterile.......

I was wondering about that also ekg.

It seemed like the medical information that was posted describing "sterile" was based a fetus dying in utero, but in the uterus of a LIVE MOTHER. Which I believe changes all criteria.

[I'mSun]

Or, if placiing the bodies on the shore was to be carried out on the same night, having it be done by 2 seperate parties would make it much easier and faster to accomplish. Minimizing the time involved and the risk of being seen or caught before it was accomplished.

I realize it seems ghoulish and unbelievable that this could happen. But murder is most foul by any sense of the word. And there have been some "doozies" that were hard to fathom, once the truth was known. Dahmer and Gacy come to my mind as two that would be unbelievable if we didn't know the facts. There was another case (I don't know or remember the names) where a woman killed a pregnant woman and actually cut the baby out with her car keys!

But it DOES seem surreal (after reading the TS) of the efforts that went into searching that bay for Laci & baby and finding absolutely nothing - that both bodies would just "float" to the shore from an area LE had searched just the previous day!

And the theory being that the baby had remained in utero up until approximately 24 hours earlier, and was expelled through an existing hole, that was big enough for him to get out, yet no fish ever came in to feed. Let's face it, the hole wasn't formed in a day.

But that issue pales in comparison when trying to figure out the disparity in the size of the fetus, and the size of Laci's uterus. But that's another issue all together.:confused:

How could the bodies have been placed there the same night when no one knew what specific location at the Bay where Scott had been? That information was not released until 11pm news on the 27th and Coast Guard was already on the scene on the 27th.

Someone killing Laci and following Scott makes no sense. Scott left his house and went to his warehouse - how would someone know to go there? Scott was there for half an hour before leaving for the Bay. Did that person wait there also?

Note, the fliers that were made up and posted all over town said that Scott went fishing in SF Bay, no mention of Berkeley Marina whatsoever.

Also, if bodies were put there right after Scott was there, why were they not discovered for almost 4 months. And why was Laci's body's decomposition consistent with being in a marine environment for 3-6 months?

[deputydi]

Bootsie....IMO, the prosecution presented a fictional theory that Scott killed Laci...where is the evidence that he did?.. they didn't try to demonstrate that one can throw a body (dummy weighting 153 pounds) with 5 anchors attached off Scott's boat..why is that? I think they realized that it is impossible to do...
IMO, The evidence presented doesn't indicate a crime even occurred let alone by Scott..
J Delucci would have denied that motion just as he did with the defense's request for a demonstration. No one knows exactly how Scott did it and the conditions cannot be replicated.

This is getting crazy. I think I need to step away from the computer for a while.

[ekg]

Do you have any idea how decomposed Laci's body was when found? Just think about what was left of her and imagine someone -- anyone -- transporting her from wherever and placing her body on the shore. How realistic do you believe this theory is now?



I don't know how often it happens.


Police: Man Moved Wife's Body Four Times
A Highland County man accused in two murders reportedly moved one of the bodies several times before it was discovered.

Newly-filed court documents show Michael Fogt stored a 55-gallon barrel containing his wife Martha's remains in four different places before it was found in March, buried in concrete at his parents home.

Michael Fogt is also accused of killing his girlfriend, Cynthia Pickens.
http://old.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/06/14/fogt.html



but it does happen....

[One2Snoop]

I don't know how often it happens.
Police: Man Moved Wife's Body Four Times
A Highland County man accused in two murders reportedly moved one of the bodies several times before it was discovered.

Newly-filed court documents show Michael Fogt stored a 55-gallon barrel containing his wife Martha's remains in four different places before it was found in March, buried in concrete at his parents home.

Michael Fogt is also accused of killing his girlfriend, Cynthia Pickens.
http://old.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/06/14/fogt.html



but it does happen....

Maybe it does (rarely) happen but Laci's body wasn't found in a 55 gallon drum.

[PsychNurse;~)]

IMO, If Laci was in the bay then they should have found her head..and her missing limbs or at least one of them...I think the killers removed her limbs initially in an attempt to conceal her identity....however, later on they decided to plant her body close to where Scott went fishing so the police would end the investigation..

IMO, they figured if they would put the bodies together, people would wonder and consider it odd that somehow both bodies would wash ashore next to each other..so they figured to better plant them in different areas giving a false impression that they washed ashore..

it's almost impossible to dismember a body without leaving tool marks. it takes great surgical skill to do so~~and if you recall the medical examiner stated there were no tool marks on laci's remains.

cyn

[ekg]

Because the gases from a decomposing body would make her rise to the surface way too soon. He had to have something holding her on or near the bottom of the bay until she was sufficiently decomposed and the gases released.

who would think of that tho?

I mean..... now he's premeditating on how to keep the body submerged on the bottom of the bay until the gases leak out and she 'disarticulates' from the anchors and so she can wash out to sea?


that was his plan? He thought that far ahead? but he didn't plan on getting legal tags for that daytime 90 mile drive just in case?

what you're describing is just unbelievable to me...you're trying to reconcile 2 theories (theory of the anchors and the theory of him wanting the bodies to wash out to sea) by making one unbelievable one...... that he meant for the anchors to keep her weighted until such a time as her body decomposed enough to wash out to sea..

you really believe he was that much of a criminal genius?

sorry, that's just as impossible to me as someone moving a body to implicate him is to you.....:shrug:

[PsychNurse;~)]

I think 5 people were involved..Todd, Pearce and the 3 men that Diane saw..and it is not complicated at all...I think we have heard of cases where someone got kidnapped and kept alive for months..I think we have heard of cases where bodies were transported from the crime scene to another location...

The ME testified that there were no tool marks or fish bite marks where the limbs were cut..so it is a moot point.. it's possible that due to decomposition the tool marks could not be detected..

tool marks go into the bone itself. laci's decomposition didn't extend to the bones that remained. during testimony it was never even suggested by either side that decompositon could possibly account for lack of tool marks.

cyn

[One2Snoop]

AW, You don't seem to understand - you just can't place the body in a plastic bag. It is more involved than that.



As Dr. Peterson stated, "there would have been more".

It all has to do with the difference between Aseptic Autolysis and Autolysis.
7. MACERATION

Laci's body went through a [B]maceration autolysis process because her body was submerged in water. However, her body was exposed to a bacterial environment.
Conner's body also went through a maceration process - but because of the sterile environment he was in, his body went through Aseptic autolysis.

In order for Conner's body to be in the condition it was in,his body would have had to be stored in a sterile environment from the time his body left the Uterus to very shortly before the body was found.
Once a fetus comes into contact with bacteria the body begins to go through bacterial putrefaction - (begins the decomposition process).
Conner's body was not decomposed.
When this process begins, it can't be reversed.


This is why Dr. Peterson stated:


Please explain to me how someone could have kept the body sterile where it met with no bacteria from the time his body left the Uterus until shortly before his body was discovered.

please explain how the uterus stayed a sterile environment when it was 'worn' away.... there would be different levels of 'wearing' so to speak right? like a pair of jeans with the knees worn out... .

like this
http://eaglewings-eyrie.com/MVC-090-DRte66JeansFront.JPG

so how did the uterus stay sterile.......


Can you please link me to the medical/scientific research site that compares the uterus to a pair of jeans. Thank you.



HARRIS: From your examination of Conner and the state that he was in, versus Laci, what did that kind of mean to you?

PETERSON: My conclusion was that Conner had been protected, certainly protected to a greater degree than Laci was.

HARRIS: And did you have an opinion of how he was protected?

PETERSON: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.

HARRIS: In terms of Laci's body, was the inside of her uterus somewhat protected or in a different state compared to the rest of her body?

PETERSON: Well, the fact is that her uterus was there at all, which was different compared to every other organ that she had had. So I think based on its location lower in the pelvis and however she acted against things at the bottom, and so forth, it took a while to wear away that part of her abdominal wall to get to the point where the uterus was exposed. It took further time to wear away the top of the uterus, which ultimately caused Conner's release.

HARRIS: Now, the term you kept using, you used several times, you described it for us before, that's that macerated term. That basically means that something had to be in a fluid environment?

PETERSON: Correct.

[PsychNurse;~)]

From the prelim - the ME testifying on cross

12 Q. Okay. Now, if you had known that there had been am24 details about the duct tape and the bag, I really can't
25 speak to that. I think the implication is that that's even
26 the same tape or the same duct tape. I have no way of
27 knowing that.
28 I think what I can get to, though, is would it have

1486
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.
5 But if we assume that somehow he was removed through
6 that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned
7 earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment,
8 and if we further assume that he was released from that at
9 about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's
10 possible.

it's the area that you did not bold under '1486' that's most relative, imo.

the medical examiner says he does NOT think it's likely.

the only way he agrees it's possible is if:

conner was removed through the open area at the TOP of laci's uterus, an area that was debrided open. not an area where someone cuts a woman open to steal her infant. there's never been one person to post a single case where this has occurred. someone cutting open a woman's abdomen to get the infant out cuts the length of the abdomen.

in addition to this, conner would have had to have exited laci's body at the SAME TIME laci floated up.

and THEN placed in some protective environment.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

I don't know how often it happens.



Police: Man Moved Wife's Body Four Times
A Highland County man accused in two murders reportedly moved one of the bodies several times before it was discovered.

Newly-filed court documents show Michael Fogt stored a 55-gallon barrel containing his wife Martha's remains in four different places before it was found in March, buried in concrete at his parents home.

Michael Fogt is also accused of killing his girlfriend, Cynthia Pickens.
http://old.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/06/14/fogt.html


but it does happen....


ekg...thanks for posting this info..

[PsychNurse;~)]

AW, You don't seem to understand - you just can't place the body in a plastic bag. It is more involved than that.



As Dr. Peterson stated, "there would have been more".

It all has to do with the difference between Aseptic Autolysis and Autolysis.
7. MACERATION

Laci's body went through a [B]maceration autolysis process because her body was submerged in water. However, her body was exposed to a bacterial environment.
Conner's body also went through a maceration process - but because of the sterile environment he was in, his body went through Aseptic autolysis.

In order for Conner's body to be in the condition it was in,his body would have had to be stored in a sterile environment from the time his body left the Uterus to very shortly before the body was found.
Once a fetus comes into contact with bacteria the body begins to go through bacterial putrefaction - (begins the decomposition process).
Conner's body was not decomposed.
When this process begins, it can't be reversed.


This is why Dr. Peterson stated:


Please explain to me how someone could have kept the body sterile where it met with no bacteria from the time his body left the Uterus until shortly before his body was discovered.

:beer:

this is an issue i brought up many times during the 'old' days on the isp board. also the issue of a deceased fetus in a living vs deceased host. thanks for bringing it up again!

cyn

[ekg]

Maybe it does (rarely) happen but Laci's body wasn't found in a 55 gallon drum.

nope....... but was she kept in one until her body was found?

what exactly caused that death-smell on those 'target' construction bags anyway? maybe a body being placed in it, and in a drum and then both being dumped out at the same time?'


question...... if her hands and legs were tied up in a (tight) position, in like a severe fetal position, that caused stress on the joints.. could that have caused the same dis articulation during the decomp process?

[Synopsis]

*snip*

I agree with Miss Bootsie. I think she's making up stuff as she goes along. She's too smart to have put much thought into her "theory".

I can't wait to read her response to Wearing A Halo. If these 5 kidnappers went to so much trouble to frame Scott, why remove all traces of identification? That is just plain stupid IMO. Let's see -- they kept her alive for 2 months (for what reason has never been explained), kept her body submerged in a bathtub for another 2 months waiting for the "right" time to plant the two corpses on the shore near where Scott had been "fishing" but made certain there was nothing left of her that would identify the body.

C'mon people what part of "REASONABLE" do you not understand?

I don't believe your summation of AW2B's theory as written above is reasonable that's for sure. You very well know that is not at all what she is saying. And I don't think she could ever be accused of being stupid or making up stuff as she goes along. *see above*

It isn't too much of a stretch to realize that if Laci was kidnapped & killed by others there would be panic as to what to do & try and cover the murder up.
Thus-the dismemberment could have happened.

But as this case progressed for various and asundry reasons the whole world had already convicted Scott Peterson. But LE had no evidence that would do that or they would have arrested him long ago. They had to find that body. Think about it - right up to the day the bodies were found, he had not been arrested, and LE was denying he was the prime suspect. :rolleyes:

So if you believe Laci had been kidnapped or murdered by then, it would be clear to her kidnappers - all they had to do was give the police and the world what they wanted - those bodies found where Scott was fishing and they were home free. It was "all about the bodies being found. When this case took on a life of it's own, it was obvious that they were looking at only one person - Scott Peterson.

NOT ONE SINGLE THING CHANGED prior to the bodies being found, in the way of proof or evidence against Scott. And there was not enough evidence for an arrest. The day the bodies were found the warrant was issued. And as clearly shown, there was nothing ON THE BODIES that advanced their case. They HAD to be found in the bay. It was inevitable.

IMO AW2B's theory is not a satire or a ridiculous joke. It does have merit.
Stranger things have been known to happen. A high profile case in my state involved the moving of the body TWICE in a 6 month period of time.

[I'mSun]

that was his plan? He thought that far ahead? but he didn't plan on getting legal tags for that daytime 90 mile drive just in case?

The tags on the trailer and boat appeared to be legal and current. Only if Scott had been stopped and the tags run, would it show that the registration was invalid.

what you're describing is just unbelievable to me...you're trying to reconcile 2 theories (theory of the anchors and the theory of him wanting the bodies to wash out to sea) by making one unbelievable one...... that he meant for the anchors to keep her weighted until such a time as her body decomposed enough to wash out to sea..

you really believe he was that much of a criminal genius?

A criminal genius? LOL! Scott wasn't even very smart. It is common knowledge that bodies will float unless weighted down due to decomposing & gasses.

[attorneywan2be]

it's the area that you did not bold under '1486' that's most relative, imo.

the medical examiner says he does NOT think it's likely.


Snip



cyn

I quoted this part of his testimony to show that it is possible that a plastic bag would provide protection to Conner..the reason he cited to explain why he didn't think it is likely is absurd to say the least..he created an impossible scenario (in bold) to explain why he thinks that it is not likely..the point is : MG simply asked him if a bag would provide a protected environment..he agreed that it is possible!

From the prelim:

would it have
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.
if we assume that somehow he was removed through
6 that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned
7 earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment,
8 and if we further assume that he was released from that at
9 about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's
10 possible.

[Synopsis]

How could the bodies have been placed there the same night when no one knew what specific location at the Bay where Scott had been? That information was not released until 11pm news on the 27th and Coast Guard was already on the scene on the 27th.
*snip*
?

HUH????

"placed there" - as in the night before they were found.

Not in December when she went missing.

[deputydi]

who would think of that tho?
<SNIP>
Actually, I don't think he was smart enough to figure all that out. What I DO believe is he weighted her body just enough to keep her submerged. He believed the weights were light enough to allow her body to move (submerged) with the undercurrent. He never dreamed her limbs would disarticulate and I doubt he considered the effect marine life feeding would have on the body. My guess is no one was more surprised than old Scotty himself when the bodies washed ashore.

I've never claimed Scott was the brightest Peterson bulb on the string. Some of what he did was planned and some was just plain luck. His luck ran out when the bodies surfaced.

[Miss Bootsie]

please explain how the uterus stayed a sterile environment when it was 'worn' away.... there would be different levels of 'wearing' so to speak right? like a pair of jeans with the knees worn out... .

like this
http://eaglewings-eyrie.com/MVC-090-DRte66JeansFront.JPG

so how did the uterus stay sterile.......

I don't think we can compare the levels of Jean (fabric wear) to the Uterus in a decomposed body.
Jeans are just what they are.....made of fabric.

I don't have the answer to your question nor do I think it is really relevant at this point. The trial would have lasted three years had the experts went into such lengthy detail.

What I do have and think relevant, is an opinion from a qualified forensic ME, and his opinion was - Conner was protected in the sterile environment of the uterus.

Dr. Peterson, through his training and experience, would have the knowledge to know whether the Uterus in those conditions would remain sterile.

Through his expertise had he had any doubt, the uterus would not remain sterile, his opinion would not have been, Conner's body was in the sterile environment of the uterus. Right?

I'm sure if Wecht could have offered a different opinion-(under oath) that the uterus would not remain sterile, he would have testified. That would have blown Dr. Peterson's theory.

Now, if any of the SII's can provide an expert opinion - from someone with similar expertise in forensic science - (who has testified under oath) that the Uterus will not remain sterile in those type conditions, please share with us.

It seems the SIG's sometimes question Dr. Peterson's opinion, but at other times, they use his testimony to make a point to support their argument.:shrug:
Such as the wetting and drying to form the mineral deposits - you find this credible - but apparently, you question his theory on Conner being protected by the sterile environment of the uterus.

[deputydi]

I quoted this part of his testimony to show that it is possible that a plastic bag would provide protection to Conner..the reason he cited to explain why he didn't think it is likely is absurd to say the least..he created an impossible scenario (in bold) to explain why he thinks that it is not likely..the point is : MG simply asked him if a bag would provide a protected environment..he agreed that it is possible!

From the prelim:

would it have
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.
if we assume that somehow he was removed through
6 that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned
7 earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment,
8 and if we further assume that he was released from that at
9 about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's
10 possible.
A lot of things are "possible" but there's a big difference between possible and probable. It's possible that aliens are going to land in my back yard tonight but it is highly improbable. It is also possible that I'll win the lottery but odds are against that ever happening.

Of course he testified that it was possible but he also said "I don't think it's likely".

[deputydi]

<snip>IMO, The evidence presented doesn't indicate a crime even occurred let alone by Scott..
Please tell me you're not reviving that old "Laci could have committed suicide" theory. Of all the preposterous theorys that have been floated, this was the most bizarre.

[attorneywan2be]

Exactly. And since he's seen other bodies that had been in the bay, he would have taken note if there should have been bites marks on bones - but weren't.

But he did..he was looking for fish bites marks and he noted that he couldn't find any..he didn't say that it is normal not to find any fish bite marks on a body that supposedly was in the bay for 4 months..in fact, I can infer from his testimony that he was kind of surprised that there were no fish bite marks or chewing marks on her body..he also said that disarticulation could have been caused by, for example, shark feeding but he could not see evidence of it..then likewise, I would say that it's possible she was dismembered but the ME didn't see evidence of it...

From the prelim

20 Q. Based on what you saw from Laci's body, you were
21 briefly describing about how the environment affects the
22 legs and the feet. Does the marine environment have effect
23 on causing disarticulation?
24 A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in
25 the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near
26 the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort
27 of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks.
28 Again, though , there were no specific chew marks on her

1471
1 body. As I examined the joints that were available for
2 examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there
3 were no bite marks either.
4 So could these disarticulations that I saw have been
5 caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on
6 that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any
7 particular positive evidence to say that they were, though..

[attorneywan2be]

Please tell me you're not reviving that old "Laci could have committed suicide" theory. Of all the preposterous theorys that have been floated, this was the most bizarre.

Where did I say that?..I think I have made it clear that I believe Laci was abducted and killed..I'm referring to the lack of evidence in the prosecution case..maybe if the MPD had pursued the real perpetrators the prosecution would have had real evidence of murder to present to the jury.....

[PsychNurse;~)]

I quoted this part of his testimony to show that it is possible that a plastic bag would provide protection to Conner..the reason he cited to explain why he didn't think it is likely is absurd to say the least..he created an impossible scenario (in bold) to explain why he thinks that it is not likely..the point is : MG simply asked him if a bag would provide a protected environment..he agreed that it is possible!

From the prelim:

would it have
1 been possible for something else to protect this baby aside
2 from Laci's uterus? I think that's possible. Based on the
3 condition of the two bodies, I don't think it's likely, and
4 it certainly isn't my top choice.
if we assume that somehow he was removed through
6 that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned
7 earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment,
8 and if we further assume that he was released from that at
9 about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's
10 possible.


i think the point is that the medical examiner found is possible ONLY if those other issues occurred.

cyn

[adnoid]

...what you're describing is just unbelievable to me...

I know the feeling well.

...you really believe he was that much of a criminal genius?...

Well, let's see - he sits today on Death Row. Not exactly what I'd call a criminal genius. To me, a criminal genius would get away with their crime.

Having watched a few episodes of "COPS" I doubt I'll ever use the terms "criminal" and "genius" in the same thought again.

[ekg]

Can you please link me to the medical/scientific research site that compares the uterus to a pair of jeans. Thank you.

:rolleyes: oh don't be so dramatic..... obviously I can't post a medical research site that compares jeans to a uterus because obviously I was using the worn jeans and the picture of them as a visual example of what 'abraded' is...


133 pages $153.00
September 16, 2004
Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge

8. Now, when we were talking about the placement of the uterus in -- in the victim in this particular case, it's inside the -- the abdomen, in the lower cavity. Trying to remember my anatomy here. What is it that has to occur for this uterus to become exposed and end up being abraded like this, as you were describing?



140. I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.




146. Sure. The uterus, in the first place, from the lowest portion of the uterus where it connects to the vagina, to the uppermost portion, the fundus, measured 23 centimeters. That would be roughly ten inches. As I said, normally, a uterus in the non-pregnant state may be the sizeof a golf ball. So an inch and a half or so. In greatest dimension, this is substantially larger. In the non-pregnant state, the uterus is almost solid muscle. There is obviously a cavity on the inside of it. But just to feel it, to make a section across, it is a relatively solid muscle. This uterus was markedly thin. The thickest -- and I measured the wall of the uterus in several locations. The thickest was two millimeters, very small, all the way to nothing. Up near the top of the uterus it actually been, to my eye, abraded, and was open. So up there there was no wall. So the thickness of the wall ranged from nothing to two millimeters. So, in summary, what we have is a uterus that's much larger than a normal, non-pregnant uterus. The wall is much thinner. And as I put those two things together, I determined that that had been a pregnant uterus.

so, the uterus was abraded (worn down,rubbed away,eroded) from zero to 2 MM..... the section that was zero would then make the environment unsterilized...