Scott Peterson's appeal

[ekg]

snipped

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.



wow..... I never thought of it like that, but you are 100% right..

[adnoid]

Can you please link me to the medical/scientific research site that compares the uterus to a pair of jeans. Thank you.

--Development of the uterus is dependent on the lack of the Y sex chromosome;

--We can determine the sex of a chromosome by pulling down it's genes;

--The words "jeans" and "genes" are homophonous;

--Therefore:

<sarcasm style=skov>

"UTERUS CONNECTS TO JEANS 100%!!!! IT'S GETTING HOT IN HERE!!!!!!!"

</sarcasm>

[adnoid]

...My guess is no one was more surprised than old Scotty himself when the bodies washed ashore...

Well, after they washed up (and he drove in the opposite direction) he was apprehended and he asked if it was about the murder of his wife. So I'd say he sure didn't expect those bodies to ever pop up again.

[ekg]

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.

ok.... but aren't you saying that his intention was for the bodies to wash out to sea?


then why did he weight her down? wouldn't weighing her down stop her from washing out to sea? (unless he knew she would disarticulate and them wash out...)


I must not be understanding you...... can you explain what he was trying to do with anchoring her down so she wouldn't rise but also wanting her to wash out to sea

[attorneywan2be]

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".

Please...Geragos was asking the ME if the bag would provide a protected environment that would be consistent with the lack of decomposition he saw in Conner..the ME didn't deny that it could, if scientifically the bag would not provide the protected environment..he would have said so...he agreed..he simply didn't think it is likley because of a scenario he created on how and when Conner was released from the bag to wash ashore at the same time Laci's body washed ashore...

Based on the ME testimony, the bottom line is, would a bag provide a protected environment that would be consistent with the lack of decomposition in Conner's body...YES! ..The theory on how, when and where he was placed in a bag is a different issue..

[Miss Bootsie]

[QUOTE=ekg;8891085]: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...

I don't think Snoops is being dramatic.

After all, you are questioning the opinion of a qualifed forensic ME who testified under oath and using Jeans as an illustration.:confused:

[adnoid]

...It's possible that aliens are going to land in my back yard tonight but it is highly improbable...

Actually, that's impossible. I'm having them over for BBQ ribs (but no hot sauce, you know they hate that). They're a load of fun, but I hate it when they get drunk & want to get out the probes.

[I'mSun]

(snipped)..maybe if the MPD had pursued the real perpetrators the prosecution would have had real evidence of murder to present to the jury.....Are you talking about hard evidence again?

[attorneywan2be]

i think the point is that the medical examiner found is possible ONLY if those other issues occurred.

cyn

No, he said it is possible..he didn't cite any scientific reason to explain why it is not likely..he simply concocted an impossible scenario as to when Conner would have been released from the bag to make that possibility not likley..

[I'mSun]

--Development of the uterus is dependent on the lack of the Y sex chromosome;

--We can determine the sex of a chromosome by pulling down it's genes;

--The words "jeans" and "genes" are homophonous;

--Therefore:

<sarcasm style=skov>

"UTERUS CONNECTS TO JEANS 100%!!!! IT'S GETTING HOT IN HERE!!!!!!!"

</sarcasm>

:lol: LMAO!!! Excellent, Adnoid :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

Are you talking about hard evidence again?

I'm referring to circumstantial evidence..IMO, in this case there was no such evidence presented..

[ekg]

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.

you mean like how ppl will say Wall didn't know what he was talking about when he said he could tell who was online that morning... but those same ppl will use the rest of his testimony to prove their point....:biggrin: :tongue:


to understand what Dr. P meant when he said 'abraded' you can use the jeans as an example, can you not? IMO it's a pretty good visual reference...can you help me think of a better one, b/c it's what I think of when I read the testimony...


and the sterile environment is 100% relevant... b/c the explanation given as to why his body wasn't as bad as her is the 'sterile' environment... so if the environment couldn't be sterile then the theory is wrong and there needs to be another explanation...

[I'mSun]

I'm referring to circumstantial evidence..IMO, in this case there was no such evidence presented..

What? No CE was presented in this case, according to you?

[ekg]

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.


no I think what she is saying is there is no proof of a crime......

[PsychNurse;~)]

No, he said it is possible..he didn't cite any scientific reason to explain why it is not likely..he simply concocted an impossible scenario as to when Conner would have been released from the bag to make that possibility not likley..

you need to re-read the transcript portion you posted. he said it would be possible IF.....

cyn

[JustMyOpinion]

: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...



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...

First of all, I think it would take quite some time for the LAYERS to fully decompose, so that the uterus was even exposed at all, IMO The abrasion likely occured not long before Conner came ashore, IMO.

SNIP:HARRIS: 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?

PETERSON: Well, the uterus originates in the true pelvis. That's where the attachments are down below. For the uterus to be exposed, for a pregnant uterus, as in this case, to be exposed, you have to have portions of the abdominal wall missing. Namely skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat and muscle. And once those things are all gone, and one last layer of membrane called the peritoneum, at that point you expose the inside of the abdomen, and the top of the uterus would be visible there.


The fetus was also inside an amniotic sack, the cervix was closed according to the ME. ( sterile environment) IMO
The ME's opinion was that Conner had not been in the Bay very long.
I am guessing that when the top of the uterus finally opened,that is when he was expelled from amniotic sack/uterus into the water..JMO

[attorneywan2be]

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.


Exactly Synopsis..you brought up an excellent point..they didn't have the evidence to arrest Scott and as you said there was no evidence on the bodies to link Scott to the murder.!! that reminds me of a media report that Laci's body was found in Fresno under a cement slab..later on the MPD denied the report..I will find that report and I will post it..

IMO, The burglars abducted her in a panic...they didn't know what to do with her..they kept her alive, IMO, for weeks..they either killed her or she died as she was in labor..they got Conner out of her womb, hence the opening at the top, they dismembered her to conceal her identity..however, later on they figured that the best place to place her would be where Scott's alibi was..they figured that they would be giving the MPD the evidence to make an arrest and to end the investigation...!

[ekg]

[QUOTE]

I don't think Snoops is being dramatic.

After all, you are questioning the opinion of a qualifed forensic ME who testified under oath and using Jeans as an illustration.:confused:

saying
"Can you please link me to the medical/scientific research site that compares the uterus to a pair of jeans. Thank you."

when obviously I was using the jeans as a visual example of an abrasion, is being dramatic IMO..

what other visual explanation can you come up with if you were trying to explain what an abraded part of the uterus would resemble?

[I'mSun]

no I think what she is saying is there is no proof of a crime......Given the circumstances, finding 2 bodies in the bay isn't proof enough a crime was committed?

[Heyes]

What? No CE was presented in this case, according to you?
Well I be danged. I thought there was a ton of CE. So did the jury!
Evidently

Even without Laci's hair in the tool in the boat, even without his location on xmas eve, even without the cement circles in his wherehouse. etc..etc.. Just on his demeaner alone I could stick his butt in jail for life. With the other pieces of CE? Well That's when I can tack on the DP and actually enjoy doing it!

Anyone know if he has an appeal date yet? lol I would actually pay to see the briefs for that one. lol lol
The things he said on the phone to amber, the lies, heck I could lock him up just for that. I'd hate to see anyone else's daughter deal with such a horrible human as Laci and Amber did. He is a piece of work and after watching all that went down it was obvious to me his parents didn't value Laci at all.
And I have to ask.... WTH was it with that janey? Is she still married to scotts brother because if I was him my hinky meter would have gone off big time.

[Heyes]

no I think what she is saying is there is no proof of a crime......

Huh?

No proof of a crime?
Sooooooooo um how do you explain her being in the bay
maybe I missed something.

[Miss Bootsie]

Please...Geragos was asking the ME if the bag would provide a protected environment that would be consistent with the lack of decomposition he saw in Conner..the ME didn't deny that it could, if scientifically the bag would not provide the protected environment..he would have said so...he agreed..he simply didn't think it is likley because of a scenario he created on how and when Conner was released from the bag to wash ashore at the same time Laci's body washed ashore...

Based on the ME testimony, the bottom line is, would a bag provide a protected environment that would be consistent with the lack of decomposition in Conner's body...YES! ..The theory on how, when and where he was placed in a bag is a different issue..

No, Dr. Peterson did not testify a bag would provide a protected environment consistent with Conner's lack of decomposition. Read again AW. It's all there.There is much more to the testimony than that.

Again, it all has to do with the difference in autolysis during the bacterial decomposition process and aseptic autolysis in a sterile environment.

Had Conner's body been stored in a plastic bag, his body would have undergone autolysis - bacterial decompositon, just as Laci's body did.

Sorry, but you can't ignore that word Aseptic = sterile, because it's not going away.
Free from or doing away with microorganisms that produce putrefaction

Putrefaction = bacteria induced decompositon = Laci's body
Aseptic (sterile) autolysis = Conner's body

[attorneywan2be]

Snip


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...

Exactly..excellent point..IMO, fish would have gotten in there and fed on him..

[frydaddy]

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.

When did they separate Conner from Laci?

Why didn't they leave Conner and Laci in the same spot?

Where were Conner and Laci kept this whole time and who would risk going to the bay rather than some empty field IF they had gotten away with it for this long and Scott was the number one suspect, who I'd add was playing the role to a T?

Perhaps not a joke or satire, but definitely borders on ridiculous, IMO!

[ekg]

First of all, I think it would take quite some time for the LAYERS to fully decompose, so that the uterus was even exposed at all, IMO The abrasion likely occured not long before Conner came ashore, IMO.

SNIP:HARRIS: 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?

PETERSON: Well, the uterus originates in the true pelvis. That's where the attachments are down below. For the uterus to be exposed, for a pregnant uterus, as in this case, to be exposed, you have to have portions of the abdominal wall missing. Namely skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat and muscle. And once those things are all gone, and one last layer of membrane called the peritoneum, at that point you expose the inside of the abdomen, and the top of the uterus would be visible there.


The fetus was also inside an amniotic sack, the cervix was closed according to the ME. ( sterile environment) IMO
The ME's opinion was that Conner had not been in the Bay very long.
I am guessing that when the top of the uterus finally opened,that is when he was expelled from amniotic sack/uterus into the water..JMO

yes, but abrasions don't wear evenly.... one part will be thinner than the other....


146. snipped

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.



one part will allow water and organisms in before the other part.... and one part will open up making the environment no longer sterile...

how was he still protected?

[One2Snoop]

--Development of the uterus is dependent on the lack of the Y sex chromosome;

--We can determine the sex of a chromosome by pulling down it's genes;

--The words "jeans" and "genes" are homophonous;

--Therefore:

<sarcasm style=skov>

"UTERUS CONNECTS TO JEANS 100%!!!! IT'S GETTING HOT IN HERE!!!!!!!"

</sarcasm>

http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/happy0194.gif

[ekg]

Huh?

No proof of a crime?
Sooooooooo um how do you explain her being in the bay
maybe I missed something.

what crimes do the bodies prove?

[frydaddy]

I didn't see Adnoid's question get answered, but I've not read everything since it was asked. Did Todd and Pearce make sure the three dark skinned dudes all participated in the death, so that all were complicit and none could turn in the others for the reward? Or did the three dark skinned dudes do so to Todd and Pearce? It's fun to see everybody debate this SODDI story, but why is it that no one wants to answer the questions regarding it? :shrug:

[JustMyOpinion]

yes, but abrasions don't wear evenly.... one part will be thinner than the other....





one part will allow water and organisms in before the other part.... and one part will open up making the environment no longer sterile...

how was he still protected?

I give up. ( perhaps you can find a site and study some pregnant, female, human anatomy, including pics.)
Pics of jeans have nothing to do with it! IMO

[I'mSun]

what crimes do the bodies prove?This is just a guess, but how about... MURDER.

[One2Snoop]

: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...



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...


http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/confused0081.gif
http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/confused0081.gif



I don't think Snoops is being dramatic.

After all, you are questioning the opinion of a qualifed forensic ME who testified under oath and using Jeans as an illustration.:confused:

You're correct, I wasn't being dramatic. http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/mad0014.gif

[ekg]

Given the circumstances, finding 2 bodies in the bay isn't proof enough a crime was committed?



what crime do the bodies prove?

just finding them isn't proof of a crime..

there isn't a murder weapon,murder location,TOD,COD... nothing... nothing to prove a crime even happened...

for all we know those 2 bodies choked to death...

but add in those bodies are of a missing wife and baby and you can assume it wasn't an accidental choking.....

but was it a spur of the moment, heat of passion killing? was it an accidental hitting her and her hitting the floor and dying? or was it a premeditated murder...

you say it was pre-med... I don't agree...

BUT the bodies being found still don't prove a crime.... they only prove an event.. a death...thats all..

if there was enough CE to arrest him with the bodies, when they didn't even prove a crime, then why wasn't there enough CE the day before the bodies were found?

[Miss Bootsie]

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 know it......Darn, Dr. Peterson should have just agreed when Geragos asked him that question and then kept his mouth shut. Mean man......:punch:

Well, fortunately Dr. P added more.

Here we are now.....bashing Dr. Peterson.
he created an impossible scenario

Happens every time.........:tongue:

[deputydi]

what crime do the bodies prove?
<snip>

Are you serious? Whether you believe Scott or SODDI, Laci died at the hands of SOMEONE. Whether you believe she was dumped in the bay or placed on shore SOMEONE put her there. These are crimes in case you didn't know.

Now tell me again how there was no crime. This may be the biggest belly laugh I've had all day and this thread has provided quite a few.

[JustMyOpinion]

BUT the bodies being found still don't prove a crime.... they only prove an event.. a death...thats all..

if there was enough CE to arrest him with the bodies, when they didn't even prove a crime, then why wasn't there enough CE the day before the bodies were found?

IMO, the location of the bodies, and the state they were in is circumstantial evidence that considered with all of the other CE, proves SP put Laci in the Bay sometime between 8:30 P.M. on 12/23 and the afternoon of 12/24.
I think they did have enough evidence to arrest him prior to the bodies being recovered, but had they done so..he could have invoked his right to speedy prelim & trial, and without the bodies it would have been challenging to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, IMO. Keeping him under survelliance while continuing to search the Bay was a wise investigatorial decision, IMO.

[Hey Paula]

what crime do the bodies prove?

just finding them isn't proof of a crime..

there isn't a murder weapon,murder location,TOD,COD... nothing... nothing to prove a crime even happened...

for all we know those 2 bodies choked to death...

but add in those bodies are of a missing wife and baby and you can assume it wasn't an accidental choking.....

but was it a spur of the moment, heat of passion killing? was it an accidental hitting her and her hitting the floor and dying? or was it a premeditated murder...

you say it was pre-med... I don't agree...

BUT the bodies being found still don't prove a crime.... they only prove an event.. a death...thats all..

if there was enough CE to arrest him with the bodies, when they didn't even prove a crime, then why wasn't there enough CE the day before the bodies were found?

Hi Ekg!

The proof of a crime lies in the huge amount of CE in this case. Suicide can be ruled out because Laci's car was still parked at her house and her body was found 90 miles away.

If Laci's death was accidental, Scott would have dialed 911 to at least save Conner's life.

On the day Laci disappeared, Scott went trolling where Laci's remains later washed ashore.

Two weeks before Laci disappeared, Scott predicted he would lose her.

If Laci's body never surfaced, I believe Scott would have eventually been tried regardless. LE wasn't in a hurry to prosecute Scott because they continued to gather evidence while he was free.

Everything Scott did and said within two weeks before Laci disappeared points to premeditation.

IMO

[ekg]

I give up. ( perhaps you can find a site and study some pregnant, female, human anatomy, including pics.)
Pics of jeans have nothing to do with it! IMO

I'm still not sure why the visual example of worn jeans can't be compared to 'wearing' of the uterus.. I've asked for another example since this is obviously incomprehensible and wrong 2 times and still haven't gotten an answer...

so JMO, can you explain how an abraded uterus would look? b/c all I can see when I hear that is what the knees of a pair of old worn jeans look like..

like the knees in this picture
http://static.flickr.com/30/61453853_3a03aba873.jpg

is my visualization wrong?

[adnoid]

I didn't see Adnoid's question get answered, but I've not read everything since it was asked...

It was not.

[adnoid]

...This may be the biggest belly laugh I've had all day and this thread has provided quite a few.

Don't say that. The day's not over yet.

[Miss Bootsie]

i think the point is that the medical examiner found is possible ONLY if those other issues occurred.

cyn

Exactly. Thank-you cyn

[ekg]

This is just a guess, but how about... MURDER.

they do?


how?

[I'mSun]

they do?


how?Because it clearly wasn't suicide.

[adnoid]

I'm still not sure why the visual example of worn jeans can't be compared to 'wearing' of the uterus.. I've asked for another example since this is obviously incomprehensible and wrong 2 times and still haven't gotten an answer...

so JMO, can you explain how an abraded uterus would look? b/c all I can see when I hear that is what the knees of a pair of old worn jeans look like..

like the knees in this picture
http://static.flickr.com/30/61453853_3a03aba873.jpg

is my visualization wrong?

Well, if we could find a denim uterus (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22denim+uterus%22&btnG=Search) and abrade it we might be able to compare abraded denim to abraded smooth muscle. As one is a cotton fabric and the other one is human tissue I don't think they're going to be very similar, though.

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm still not sure why the visual example of worn jeans can't be compared to 'wearing' of the uterus.. I've asked for another example since this is obviously incomprehensible and wrong 2 times and still haven't gotten an answer...

so JMO, can you explain how an abraded uterus would look? b/c all I can see when I hear that is what the knees of a pair of old worn jeans look like..

like the knees in this picture
http://static.flickr.com/30/61453853_3a03aba873.jpg

is my visualization wrong?


Jeans are made of fabric, visualizing abraded fabric could possibly help you understand the meaning of the word abraded, ? But as to the medical evidence:..The uterus is a hollow, muscular organ of the female body that rests in the true pelvis (uterus is protected by bones).. there are also several LAYERS of tissue ( skin, fat, muscle, peritoneum, etc) that protect the uterus and have to be missing/decomposed before the top of the uterus would even be exposed at all, IMO.
Inside the pregnant uterus is the amniotic sack, containing the baby & fluid.
When the cervix is closed and this sack has not ruptured or been opened, the environment of the fetus is sterile. My interpretation of the ME's testimony is that it took quite some time for all of the layers to decompose that resulted in the top of the uterus being exposed. At the point that the abrasion at the top finally occured, Conner was expelled from the amniotic sack and the uterus into the water where he remained for a few days before coming ashore. JMO If you read the entire testimony of the ME, find a site & study anatomy of pregnant, female human, that may assist you in understanding the testimony..IMO.

[ekg]

Are you serious? Whether you believe Scott or SODDI, Laci died at the hands of SOMEONE. Whether you believe she was dumped in the bay or placed on shore SOMEONE put her there. These are crimes in case you didn't know.

Now tell me again how there was no crime. This may be the biggest belly laugh I've had all day and this thread has provided quite a few.


I didn't say there wasn't a crime... I said there was no proof of a crime...

all you had was a missing woman...what proof of a crime is there?(pre-body) Prove to me she didn't just walk away.... ppl do it all the time....sure the indications are she wouldn't do that, but there isn't any proof of a crime against her or someone would have been arrested.

4 months later you have a body

the body doesn't prove anything except death... or did I miss Dr. P COD?

using the body, show me that she didn't choke on her pizza that night


I'm not saying she wasn't murdered.... I'm saying that you can't rule in a murder just from the bodies.. b/c they don't prove a crime.. I'm not saying she wasn't murdered... but when you bring it down to the basics there is nothing to prove a crime, much less 1st degree murder.. Scott could have said he hit her in a fit of rage and it would have matched the evidence b/c there isn't any proof one or the other..

[Miss Bootsie]

I'm still not sure why the visual example of worn jeans can't be compared to 'wearing' of the uterus.. I've asked for another example since this is obviously incomprehensible and wrong 2 times and still haven't gotten an answer...

so JMO, can you explain how an abraded uterus would look? b/c all I can see when I hear that is what the knees of a pair of old worn jeans look like..

like the knees in this picture
http://static.flickr.com/30/61453853_3a03aba873.jpg

is my visualization wrong?

Please bear in mind, there were many people that viewed the true actual photo of the abraded uterus - some viewed the actual uterus -Dr. Wecht being one of those people.


Do you not give those people any credit for having any common sense?:confused:

[attorneywan2be]

I didn't say there wasn't a crime... I said there was no proof of a crime...

all you had was a missing woman...what proof of a crime is there?(pre-body) Prove to me she didn't just walk away.... ppl do it all the time....sure the indications are she wouldn't do that, but there isn't any proof of a crime against her or someone would have been arrested.

4 months later you have a body

the body doesn't prove anything except death... or did I miss Dr. P COD?

using the body, show me that she didn't choke on her pizza that night


I'm not saying she wasn't murdered.... I'm saying that you can't rule in a murder just from the bodies.. b/c they don't prove a crime.. I'm not saying she wasn't murdered... but when you bring it down to the basics there is nothing to prove a crime, much less 1st degree murder.. Scott could have said he hit her in a fit of rage and it would have matched the evidence b/c there isn't any proof one or the other..


Well said..ITA

There was no proof of a crime...having said that, I believe she was abducted and they either murdered her or she died in labor..

[ekg]

IMO, the location of the bodies, and the state they were in is circumstantial evidence that considered with all of the other CE, proves SP put Laci in the Bay sometime between 8:30 P.M. on 12/23 and the afternoon of 12/24.
I think they did have enough evidence to arrest him prior to the bodies being recovered, but had they done so..he could have invoked his right to speedy prelim & trial, and without the bodies it would have been challenging to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, IMO. Keeping him under survelliance while continuing to search the Bay was a wise investigatorial decision, IMO.



not the location, but the body itself.. what crime did it prove?

what crime was proven before the bodies were found?

you're saying that she had to be murdered b/c she was missing and she was missing b/c she was murdered and we know she was murdered b/c she was found in the bay....

now I agree with all of that.... BUT, the only evidence we have is her missing and her body being found.. the body doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already think b/c it doesn't prove TOD,COD.. and the home doesn't prove the location of death..... all we can do is look at other things to fill in the blanks... b/c the body doesn't prove a crime and neither does the house.

[aingael]

: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...



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...


Exactly..excellent point..IMO, fish would have gotten in there and fed on him..




Okay, a little information on decomposition and the female anatomy.

First, when a woman is pregnant the baby is not just ~in~ the uterus, it is also encased within the amniotic sac. This environment is sterile. Once the uterus had abraded away the factor of decomposition comes into play as to where Connor was expelled.

If, notice I said ~if~ Laci’s uterus had not abraded or rubbed away, Conner most likely would have been expelled through the cervix and out the vaginal canal. Since the abraded section was the weakest and most likely the open area, once decomposition gasses caused pressure, the anionic sac ruptured, or perhaps was ruptured by an animal feeding, Connor was expelled.

Does this help?

Now, we can deal with the abraded uterus. The best way to think of this is an “abrasion” take a skinned knee for example. When someone falls and ~skins~ their knee the skin is warn away, usually the first couple of layers. The fundus of the uterus was abraded, skinned, or warn away until an opening happened or was so thin that once the decomposition gasses caused pressure it was completely open thus allowing Conner to be expelled. As a little side note, the decomposition gasses were from Laci’s uterus and not from Conner.

[TopGunner]

Well said..ITA

There was no proof of a crime...having said that, I believe she was abducted and they either murdered her or she died in labor..



There certainly isn't ANY proof that there wasn't a crime. There is ZERO proof she choked on pizza, and had that been the case, I have a hunch ISP would have said as much - beats death row.

This is so far out there (no proof there was a murder), that it really doesn't warrant a reply. I am doing so, however, in the hopes that if the NG's seriously desire to intelligently, logically, and consistently show that ISP is innocent, it would be to everyone's benefit that the whole picture be addressed - not these tiny pieces of events (she could have choked on pizza), keeping in mind - everyone here knows the facts, has access to the facts, and cannot be swayed with Mark Geregos type comments.

It's annoying to say the least - I certainly don't try to insult anyone's intelligence when I post.:no:

[attorneywan2be]

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:


Nope :no:

I didn't contradict myself...you're the one that is forgetting..I didn't agree that decomposition caused the disarticulation..we were discussing the missing organs and the fact that the uterus was the only organ that was present..the study you quoted proved my point that Laci could not have been in the bay where fish would feed on her body including the uterus..on the other hand, during normal decomposition organs would decompose and liquify and the uterus would remain intact possibly for 12 months..


Here is the discussion we had..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8839580&postcount=546

[deputydi]

<snip>I'm not saying she wasn't murdered.... I'm saying that you can't rule in a murder just from the bodies.. b/c they don't prove a crime.. I'm not saying she wasn't murdered... but when you bring it down to the basics there is nothing to prove a crime, much less 1st degree murder.. Scott could have said he hit her in a fit of rage and it would have matched the evidence b/c there isn't any proof one or the other..
I'm done with this silly game. Look up "CIRCUMSTANTIAL". Maybe if you understand the word, you'll understand how her death can be ruled a homicide just from examining what was left of her body.

[TopGunner]

I'm done with this silly game. Look up "CIRCUMSTANTIAL". Maybe if you understand the word, you'll understand how her death can be ruled a homicide just from examining what was left of her body.

Thank you DD - This is what I was trying to spit out! :cuss:

[deputydi]

Thank you DD - This is what I was trying to spit out! :cuss:
At first I was amused, then I got frustrated and now I find myself getting angry at how dense some people can be. I really need to leave before I say something that will get me booted. :chicken:

[attorneywan2be]

I'm done with this silly game. Look up "CIRCUMSTANTIAL". Maybe if you understand the word, you'll understand how her death can be ruled a homicide just from examining what was left of her body.

I'm sure ekg knows the meaning of circumstantial evidence..

Why don't you tell us and tell the ME how her death can be ruled a homicide by examining what was left of her body..I think the ME stated that he was not able to determine the cause of death..TIA

[TopGunner]

I'm sure ekg knows the meaning of circumstantial evidence..

Why don't you tell us and tell the ME how her death can be ruled a homicide by examining what was left of her body..I think the ME stated that he was not able to determine the cause of death..TIA

AW2B - you are pushing the envelope here, so I'm taking off to.

Out of all the NG posters I've posted with these past 4 1/2 years, you (and ekg) have been the two most "sane" out of them all. However, you're both starting to go down the FratPak Rd. I hope you'll reconsider.

On that note - enjoy the night! :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B - you are pushing the envelope here, so I'm taking off to.

Out of all the NG posters I've posted with these past 4 1/2 years, you (and ekg) have been the two most "sane" out of them all. However, you're both starting to go down the FratPak Rd. I hope you'll reconsider.

On that note - enjoy the night! :seeya:


Pushing the envelope???

DD stated that her death can be ruled a homicide just by examining her body...the ME testified that he was not able to determine the cause of death...it is a fact!!!.. and you know how stubborn facts can be..read my signature...lol

The point I was making is that they had no proof a crime was even committed let alone by Scott..I think that would be an appeal issue.."insufficient evidence to support the verdict"

With that said, I believe she was abducted and possibly killed by her abductors or she might have died in labor during captivity....

[JustMyOpinion]

not the location, but the body itself.. what crime did it prove?

what crime was proven before the bodies were found?

you're saying that she had to be murdered b/c she was missing and she was missing b/c she was murdered and we know she was murdered b/c she was found in the bay....

now I agree with all of that.... BUT, the only evidence we have is her missing and her body being found.. the body doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already think b/c it doesn't prove TOD,COD.. and the home doesn't prove the location of death..... all we can do is look at other things to fill in the blanks... b/c the body doesn't prove a crime and neither does the house.

What I "said" was clear. You can re-read it if you like.
COD was homicide. Look at the death certificate. ( manner of death was undetermined).
There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that came forward in 19 weeks of the State's case in chief, which proved to the jury BARD that Scott was guilty of committing double homicide. ( proved it beyond my doubt as well)
It appears to me that you do not find that evidence compelling beyond your own reasonable doubt.
I don't know who "we" is.

[Miss Bootsie]

Nope :no:

I didn't contradict myself...you're the one that is forgetting..I didn't agree that decomposition caused the disarticulation..we were discussing the missing organs and the fact that the uterus was the only organ that was present..the study you quoted proved my point that Laci could not have been in the bay where fish would feed on her body including the uterus..on the other hand, during normal decomposition organs would decompose and liquify and the uterus would remain intact possibly for 12 months..


Here is the discussion we had..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8839580&postcount=546

You did make the following statement in your post.
it proved to me that her body did go thru normal decomposition process absent EXPOSURE to marine life

Disarticulation is part of the normal decomposition process.

If it is your opinion, disarticulation is not part of normal decomposition, so be it.

[Miss Bootsie]

No, he said it is possible..he didn't cite any scientific reason to explain why it is not likely..he simply concocted an impossible scenario as to when Conner would have been released from the bag to make that possibility not likley..

Dr. Peterson did cite reasons, based on his expertise in forensic science.
He was qualified to testify in a Court of Law.
He was not required to explain every statement that came out of his mouth to your liking.

[attorneywan2be]

You did make the following statement in your post.


Disarticulation is part of the normal decomposition process.

If it is your opinion, disarticulation is not part of normal decomposition, so be it.

Disarticulation was not mentioned in the study that we discussed as being part of the normal decomposition process...we were only talking about missing organs and the fact that the uterus was the only organ that remained..

Where does it say in the link you provided that the disarticulation of the limbs is part of the normal decomposition process???

http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html

[attorneywan2be]

Dr. Peterson did cite reasons, based on his expertise in forensic science.
He was qualified to testify in a Court of Law.
He was not required to explain every statement that came out of his mouth to your liking.

I quoted his reply to Geragos when he was asked if a plastic bag would provide a protected environment..he agreed that it is a possible and he didn't cite a scientific reason that would make the bag unsuitable as a protected environment..

[Miss Bootsie]

what crime do the bodies prove?

just finding them isn't proof of a crime..

there isn't a murder weapon,murder location,TOD,COD... nothing... nothing to prove a crime even happened...

for all we know those 2 bodies choked to death...

but add in those bodies are of a missing wife and baby and you can assume it wasn't an accidental choking.....

but was it a spur of the moment, heat of passion killing? was it an accidental hitting her and her hitting the floor and dying? or was it a premeditated murder...

you say it was pre-med... I don't agree...

BUT the bodies being found still don't prove a crime.... they only prove an event.. a death...thats all..

if there was enough CE to arrest him with the bodies, when they didn't even prove a crime, then why wasn't there enough CE the day before the bodies were found?

I think this guy is more than qualified to determine there was a homicide. Very impressive - Don't you agree?

PETERSON: My name is Brian Peterson. B-r-i-a-n P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

HARRIS: We are referring to you as doctor. Can you tell us what your profession is?

PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist employed by a company called Forensic Medical Group in Fairfield.

HARRIS: And what is a pathologist?

PETERSON: Well, pathology is a study disease. Pathology is a subspecialty of medicine. And we study disease of various types.

HARRIS: So to go back through this, we're calling you a doctor. Does that mean that you have a medical degree?

PETERSON: I do.

HARRIS: Can you tell the jury what your background and education is?

PETERSON: Following three years of undergraduate education, I entered medical school at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. I attended there from 1976 until my graduation with an M.D. in 1980. I spent the next one year doing a flexible or rotating internship at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo Ohio. That was different specialties, actually taking care of patients for a year. I spent the next two years after that serving as a General Medical Officer with the Marines. I was in the Navy. The Marines don't have their own doctors, so I did that for two years. I then entered a training program in anatomic and clinical pathology at the Naval Hospital in San Diego starting in 1983. That was a four-year program. Anatomic pathology is directed towards performance of autopsies. Also directed towards looking at tissue removed in the operating room, for example, deciding if it's cancer or not. Clinical pathology is directed towards running the clinical lab, analyzing lab specimens, blood, urines, et cetera. That was a four year program. After that I went to a place called the Armed Forces Institute of pathology in Washington D.C. That was for my fellowship in forensic pathology. And that's basically, and additional training in autopsy pathology, now directed towards the medical-legal setting, overlooking a cause of death, manner of death. During and after that training, I took two separate examinations, offered by the American Board of Pathology. That's a group that certifies us. The first was in combined Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. I passed that exam. The second was in forensic pathology. I passed that exam. And back in 2001 I went through a voluntary recertification and passed that. So according to the board, I'm good for ten more years. After all that training, I returned to the Naval Hospital in San Diego and practiced there for about five more years doing all those things. And then left the service and joined my present practice about twelve years ago.

HARRIS: Now, you have used the term forensic pathology. Is that different than anatomic?

JUDGE: Can I interrupt? Are you done with his qualifications? Going to ask him some more before we get into the substance of his testimony? Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed in your career, approximately?

PETERSON: About 5,500, your Honor.

JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: Can you tell us some of the courts that you qualified in?

PETERSON: Most of the courts in the Bay Area. That includes Solano, Yolo, Marin, a number down in San Diego. Recently a court martial. Lot of different courts.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: And do you belong to any boards or any societies that are connected with the field of Forensic Pathology?

PETERSON: I'm a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners. I'm a fellow in the American Academy Forensic Sciences.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, do you have any questions about Doctor Peterson?

GERAGOS: Not of Doctor Peterson, no.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.

HARRIS: Thank you.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Exactly Synopsis..you brought up an excellent point..they didn't have the evidence to arrest Scott and as you said there was no evidence on the bodies to link Scott to the murder.!! that reminds me of a media report that Laci's body was found in Fresno under a cement slab..later on the MPD denied the report..I will find that report and I will post it..

IMO, The burglars abducted her in a panic...they didn't know what to do with her..they kept her alive, IMO, for weeks..they either killed her or she died as she was in labor..they got Conner out of her womb, hence the opening at the top, they dismembered her to conceal her identity..however, later on they figured that the best place to place her would be where Scott's alibi was..they figured that they would be giving the MPD the evidence to make an arrest and to end the investigation...!

the bodies being found where isp was 'fishing' on christmas eve day, driving 90 miles each way in holiday traffic, to spend 1 hour on the water, in a boat no one knew existed prior to laci's disappearance was adequate cause for arrest.

the scenerio you've presented above must be reasonable to be accepted, and imo it is not in the least reasonable.

isp's boat wasn't in the warehouse, iirc, according to his employee. so where was he keeping it prior to 12/24?

cyn

[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...


I think the disarticulation was normal for a body submerged in water for 4-months.
Loss of extremeties is a normal part of the decomposition process for a body in an aqueous environment.



Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments

Haglund, WD
Chief Medical Investigator, King County Medical Examiner's Office; and Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.


Abstract
Human remains recovered from aquatic environments were scored for regional presence of soft tissue, exposure of bone, and loss of body parts to determine the general pattern of soft tissue loss and loss of body parts. Regions scored were: the cranium, mandible, neck, hands, forearms, upper arms, feet, legs, pelvic girdle, and trunk.

Initial disappearance of soft tissue, resulting in exposure of underlying bones, occurred in areas thinly overlain by soft tissue beginning with the head, hands, and anterior lower legs.

Disappearance of body parts followed the general sequence: bones of the hands and wrists, bones of the feet and ankles, and the mandible and cranium. The lower legs, forearms, and upper arms are the next units to separate from the body.

Known postmortem intervals for remains analyzed ranged from weeks to years and could not reliably be estimated.
based on the condition of the body at the time of recovery.

As parts drop away from a floating carcass in large or current-driven bodies of water, they are often separated from the major body unit. This complicates recovery. Knowledge of disarticulation sequences allows more informed assessment of skeletal element recoveries to be expected and assists in the interpretation of artifacts and events produced by different disarticulating environments. http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES.OLD/2239.htm?E+mystore

[Synopsis]

When did they separate Conner from Laci?

Why didn't they leave Conner and Laci in the same spot?

Where were Conner and Laci kept this whole time and who would risk going to the bay rather than some empty field IF they had gotten away with it for this long and Scott was the number one suspect, who I'd add was playing the role to a T?

Perhaps not a joke or satire, but definitely borders on ridiculous, IMO!

Where were they kept? Any response would be a guess or theory. But it's hard to believe they were in the bay -with the evidence of the MASSIVE searches that were made.

Why risk going to the bay instead of an empty field? The bodies being found at or near where Scott was that day accomplished all they could have ever hoped for. Complete closure as far as this case was concerned. Scott Peterson was finally arrested and charged with the murders.

It couldn't be just "any old field." The bodies HAD to be found in the bay where Scott was fishing. He had already been tried, judged, and convicted by the media, the public, & LE. ...but without a formal arrest - it was just too risky to have all this attention to unanswered questions.

It was a win/win situation for MPD and whoever killed Laci for the bodies to suddenly appear on the shore.

[Miss Bootsie]

I quoted his reply to Geragos when he was asked if a plastic bag would provide a protected environment..he agreed that it is a possible and he didn't cite a scientific reason that would make the bag unsuitable as a protected environment..

AW, he did cite scientific reasons.
The reasons are scattered throughout his testimony in regards to Conner in both direct and cross exam.
Some of which I quoted in my post.

[Miss Bootsie]

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 Dr. Peterson, if asked, would tell you it's possible someone used sandpaper to abrade the top of the uterus.
But, of course, he would also tell you that is not likely.

[adnoid]

I think this guy is more than qualified to determine there was a homicide. Very impressive - Don't you agree?

But Marlene does not agree. You are flirting with the red font now!

[Synopsis]

I am doing so, however, in the hopes that if the NG's seriously desire to intelligently, logically, and consistently show that ISP is innocent, it would be to everyone's benefit that the whole picture be addressed - not these tiny pieces of events (she could have choked on pizza), keeping in mind - everyone here knows the facts, has access to the facts, and cannot be swayed with Mark Geregos type comments.

It's annoying to say the least - I certainly don't try to insult anyone's intelligence when I post.:no:

:biggrin: I agree with the above, and am open to addressing the whole picture. Even some questions or thoughts on how the bodies came to be where they were found.

I have no intention nor hopes of changing anyone's opinion of this case. I have sense enough to know that is not going to happen and it's not important to me. When I left the forums a long time ago, there were so many unanswered questions. There still are.

My interest in the case is not in Scott Peterson. If I knew him, I probably wouldn't even like him. But who knows? My interest was in the legal aspect of the case and how the system dealt with it. I wanted the prosecution to PROVE that he did it before a jury would send him to death. And in my opinion they failed. I was waiting for the "slam dunk" as per Locklear...it never came for me.

And I could not accept MPD's belief that Brocchini's lies and deceptions were an acceptable tactic, while Scott's lies and deceptions were absolute proof of guilt. No system should try and convince a jury to put a man to death simply because his actions were strange or cagey, he had an affair and lied about it, and because the police would look at no other suspects. IMO

[Synopsis]

I think the disarticulation was normal for a body submerged in water for 4-months.
Loss of extremeties is a normal part of the decomposition process for a body in an aqueous environment.



Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments

Haglund, WD
Chief Medical Investigator, King County Medical Examiner's Office; and Affiliate Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES.OLD/2239.htm?E+mystore


Thanks for the link. Good information.:hat:

[Synopsis]

*SNIP*

isp's boat wasn't in the warehouse, iirc, according to his employee. so where was he keeping it prior to 12/24?

cyn

The boat was in the warehouse prior to 12/24. I'm not familiar with the employee's testimony you referenced???

Scott found the ad for the boat in the Modbee in late November or early December. He made 2 trips/visits with the owner before he purchased it on December 8.. He gave Peterson (the owner) all correct information about himself for purposes of registering the boat/ took it to the warehouse and stored it there.

Since the seller wanted cash, Scott withdrew the money from a JOINT checking account with Laci. Also shortly before she disappeared, Laci had in fact been to the warehouse where Scott kept his boat. A disinterested witness at the warehouse identified her as having asked to use the bathroom there.

So I don't feel the boat was a "secret" boat, just because Scott & Laci hadn't told everyone about it.

[Miss Bootsie]

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..


LE didn't use their imagination to place Scott at the Bay on December the 24th, nor did they use their imagination to place the bodies on the shore (in the same vicinity of the Bay Scott went boating) -nor did they use their imagination to invent all the other circumstances.

I don't think the prosecution failed to do a demonstration for the reasons you state.
I believe they were aware Judge D. wouldn't allow the demonstration for the same reason he wouldn't allow the defense to put on a demonstration.
It would be impossible to duplicate the exact conditions Scott encountered on 12-24-02.
In this case, Judge D., as he should have, put the burden on the Jurors, to use their common sense.

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for the link. Good information.:hat:

My pleasure......Thank-you for the acknowledgment.

[frydaddy]

*SNIPPED*

I wanted the prosecution to PROVE that he did it before a jury would send him to death. And in my opinion they failed. I was waiting for the "slam dunk" as per Locklear...it never came for me.

And I could not accept MPD's belief that Brocchini's lies and deceptions were an acceptable tactic, while Scott's lies and deceptions were absolute proof of guilt. No system should try and convince a jury to put a man to death simply because his actions were strange or cagey, he had an affair and lied about it, and because the police would look at no other suspects. IMO

The prosecution did prove he did it to most, but I can appreciate that you disagree. The "slam dunk" per Locklear, akin to the "stone cold innocent" of MG? Call is a wash, IMO!

If Brocchini were the sole reason Scott was convicted, I might be inclined to agree with you. But obviously there were hundreds of witnesses, so I have a problem with folks trying to Furmanize him. Frankly, I'm unsure why Brocchini's actions and Scott's are in the same paragraph. If you want Brocchini to be sanctioned for his actions, freeing Scott or giving him extra credit is not the fix.

Over-simplifying Scott's lies as "absolute proof of guilt" is silly at this point, isn't it? You simply have to know that no one puts his guilt solely on his lies or that they solely convicted him. Why are you still posting cliches? Same with "LE looked at no other suspects".

On another post, you don't think the boat was a secret. Based on what is known, this appears to be a whim, unless of course you are friends with Dionne Warwick. I can understand that some will have opinions different from mine, but I don't see much to support those opinions, other than perhaps presenting a case where the tail wags the dog.

[frydaddy]

The boat was in the warehouse prior to 12/24. I'm not familiar with the employee's testimony you referenced???

Scott found the ad for the boat in the Modbee in late November or early December. He made 2 trips/visits with the owner before he purchased it on December 8.. He gave Peterson (the owner) all correct information about himself for purposes of registering the boat/ took it to the warehouse and stored it there.

Since the seller wanted cash, Scott withdrew the money from a JOINT checking account with Laci. Also shortly before she disappeared, Laci had in fact been to the warehouse where Scott kept his boat. A disinterested witness at the warehouse identified her as having asked to use the bathroom there.

So I don't feel the boat was a "secret" boat, just because Scott & Laci hadn't told everyone about it.

Eric Olson testified the boat wasn't there. The alleged witness did NOT testify. I'd say that was absolutely critical info the jury should have heard. One can take the easy out and blame MG for poor performance, but I think he knew full well the witness was a fraud.

[PsychNurse;~)]

The boat was in the warehouse prior to 12/24. I'm not familiar with the employee's testimony you referenced???

Scott found the ad for the boat in the Modbee in late November or early December. He made 2 trips/visits with the owner before he purchased it on December 8.. He gave Peterson (the owner) all correct information about himself for purposes of registering the boat/ took it to the warehouse and stored it there.

Since the seller wanted cash, Scott withdrew the money from a JOINT checking account with Laci. Also shortly before she disappeared, Laci had in fact been to the warehouse where Scott kept his boat. A disinterested witness at the warehouse identified her as having asked to use the bathroom there.

So I don't feel the boat was a "secret" boat, just because Scott & Laci hadn't told everyone about it.


wasn't it eric olson (sp?) who testified the boat was NOT in the warehouse when he was there?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Eric Olson testified the boat wasn't there. The alleged witness did NOT testify. I'd say that was absolutely critical info the jury should have heard. One can take the easy out and blame MG for poor performance, but I think he knew full well the witness was a fraud.

:seeya:

hello, my old friend!!!!!!!!

i should have read down a bit more before replying. thank you.

cyn

[frydaddy]

Where were they kept? Any response would be a guess or theory. But it's hard to believe they were in the bay -with the evidence of the MASSIVE searches that were made.

Why risk going to the bay instead of an empty field? The bodies being found at or near where Scott was that day accomplished all they could have ever hoped for. Complete closure as far as this case was concerned. Scott Peterson was finally arrested and charged with the murders.

It couldn't be just "any old field." The bodies HAD to be found in the bay where Scott was fishing. He had already been tried, judged, and convicted by the media, the public, & LE. ...but without a formal arrest - it was just too risky to have all this attention to unanswered questions.

It was a win/win situation for MPD and whoever killed Laci for the bodies to suddenly appear on the shore.

You are basing the bodies not being in the bay due to the lack of success of the searches. You know it's a pretty big bay, right?

The point is...if you had gotten away with this crime for four months, why would you risk getting pulled over with bodies in your vehicle. Why would you risk getting spotted at one of "the busiest" areas around while planting the bodies? And you'd risk doing so twice? And based on how Laci and Conner were found, what would have given investigators the idea it wasn't Scott? What caused the urgency after four months to plant the bodies when they did? How would investigators have ever found her in some remote field?

I agree that the bodies sealed the deal for Scott's arrest, but there's no way in hell one would risk going to the bay to plant bodies after four months, especially with the probable added vigilance about the bay by curiosity seekers. They could have buried her anywhere and still, LE could have put it on Scott if what you believe is true, right?

[frydaddy]

:seeya:

hello, my old friend!!!!!!!!

i should have read down a bit more before replying. thank you.

cyn

Hi Cyn, been a while, ain't it? I've missed you! ;)

[deputydi]

<snip>My interest in the case is not in Scott Peterson. If I knew him, I probably wouldn't even like him. But who knows? My interest was in the legal aspect of the case and how the system dealt with it. I wanted the prosecution to PROVE that he did it before a jury would send him to death. And in my opinion they failed. I was waiting for the "slam dunk" as per Locklear...it never came for me.
<snip>
If you were waiting for that "slam dunk" that Locklear promised, why weren't you also waiting for MG to "prove Scott Peterson is 100% factually innocent"? In his OS he promised to produce witnesses that would prove Scott couldn't have killed his wife and child -- where were they?

[Hey Paula]

Hi Cyn, been a while, ain't it? I've missed you! ;)

Hi FD!

This is a great opportunity to say Hi to my friend Cyn! :seeya: It's great to see you here!!!

And to let you (Frydaddy) know that I ran into John B at CTV and exchanged PMs with Sara who sends you her regards!

I hope you and your family enjoy the 4th!

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

isp's boat wasn't in the warehouse, iirc, according to his employee. so where was he keeping it prior to 12/24?

cyn


His employee didn't say that the boat was not in the warehouse...he said he didn't notice if there was a boat..in addition, the door to the warehouse was closed..he didn't go into the warehouse..and the door from the office to the warehouse was part closed...from the office you can't see the boat anyway....how was he supposed to see it?? so his testimony could not be used as an argument that the boat was not in the warehouse..

David Harris: Prior to the 26th, had you been up into Modesto within just a few days or week before that?
Eric Olsen: Yes. On the 20th of December, myself and another employee that we just hired on, Rob Weaver, had a meeting with a distributor in Stockton, and we picked up Scott and went to the meeting.
David Harris: Let me go through this. Rob Weaver, that's the new employee?
Eric Olsen: Yes. We hired Rob about middle of November. November, mid November.
David Harris: What was Mr. Weaver's position?
Eric Olsen: He was brought in to cover the Coast, and to help with the balance of helping Scott on the Mid Valley and the Coastal area. San Joaquin and Coastal in sales of Trade Corp products.
David Harris: You say you and Mr. Weaver went to some location?
Eric Olsen: Yes, we drove, myself and Rob drove from Fresno to the Trade Corp warehouse in Modesto. Then we picked Scott up and proceeded to go to a distributor dealer, in Stockton.
David Harris: What time did you get to the warehouse in Modesto?
Eric Olsen: Shortly after 7:00.
David Harris: Morning or evening?
Eric Olsen: Seven in the morning.
David Harris: So you arrived there. Did you actually get out of your vehicles?
Eric Olsen: Yes. We went into the office, and we talked with Scott maybe ten, fifteen minutes, and went from there.
David Harris: You say you go into the office. That's the little office we're talking about?
Eric Olsen: Yes. The little, Scott's office.
David Harris: Did you go into the warehouse area?
Eric Olsen: No, I did not.
David Harris: Any reason why?
Eric Olsen: Not in particular. It was early in the morning, and we were supposed to go to the meeting. And the door was closed to the warehouse. And the other door from the office to the warehouse part was closed. And I just didn't feel I needed to go in there for any reason.
David Harris: When you were there on the 20th, did you happen to notice if there was a boat in the warehouse?
Eric Olsen: No, I did not notice if there was a boat.

[adnoid]

His employee didn't say that the boat was not in the warehouse...he said he didn't notice if there was a boat...

Yet a statement from a police report, not backed up by the actual person interviewed, that Laci was in the complex (but not in Scott's space) is proof that she knew about the boat, right?

[PsychNurse;~)]

You are basing the bodies not being in the bay due to the lack of success of the searches. You know it's a pretty big bay, right?

The point is...if you had gotten away with this crime for four months, why would you risk getting pulled over with bodies in your vehicle. Why would you risk getting spotted at one of "the busiest" areas around while planting the bodies? And you'd risk doing so twice? And based on how Laci and Conner were found, what would have given investigators the idea it wasn't Scott? What caused the urgency after four months to plant the bodies when they did? How would investigators have ever found her in some remote field?

I agree that the bodies sealed the deal for Scott's arrest, but there's no way in hell one would risk going to the bay to plant bodies after four months, especially with the probable added vigilance about the bay by curiosity seekers. They could have buried her anywhere and still, LE could have put it on Scott if what you believe is true, right?

why is it that it that the marina's too busy for isp to have taken laci's body out in the boat on x-mas eve (when the place is, in fact, all but deserted over the christman/new year holiday), but it wasn't too busy for someone to plant two bodies in two different places where people are out walking?

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

LE didn't use their imagination to place Scott at the Bay on December the 24th, nor did they use their imagination to place the bodies on the shore (in the same vicinity of the Bay Scott went boating) -nor did they use their imagination to invent all the other circumstances.

I don't think the prosecution failed to do a demonstration for the reasons you state.
I believe they were aware Judge D. wouldn't allow the demonstration for the same reason he wouldn't allow the defense to put on a demonstration.
It would be impossible to duplicate the exact conditions Scott encountered on 12-24-02.
In this case, Judge D., as he should have, put the burden on the Jurors, to use their common sense.


It was Scott who informed them that he went to the bay on Dec 24th to try out his boat and do a little trolling...however, IMO, the prosecution used their imagination when they told the jury that Scott killed Laci...they used their imagination when they told the jury that he put her body in the toolbox...they used their imagination when they told the jury that he attached 5 anchors to her body...they used their imagination when they told the jury that he dumped her body with 5 anchors attached off his boat...

A- Scott went to the bay on Dec 24th ( his alibi)
B-Bodies found close to where he told the police he was

IMO, there was ZERO evidence to link A and B ...there was Zero evidence that he killed her and transported her body to the bay..there was Zero evidence that the bodies washed ashore where they were found...

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi FD!

This is a great opportunity to say Hi to my friend Cyn! :seeya: It's great to see you here!!!

And to let you (Frydaddy) know that I ran into John B at CTV and exchanged PMs with Sara who sends you her regards!

I hope you and your family enjoy the 4th!

:seeya:

hey paula! another old friend that i get to 'see again'! it was only because i read a post of yours on ctv (oc iirc) that i knew this board was here. i can't believe no one pm'd me, lol.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

Yet a statement from a police report, not backed up by the actual person interviewed, that Laci was in the complex (but not in Scott's space) is proof that she knew about the boat, right?


Circumstantial evidence that indicates to me Laci knew about the boat:

-A witness told the police that Laci was at the business complex and she let her use the bathroom on Dec 20th..

-Scott had told Grogan that Laci visited him at the warehouse on Dec 20th..Scott didn't tell the police that Laci used the bathroom of a business neighbor..

-Scott told the police that Laci knew about the boat

-Brian Ullrich, Scott's insurance agent, told Brocchini and he testified about it that Scott talked to him about a boat 3 months before Laci went missing..

-Jodi Miligi told Brocchini that Scott and Laci had dinner with them about a week before thanksgiving and that Scott talked about a boat..she couldn't remember whether he said he bought a boat or looking for a boat or sold a boat..but he did talk about a boat..

-No evidence was presented to refute the above circumstantial evidence..

IMO, this evidence indicates BARD that Laci knew about the boat and the boat was no secret..and obviously the strength of this evidence cannot be compared with evidence of someone saying the warehouse door was closed, he didn't go into the warehouse and he didn't notice IF there was a boat..it would be a huge leap to conclude that the boat was not there..!

[frydaddy]

Hi FD!

This is a great opportunity to say Hi to my friend Cyn! :seeya: It's great to see you here!!!

And to let you (Frydaddy) know that I ran into John B at CTV and exchanged PMs with Sara who sends you her regards!

I hope you and your family enjoy the 4th!

Thanks for the well wishes Paula and for informing me the update on two of my favorite posters who aren't here! JB is THE man and I truly adore Sara almost as much as life itself! Perhaps I will venture over and send them a PM!

Happy Independence Day wishes to you and yours, I plan to partake in a few beverages myself, provided I can wait 'til tomorrow to start (just paid bills, might need a few sooner! LOL). :patriot:

[frydaddy]

why is it that it that the marina's too busy for isp to have taken laci's body out in the boat on x-mas eve (when the place is, in fact, all but deserted over the christman/new year holiday), but it wasn't too busy for someone to plant two bodies in two different places where people are out walking?

cyn

Well, some favor the story which is most favorable to Scott. Even when doing so borders on, as Mike Tyson might have said, ludicrousth.

[frydaddy]

Circumstantial evidence that indicates to me Laci knew about the boat:

-A witness told the police that Laci was at the business complex and she let her use the bathroom on Dec 20th..

-Scott had told Grogan that Laci visited him at the warehouse on Dec 20th..Scott didn't tell the police that Laci used the bathroom of a business neighbor..

-Scott told the police that Laci knew about the boat

-Brian Ullrich, Scott's insurance agent, told Brocchini and he testified about it that Scott talked to him about a boat 3 months before Laci went missing..

-Jodi Miligi told Brocchini that Scott and Laci had dinner with them about a week before thanksgiving and that Scott talked about a boat..she couldn't remember whether he said he bought a boat or looking for a boat or sold a boat..but he did talk about a boat..

-No evidence was presented to refute the above circumstantial evidence..

IMO, this evidence indicates BARD that Laci knew about the boat and the boat was no secret..and obviously the strength of this evidence cannot be compared with evidence of someone saying the warehouse door was closed, he didn't go into the warehouse and he didn't notice IF there was a boat..it would be a huge leap to conclude that the boat was not there..!

GREAT! A witness who didn't testify, two samples of irrelevant hearsay, and two statements from an accused murderer. BARD? Did you, by chance, think Clinton did NOT have sexual relations with that woman too?

[deputydi]

<snip>DD stated that her death can be ruled a homicide just by examining her body...the ME testified that he was not able to determine the cause of death...it is a fact!!!.. and you know how stubborn facts can be..read my signature...lol
<snip>
After all this time you still don't know the difference between CAUSE of death and MANNER of death???

Cause of Death = undetermined
Manner of Death = homicide

The MANNER of her death was ruled a HOMICIDE (which last time I checked was a crime) just by examining what remained of her body and considering other information available to the investigators. To imply there was NO evidence a crime occurred is absolutely incorrect.

Again, understanding the meaning of circumstantial evidence goes a very long way in understanding the progression of this case.

[PsychNurse;~)]

After all this time you still don't know the difference between CAUSE of death and MANNER of death???

Cause of Death = undetermined
Manner of Death = homicide

The MANNER of her death was ruled a HOMICIDE (which last time I checked was a crime) just by examining what remained of her body and considering other information available to the investigators. To imply there was NO evidence a crime occurred is absolutely incorrect.

Again, understanding the meaning of circumstantial evidence goes a very long way in understanding the progression of this case.

:seeya:

hi deputy di! i feel like i'm at a reunion, lol! good to 'see' you.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

After all this time you still don't know the difference between CAUSE of death and MANNER of death???

Cause of Death = undetermined
Manner of Death = homicide

The MANNER of her death was ruled a HOMICIDE (which last time I checked was a crime) just by examining what remained of her body and considering other information available to the investigators. To imply there was NO evidence a crime occurred is absolutely incorrect.

Again, understanding the meaning of circumstantial evidence goes a very long way in understanding the progression of this case.

I wonder who ruled it as a homicide if the autopsy report didn't mention the manner of death..

Mark Geragos: Okay. Is there anything in your, you are aware that, in the autopsy, that there is no, either no time of death, no cause, or no manner of death; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I believe that's true.

[PsychNurse;~)]

I wonder who ruled it as a homicide if the autopsy report didn't mention the manner of death..

Mark Geragos: Okay. Is there anything in your, you are aware that, in the autopsy, that there is no, either no time of death, no cause, or no manner of death; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I believe that's true.

from geragos' cross of medical examiner dr. peterson:

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GERAGOS:

Q. Can we start with the -- you said the manner of death was undetermined?

A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.

Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?

A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my job description to determine manner. Manner of death is determined by the Coroner. In this case, I know that the Coroner determined homicide was the manner of death.

[adnoid]

After all this time you still don't know the difference between CAUSE of death and MANNER of death???

Cause of Death = undetermined
Manner of Death = homicide

The MANNER of her death was ruled a HOMICIDE (which last time I checked was a crime) just by examining what remained of her body and considering other information available to the investigators. To imply there was NO evidence a crime occurred is absolutely incorrect.

Again, understanding the meaning of circumstantial evidence goes a very long way in understanding the progression of this case.

There are 4 MANNERS of death:

--Suicide - killed by self;
--Homicide - killed by another person;
--Natural - death by natural progression of age or disease;
--Accidental - death due to an accident (duh);
--Undetermined - one of the above, just don't know which yet.

Homicide is not always a crime - for instance, when Scott gets his lethal injection his death will be a legal homicide.

CAUSE of death is the specific event that results in the irreversible tissue/organ destruction that is incompatible with continued life. Obviously there are too many of these to mention. It can also be "Undetermined".

The Coroner determines MANNER, the Medical Examiner determines CAUSE - if they can.

[attorneywan2be]

from geragos' cross of medical examiner dr. peterson:

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GERAGOS:

Q. Can we start with the -- you said the manner of death was undetermined?

A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.

Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?

A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my job description to determine manner. Manner of death is determined by the Coroner. In this case, I know that the Coroner determined homicide was the manner of death.


That is exactly my point..DD stated that her death can be ruled a homicide just from examining her body...however, the ME didn't determine the manner of death, the coroner did..the manner of death is based primarily on the evidence and the investigations..

[attorneywan2be]

After all this time you still don't know the difference between CAUSE of death and MANNER of death???

Cause of Death = undetermined
Manner of Death = homicide

The MANNER of her death was ruled a HOMICIDE (which last time I checked was a crime) just by examining what remained of her body and considering other information available to the investigators. To imply there was NO evidence a crime occurred is absolutely incorrect.

Again, understanding the meaning of circumstantial evidence goes a very long way in understanding the progression of this case.


You stated this:

I'm done with this silly game. Look up "CIRCUMSTANTIAL". Maybe if you understand the word, you'll understand how her death can be ruled a homicide just from examining what was left of her body.

FYI, MANNER of death is based on the evidence and investigations..so it was not ruled a homicide just from examining the body..!

[frydaddy]

You stated this:



FYI, MANNER of death is based on the evidence and investigations..so it was not ruled a homicide just from examining the body..!


Actually, IN THIS CASE, manner of death could be determined by examining the body alone. Since Laci was abducted (your theory) or murdered by Scott (trial record), an examination of the body by the ME likely led to the classification of death as a homicide by the Coroner. Laci wasn't scheduled to go trolling on the bay, so we know by examining her remains that her death was not natural, by accident, or suicide. That there were other factors or that they went through the formality of an inquest is only relevant in proving one's self to be right. What other options was there for manner of death or what other factors were used in the inquest that contributed to a classification of homicide?

[deputydi]

:seeya:

hi deputy di! i feel like i'm at a reunion, lol! good to 'see' you.

cyn
:seeya: Same here. As you can see, the circle goes 'round and 'round -- in other words same old spin.

[deputydi]

<snip>FYI, MANNER of death is based on the evidence and investigations..so it was not ruled a homicide just from examining the body..!
Her death was ruled a homicide before the remains were found, but if the body had surfaced before that determination was made, just the condition of the body would have made it pretty clear that foul play was involved.

Accidental death, suicide and natural causes were ruled out pretty quickly. So, what does that leave???

[attorneywan2be]

Actually, IN THIS CASE, manner of death could be determined by examining the body alone. Since Laci was abducted (your theory) or murdered by Scott (trial record), an examination of the body by the ME likely led to the classification of death as a homicide by the Coroner. Laci wasn't scheduled to go trolling on the bay, so we know by examining her remains that her death was not natural, by accident, or suicide. That there were other factors or that they went through the formality of an inquest is only relevant in proving one's self to be right. What other options was there for manner of death or what other factors were used in the inquest that contributed to a classification of homicide?


The point is..IMO, the manner of death was not determined from examining the bodies because the cause of death was undetermined...the coroner must have relied on the evidence and investigations done by the MPD..I would assume he relied on the evidence they presented in court..Laci disappeared on Dec 24th..Scott went fishing in the bay on Dec 24th..the bodies were found close to where he went fishing...Scott had an affair..etc..etc..

[attorneywan2be]

Her death was ruled a homicide before the remains were found??

Snip



What? the coroner was the one that ruled it a homicide..that was definitely after the remains were found and after the autopsy was done..
I think you are referring to the MPD announcing in March 2003 that the case classification has been changed from a "missing person case" to a "homicide case"..the point is, it was not ruled a homicide from just examining the body as you stated..!

[deputydi]

The point is..IMO, the manner of death was not determined from examining the bodies because the cause of death was undetermined...the coroner must have relied on the evidence and investigations done by the MPD..I would assume he relied on the evidence they presented in court..Laci disappeared on Dec 24th..Scott went fishing in the bay on Dec 24th..the bodies were found close to where he went fishing...Scott had an affair..etc..etc..
Once again ------------------- the MANNER of death was determined before the bodies were found. The coroner relied on the circumstances surrounding her disappearance not anything presented in court. No one had even been in court yet!

[deputydi]

What? the coroner was the one that ruled it a homicide..that was definitely after the remains were found and after the autopsy was done..
I think you are referring to the MPD announcing in March 2003 that the case classification has been changed from a "missing person case" to a "homicide case"..the point is, it was not ruled a homicide from just examining the body as you stated..!
Maybe I am confusing the two, but the fact remains that it could have been ruled a homicide just from the condition and location of the body. They didn't need anything else to conclude foul play.

[Synopsis]

If you were waiting for that "slam dunk" that Locklear promised, why weren't you also waiting for MG to "prove Scott Peterson is 100% factually innocent"? In his OS he promised to produce witnesses that would prove Scott couldn't have killed his wife and child -- where were they?

How would you know I wasn't waiting for MG's to deliver????

But a defense attorney giving an "opening statement" of what he hopes/plans to present is a far cry from an Attorney General making a "decision" as to a person's guilt before any evidence is presented - and broadcasting it!
- and then denying he said it:cuss:

[frydaddy]

The point is..IMO, the manner of death was not determined from examining the bodies because the cause of death was undetermined...the coroner must have relied on the evidence and investigations done by the MPD..I would assume he relied on the evidence they presented in court..Laci disappeared on Dec 24th..Scott went fishing in the bay on Dec 24th..the bodies were found close to where he went fishing...Scott had an affair..etc..etc..

If you have a link to your speculation that the coroner utilized anything from MPD to determine manner of death, please post it. If you have any minutes from a court proceeding that occured between the bodies being found and the formal classification of manner of death as Homicide/Unknown Means on 4/18/2003, please post it. Otherwise, the only thing I've seen between the bodies being found and the Coroner's Report was the examination of the bodies, which was Di's point that you seem to want to argue.

[attorneywan2be]

Once again ------------------- the MANNER of death was determined before the bodies were found.

Snip



I can't even believe you said that..not once, but twice...:D

The coroner of Contra Costa county listed the manner of death as a homicide on the death certificate..

[ekg]

Actually, IN THIS CASE, manner of death could be determined by examining the body alone. Since Laci was abducted (your theory) or murdered by Scott (trial record), an examination of the body by the ME likely led to the classification of death as a homicide by the Coroner. Laci wasn't scheduled to go trolling on the bay, so we know by examining her remains that her death was not natural, by accident, or suicide. That there were other factors or that they went through the formality of an inquest is only relevant in proving one's self to be right. What other options was there for manner of death or what other factors were used in the inquest that contributed to a classification of homicide?


how does the body prove no suicide or no accident?



I stick by what I said, just the bodies alone do not prove anything... they do not prove she didn't commit suicide, that she didn't have a brain aneurysm, or she didn't choke... the bodies don't prove anything..........you have to look at the circumstances to decide MOD...and the circumstances indicate homicide, but not the "how"..you have to look at other circumstances for the "how"... but there is nothing to prove that crime either... there are indications of a soft kill only b/c there is nothing else in the house... nothing else that points to a crime...

you can't rely on the body to prove the crime b/c they don't tell us anything.... you can't rely on the house to prove a crime b/c it doesn't tell us anything...... so you have to rely on the circumstances to come to the conclusion that she was murdered... and then guess it was done in the house just b/c....

if just given the body with no history on it.. and if just given the house with no history on it....... don't add in scott or any circumstances...... use only the body and use only the house..... prove a crime was committed..

[ekg]

At first I was amused, then I got frustrated and now I find myself getting angry at how dense some people can be. I really need to leave before I say something that will get me booted. :chicken:




AW2B - you are pushing the envelope here, so I'm taking off to.

Out of all the NG posters I've posted with these past 4 1/2 years, you (and ekg) have been the two most "sane" out of them all. However, you're both starting to go down the FratPak Rd. I hope you'll reconsider.

On that note - enjoy the night! :seeya:

so I'm dense and bordering on insane...

sweet...... I just LOVE the new rules on personal attacks being acceptable...

:punch:

[attorneywan2be]

If you have a link to your speculation that the coroner utilized anything from MPD to determine manner of death, please post it. If you have any minutes from a court proceeding that occured between the bodies being found and the formal classification of manner of death as Homicide/Unknown Means on 4/18/2003, please post it. Otherwise, the only thing I've seen between the bodies being found and the Coroner's Report was the examination of the bodies, which was Di's point that you seem to want to argue.

Quote

Manner of death: Is a legal determination of the circumstances surrounding the death. The manner of death cannot be determined by examining the patient. It is determined by the events that resulted in the death. The manner of death is listed by the medical examiner as one of the following:

Natural
Accidental
Suicide
Homicide
Undetermined

The concept of manner of death can be illustrated for the spine injury example above. If the individual was shot by someone, the manner of death would be: 1) accidental, if a stray hunting bullet hit the person, or 2) homicide if the wound was intentionally inflicted. If the wound was self inflicted, the manner of death would be: 1) accidental, if the individual was cleaning the rifle and it discharged, or 2) suicide, if the wound was purposefully inflicted. If there is no information concerning how the injury was inflicted, the manner of death would be undetermined. You may only mark "natural" as a manner of death. Only the medical examiner has the authority to mark "accidental", "suicide", "homicide" or "undetermined".


http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/Appendix/AnatomicPath/AUTOPSY.HTML

[frydaddy]

how does the body prove no suicide or no accident?



I stick by what I said, just the bodies alone do not prove anything... they do not prove she didn't commit suicide, that she didn't have a brain aneurysm, or she didn't choke... the bodies don't prove anything..........you have to look at the circumstances to decide MOD...and the circumstances indicate homicide, but not the "how"..you have to look at other circumstances for the "how"... but there is nothing to prove that crime either... there are indications of a soft kill only b/c there is nothing else in the house... nothing else that points to a crime...

you can't rely on the body to prove the crime b/c they don't tell us anything.... you can't rely on the house to prove a crime b/c it doesn't tell us anything...... so you have to rely on the circumstances to come to the conclusion that she was murdered... and then guess it was done in the house just b/c....

if just given the body with no history on it.. and if just given the house with no history on it....... don't add in scott or any circumstances...... use only the body and use only the house..... prove a crime was committed..

So we are arguing semantics here? The body was missing limbs and the head. See many manner of death classifications of suicide or accident with those traits?

[frydaddy]

Quote

Manner of death: Is a legal determination of the circumstances surrounding the death. The manner of death cannot be determined by examining the patient. It is determined by the events that resulted in the death. The manner of death is listed by the medical examiner as one of the following:

Natural
Accidental
Suicide
Homicide
Undetermined

The concept of manner of death can be illustrated for the spine injury example above. If the individual was shot by someone, the manner of death would be: 1) accidental, if a stray hunting bullet hit the person, or 2) homicide if the wound was intentionally inflicted. If the wound was self inflicted, the manner of death would be: 1) accidental, if the individual was cleaning the rifle and it discharged, or 2) suicide, if the wound was purposefully inflicted. If there is no information concerning how the injury was inflicted, the manner of death would be undetermined. You may only mark "natural" as a manner of death. Only the medical examiner has the authority to mark "accidental", "suicide", "homicide" or "undetermined".


http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/Appendix/AnatomicPath/AUTOPSY.HTML

This is NOT what I asked for, this is text book stuff. My request was for MPD info or specific minutes from a court proceeding involving the coroner in Laci's case.

[Heyes]

LE didn't use their imagination to place Scott at the Bay on December the 24th, nor did they use their imagination to place the bodies on the shore (in the same vicinity of the Bay Scott went boating) -nor did they use their imagination to invent all the other circumstances.

I don't think the prosecution failed to do a demonstration for the reasons you state.
I believe they were aware Judge D. wouldn't allow the demonstration for the same reason he wouldn't allow the defense to put on a demonstration.
It would be impossible to duplicate the exact conditions Scott encountered on 12-24-02.
In this case, Judge D., as he should have, put the burden on the Jurors, to use their common sense.

Hi Miss bootsie, enjoy your posts.
This post reminded me of the numerous times scott secretly (or so he thought) went back to the bay. Not sure why he did that. Do you know the excuses given for the murderer to return to the seen of the body dumping so many times? Just curious what explanation was given for that suspicous behavior.

[attorneywan2be]

This is NOT what I asked for, this is text book stuff. My request was for MPD info or specific minutes from a court proceeding involving the coroner in Laci's case.

I know what you requested..but I don't think it's in the record, and I don't think it is needed...I think the legal definition of "manner of death" that I posted speaks for itself...if you don't want to accept the argument that Manner of death is based on the evidence surrounding the death and not just by examining the body...so be it..

[Heyes]

You are basing the bodies not being in the bay due to the lack of success of the searches. You know it's a pretty big bay, right?

The point is...if you had gotten away with this crime for four months, why would you risk getting pulled over with bodies in your vehicle. Why would you risk getting spotted at one of "the busiest" areas around while planting the bodies? And you'd risk doing so twice? And based on how Laci and Conner were found, what would have given investigators the idea it wasn't Scott? What caused the urgency after four months to plant the bodies when they did? How would investigators have ever found her in some remote field?

I agree that the bodies sealed the deal for Scott's arrest, but there's no way in hell one would risk going to the bay to plant bodies after four months, especially with the probable added vigilance about the bay by curiosity seekers. They could have buried her anywhere and still, LE could have put it on Scott if what you believe is true, right?

Why wasn't there someone elses dna on or around the bodies. Did the burglars put on lab suits to do the dumping? no tire tracks anywhere? nothing to indicate looking anywhere but scott. Those pesky facts.

[Heyes]

Circumstantial evidence that indicates to me Laci knew about the boat:

-A witness told the police that Laci was at the business complex and she let her use the bathroom on Dec 20th..How does this prove Laci knew about the boat, no testimony

-Scott had told Grogan that Laci visited him at the warehouse on Dec 20th..Scott didn't tell the police that Laci used the bathroom of a business neighbor..A. she used anothers bathroom, and B. if you think the boat was there when the employee was in the wherehouse and didn't notice it how do you know that Laci was actually in there and noticed it?

-Scott told the police that Laci knew about the boat
Scott told people alot of things. Like, Laci would be "fine" with his affair and, nobody goes into the little guys room until he comes home yet he was using it as a storage unit.

-Brian Ullrich, Scott's insurance agent, told Brocchini and he testified about it that Scott talked to him about a boat 3 months before Laci went missing..
Show premeditated murder
-Jodi Miligi told Brocchini that Scott and Laci had dinner with them about a week before thanksgiving and that Scott talked about a boat..she couldn't remember whether he said he bought a boat or looking for a boat or sold a boat..but he did talk about a boat..premed, murder

-No evidence was presented to refute the above circumstantial evidence..
depends how your looking at it.

IMO, this evidence indicates BARD that Laci knew about the boat and the boat was no secret..and obviously the strength of this evidence cannot be compared with evidence of someone saying the warehouse door was closed, he didn't go into the warehouse and he didn't notice IF there was a boat..it would be a huge leap to conclude that the boat was not there..! I disagree. The boat was secrete he even talked to his own father while in the bay and didn't mention the boat, fishing, the bay nada.

My comments in red

[Heyes]

Maybe I am confusing the two, but the fact remains that it could have been ruled a homicide just from the condition and location of the body. They didn't need anything else to conclude foul play.

Oh come on deputydi you know darn well that pregnant woman are capable of so, so much more. It is possible she found out about Amber and chased after scott all the way to the bay, by taxi.
Borrowed a jet ski when scott refused to talk to her and chased him out into the bay. This would explain why he didn't get much fishing done. Fell off the jet ski and drowned. Scott fearing he would be blamed. fetched the jetski and roped it up at that little island, went home made the anchors and sunk the jetski the next morning. It's sooo obvious. he was only scared. let him out. poor misunderstood thing. :rolleyes:
Seriously though.... I could let him do time just for the phone call to Amber the night of the vigil! Cobblestone streets, American pop tunes....sheeeesh!

[adnoid]

Seriously though.... I could let him do time just for the phone call to Amber the night of the vigil! Cobblestone streets, American pop tunes....sheeeesh!

What a gentleman! :lol:

You know, I didn't determine his guilt from that alone (although it was a part of it), but even if some how, some way someone else said they killed Laci and was able to prove it, Scott would still be lower than whale excrement in my eyes. Unapproachable.

[Hey Paula]

Maybe I am confusing the two, but the fact remains that it could have been ruled a homicide just from the condition and location of the body. They didn't need anything else to conclude foul play.

Hi DD!

The manner of death was ruled as a homicide because the others were ruled out:

Suicide: Laci's car was parked at her house. How did she get to the SF Bay 90 miles from home?

Natural Causes: Laci's car was parked at her house. How did she get to the SF Bay 90 miles from home?

Accident: Who caused the accident? Why didn't the person who caused the accident call 911 and save Conner? Who put Laci's body in the SF Bay 90 miles from home?

Homicide: Someone killed Laci and threw her body into the SF Bay 90 miles from home. This is the only possible determination based on the facts and condition of Laci's body.

Common denominator: Laci's body was in the SF Bay 90 miles from home. Scott Peterson went trolling in the SF Bay 90 miles from home, on the day Laci disappeared.

IMO

[Synopsis]

The prosecution did prove he did it to most, but I can appreciate that you disagree. The "slam dunk" per Locklear, akin to the "stone cold innocent" of MG? Call is a wash, IMO!

Okay..........I'll take a shot at responding to some of yours!:D
although I really didn't get the feeling that you can "appreciate that we disagree" you were correct.
IMO there'a a lot of difference in an Attorney General making "arrest day" remarks publically pronouncing guilt while still touting the time worn "innocent til proven guilty." To split hairs - at that time his moral and legal obligations were to represent all the citizens of the State of CA -to seek the truth - not just get a conviction. (darn - there's another cliche!:mad: )
Mark Geragos's obligation was to represent only Scott Peterson. so I find no fault with his description of what he hoped to prove. The only way I can see the 2 phrases as a "wash" would be for those who believe in his innocence - the "slam dunk" never came to court. And for those who feel he was guilty-well ...you know how the rest goes.
If Brocchini were the sole reason Scott was convicted, I might be inclined to agree with you. But obviously there were hundreds of witnesses, so I have a problem with folks trying to Furmanize him.
Watch it!! You're tapping on the edge of a cliche - Fuhrmanizing Brocchini.
Brocchini decided Scott was guilty of murder as soon as he saw a mop & a bucket. And as far as an investigator that's about as far as he got! But he set it all in motion THAT night and after awhile there was no turning back and there certainly was no stopping him! I'm not going to go here - it's been too long - to cite song & verse- but I could write a book on this guy...but "hundreds of witnesses???" - witnesses to what????
Frankly, I'm unsure why Brocchini's actions and Scott's are in the same paragraph. If you want Brocchini to be sanctioned for his actions, freeing Scott or giving him extra credit is not the fix.
The reason Brocchini's actions and Scott's are in the same paragraph is because from day 1 of this case they were joined at the hip! I have no desire to have Brocchini sanctioned - (tarred & feathered would be nice though and then there's shock therapy or tasered comes to mind) Personally I don't have a remedy or a "fix" for anything. Time will tell.
Over-simplifying Scott's lies as "absolute proof of guilt" is silly at this point, isn't it? You simply have to know that no one puts his guilt solely on his lies or that they solely convicted him. Why are you still posting cliches? Same with "LE looked at no other suspects".
I wasn't aware anyone over-simplified Scott's lies, but they did evolve into
"absolute proof of guilt" and was the basis for conviction.
On another post, you don't think the boat was a secret.
I'm seriously trying to keep this short enough to pass muster as a post and not a term paper, but it's not easy - but then again anything said in the defense of Scott is useless in your opinion, since you don't see anything to support those opinions. Maybe you could quote what Scott would or should have done to counter the opinion that it was a "secret boat?" He didn't try and buy it anonymously or out of the back of a truck, he searched for ads in a LOCAL paper, he openly gave his name and personal information to the seller for registration purposes, paid for it with money from a JOINT account, stored it in a warehouse that could be tied to him - what was "secret" about it?

Oh & BTW Olsen didn't say there WAS NOT a boat there.

HARRIS: You say you go into the office. That's the little office we're talking about?

OLSEN: Yes. The little, Scott's office.

HARRIS: Did you go into the warehouse area?

OLSEN: No, I did not.

HARRIS: Any reason why?

OLSEN: Not in particular. It was early in the morning, and we were supposed to go to the meeting. And the door was closed to the warehouse. And the other door from the office to the warehouse part was closed. And I just didn't feel I needed to go in there for any reason.

HARRIS: When you were there on the 20th, did you happen to notice if there was a boat in the warehouse?

OLSEN: No, I did not notice if there was a boat.

HARRIS: Had Scott Peterson mentioned to you that he had a boat in the warehouse?

OLSEN: No, he did not.

[TopGunner]

While we're Fermanizing things, let's talk about RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. It was Johnnie Cochran who came up with that "slogan", because where is is written that the police are supposed to ignore suspicion, intuition, and everything else that's a wee bit "off" early in an investigation? What is the proper time frame for them to WAIT until it's accepted that they're honing in on a suspect? A week? 10 days? 12 days?

Why not hone in on a man who left his wife on Christmas eve to go fishing, when he told others he was going/went golfing? Why not suspect a man who arrives home hours later to his wife's vehicle, purse, cell phone there, but not her. The house is dark, the dog is hanging around outside with the leash on, his wife hadn't answered the phone or return calls all day, and not only is he NOT alarmed, but he eats pizza and washes the very cloths he wore that day. Tell me again why that's not suspicious????

As for the boat not being a "secret", OK, fine. Let's just call it the boat that nobody knew about, because nobody did. Not ISP's family member's, extended family members, no friends, no co-workers, not even Amber. He didn't mention it to Dad while he was on the phone with him and IN the boat, he never told Amy that he was going to go golfing OR fishing, but shhh......don't tell anyone about the boat, it's a surprise! He paid CA$H, so the joint account thing matters not - he could have said he did anything with the CA$H, why not a check? Why not register it? Why hide it in the warehouse, why not take it home? He was the only one with a key to the warehouse, that's why. And tell me again why he drove 90 miles ON CHRISTMAS EVE to "get the boat wet?", why not any of the multitude of bodies of water much closer to home?

I can't believe anyone can look at his patterns starting with telling Amber and Shawn he "lost his wife and this will be his first holiday with her", to his Paris rondevu on the night of his wife and baby's vigil, to his run for the Mexican boarder, and his pathalogical lying throughout.

Sure...he's innocent, and I have a bridge for sale......

[deputydi]

Oh come on deputydi you know darn well that pregnant woman are capable of so, so much more. It is possible she found out about Amber and chased after scott all the way to the bay, by taxi.
Borrowed a jet ski when scott refused to talk to her and chased him out into the bay. This would explain why he didn't get much fishing done. Fell off the jet ski and drowned. Scott fearing he would be blamed. fetched the jetski and roped it up at that little island, went home made the anchors and sunk the jetski the next morning. It's sooo obvious. he was only scared. let him out. poor misunderstood thing. :rolleyes:
Seriously though.... I could let him do time just for the phone call to Amber the night of the vigil! Cobblestone streets, American pop tunes....sheeeesh!
:lol: That makes as much sense as the bathtub theory.

[Hey Paula]

:lol: That makes as much sense as the bathtub theory.

Don't laugh! Jayne Weintraub opined that Laci committed suicide (after learning about Amber, IIRC) and followed Scott to the Bay. At first I thought she was kidding, but she said it with a straight face, LOL!

IMO

[Synopsis]

So many discrepencies.........so little time. And there are MANY other reasonable explanations or opinions of the points you make. But it's supper time in the South. ......later.

However, I can't believe you missed the point about the CA$H purchase. Yes, he paid cash...at the request of the seller. BUT>>>>>that delayed his purchase until the next day because he had to go to the bank and DRAW THE MONEY OUT of a JOINT account. :D

[attorneywan2be]

So many discrepencies.........so little time. And there are MANY other reasonable explanations or opinions of the points you make. But it's supper time in the South. ......later.

However, I can't believe you missed the point about the CA$H purchase. Yes, he paid cash...at the request of the seller. BUT>>>>>that delayed his purchase until the next day because he had to go to the bank and DRAW THE MONEY OUT of a JOINT account. :D


ITA...have a nice supper...:D

[Synopsis]

QUOTE:
He didn't mention it to Dad while he was on the phone with him and IN the boat,

IIRC...Scott was on his way home when he spoke with his dad...not IN the boat! I don't have the phone records but perhaps you do.

DISTASO: Okay. The, during that phone call, what did you and your son talk about?
PETERSON: As I recall, we talked about each other's plans for, for that evening. I told Scott that we were going to, to go to church with the rest of the family, and Scott told me that they were going to, he and Laci were going to Ron and Sharon's.
DISTASO: Okay. So you talked about what your plans were for the evening on the 24th?
PETERSON: That's pretty much all we talked about, yes.
DISTASO: Okay. During that phone call did, did the defendant, or your son, tell you that he had been fishing at the Berkeley Marina that day?

[Otter]

So many discrepencies.........so little time. And there are MANY other reasonable explanations or opinions of the points you make. But it's supper time in the South. ......later.

However, I can't believe you missed the point about the CA$H purchase. Yes, he paid cash...at the request of the seller. BUT>>>>>that delayed his purchase until the next day because he had to go to the bank and DRAW THE MONEY OUT of a JOINT account. :D

Yeah so? :shrug: He had, IMO his timeline. Laci's actual murder was scheduled for later, after his party with AF and other pesky details. He could wait. And since he was going to murder her in the same month as this withdrawal, it would not show up on the JOINT account statement until after she was dead. How do you think they found it? And she wasn't asking any questions. He had, IMO no idea he'd be a suspect, since their marriage was so "glorious" and he is "real smart".

Btw, you don't need to yell. TIA.

[deputydi]

<snip>I wasn't aware anyone over-simplified Scott's lies, but they did evolve into "absolute proof of guilt" and was the basis for conviction.<snip>
I'd like to respond to more than this snippet, but I don't have time right now. :(

Anyway, I don't think anyone (the jury included) convicted Scott on the basis of his lies alone. Problem is, once he was caught in a couple of lies, it made you (well, maybe not you) wonder what else he was lying about. His lies were a contributing factor to the evolution of "absolute proof of guilt" but not the sole factor. At some point rational people are going to step back and realize that all these instances of bad luck/bad timing/bad choices have to add up to something more than just coincidence.

I don't for a single nano second believe AW2Bs bathtub theory. IMO there is absolutely no other plausible explanation for where the bodies washed up. If someone could come up with a scenario that made sense and fit the evidence as we know it, I might say there was room for doubt. So far, not one single person has been able to do it and that, I believe, is because there is none. There are too many holes and assumptions that are not supported by the evidence for me to believe anyone other than Scott murdered his wife and child.

[deputydi]

Don't laugh! Jayne Weintraub opined that Laci committed suicide (after learning about Amber, IIRC) and followed Scott to the Bay. At first I thought she was kidding, but she said it with a straight face, LOL!

IMO
I remember ---- and she said it with a straight face more than once. LOL.

[frydaddy]

Okay..........I'll take a shot at responding to some of yours!:D
although I really didn't get the feeling that you can "appreciate that we disagree" you were correct.

I suppose the reason I can appreciate that YOU AND I disagree is that, thus far, you're a fairly good sport about all this. You've not made the statement that he did not do it, so that counts for plenty. (Like it matters what I think counts and for how much!)

IMO there'a a lot of difference in an Attorney General making "arrest day" remarks publically pronouncing guilt while still touting the time worn "innocent til proven guilty." To split hairs - at that time his moral and legal obligations were to represent all the citizens of the State of CA -to seek the truth - not just get a conviction. (darn - there's another cliche!:mad: )

I've no problem if folks want to denigrate the AG for his comments on the arrest day. But, it's not such an incredible thing. The world is full of power brokers looking for their 15 minutes of fame. And if you find an elected official who lives up to their legal and moral obligations, you might want to play the lottery, as your luck is most likely at it's peak.

Mark Geragos's obligation was to represent only Scott Peterson. so I find no fault with his description of what he hoped to prove. The only way I can see the 2 phrases as a "wash" would be for those who believe in his innocence - the "slam dunk" never came to court. And for those who feel he was guilty-well ...you know how the rest goes.

The issue here is the lack of professionalism and strategy. While not a lawyer, it doesn't take one to realize you never let your mouth write checks your donkey (for the PC police) can't cash. It'd be one thing if MG was representing himself, but he was getting paid to represent SP. Add to the AG's comments, MG just doubled his trouble.


Watch it!! You're tapping on the edge of a cliche - Fuhrmanizing Brocchini.
Brocchini decided Scott was guilty of murder as soon as he saw a mop & a bucket. And as far as an investigator that's about as far as he got! But he set it all in motion THAT night and after awhile there was no turning back and there certainly was no stopping him! I'm not going to go here - it's been too long - to cite song & verse- but I could write a book on this guy...but "hundreds of witnesses???" - witnesses to what????

Fuhrmanizing Brocchini is not yet cliche. I think such a thing has to be repeated at least one dozen times before it becomes such. If I am the first to use it, I hold a dubious distinction, don't you agree? If only I had thought of three-peat or there ain't no I in team a little sooner, I might get some mileage out of it.

As for Big Al, for each person who said he was guilty of a rush to judgment, there's three who feel he correctly followed his experience to stay on SP. I'd be curious to know, in bullet point format, all the proven issues YOU have with him.

Witnesseses to what...to SP's actions, words, and behaviors being out of the norm for the majority of people. There's some of us, right or wrong, who expect more of the morally comprimised than others. No one thing SP did cooked him, it was the combination that didn't amount to a single redeemable thing.

The reason Brocchini's actions and Scott's are in the same paragraph is because from day 1 of this case they were joined at the hip! I have no desire to have Brocchini sanctioned - (tarred & feathered would be nice though and then there's shock therapy or tasered comes to mind) Personally I don't have a remedy or a "fix" for anything. Time will tell.

I guess my point was, there's enough judging people or justifying people by the actions of another. Separate people...separate distinctions...if folks want to punish AB for his actions, it really has nothing to do with Scott. In truth, other than starting the investigation into Scott, I feel very little of this conviction was secured due to Brocchini. Grogan was the mac daddy, IMO!


I wasn't aware anyone over-simplified Scott's lies, but they did evolve into
"absolute proof of guilt" and was the basis for conviction.

Again, we disagree. Had Scott been honest at every opportunity, I'd still have convicted. But, it'd be a much tougher decision and I doubt I could go with the DP. He felt nothing and yet he stated he felt it all...lack of remorse or concern has been over-simplified, just like the affair and virtually every other part of this. You simply have to know that to most, it wasn't one thing, nor was anything particularly damning, except for the whole package in succession.


I'm seriously trying to keep this short enough to pass muster as a post and not a term paper, but it's not easy - but then again anything said in the defense of Scott is useless in your opinion, since you don't see anything to support those opinions. Maybe you could quote what Scott would or should have done to counter the opinion that it was a "secret boat?" He didn't try and buy it anonymously or out of the back of a truck, he searched for ads in a LOCAL paper, he openly gave his name and personal information to the seller for registration purposes, paid for it with money from a JOINT account, stored it in a warehouse that could be tied to him - what was "secret" about it?

Anything I've read to date is useless. But do not take it personally. I'm looking for something unique. If you wanna type up a large manifesto, I'd probably read it. I never really had a problem with lengthy posts myself, given I am sometimes prone to them myself. It's pretty simple on the secret boat. I've never met anyone who liked boats who told no one close to them about buying one. Especially on the maiden voyage with it. Perhaps the hang up is that it was "secret to anyone who mattered". I can't really answer your question as to what I would need to prove it wasn't supposed to be secret, I can only respond that there's zero to hang one's hat on that it wasn't a secret to those who mattered. Who kept the checkbook...how often did Scott take out large sums of money...what lies was he capable of telling and how gullible was Laci? There's literally dozens of things that could have helped Scott, but none did.


Oh & BTW Olsen didn't say there WAS NOT a boat there.

HARRIS: You say you go into the office. That's the little office we're talking about?

OLSEN: Yes. The little, Scott's office.

HARRIS: Did you go into the warehouse area?

OLSEN: No, I did not.

HARRIS: Any reason why?

OLSEN: Not in particular. It was early in the morning, and we were supposed to go to the meeting. And the door was closed to the warehouse. And the other door from the office to the warehouse part was closed. And I just didn't feel I needed to go in there for any reason.

HARRIS: When you were there on the 20th, did you happen to notice if there was a boat in the warehouse?

OLSEN: No, I did not notice if there was a boat.

HARRIS: Had Scott Peterson mentioned to you that he had a boat in the warehouse?

OLSEN: No, he did not.

I re-read the testimony and I agree that he did not say "it was not there". I also was somewhat confused by a later portion of that testimony regarding the day of the meeting. Thus, I apologize for posting something that I was in error about! :o Having said that, I still do not believe anyone who mattered knew it was there and still question whether or not it was there since he bought it. What I need is for an energetic poster who's willing to call and ask the other storage company how big the unit described on the Crimenews2000site was.

[attorneywan2be]

Strange things do happen..few examples of cases where the body was kept for a significant length of time:


Sims said she kept the body in a refrigerator for several months before burying it in a San Joaquin County vineyard, police said. Farmworkers unearthed the body in February.

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2002/03/31/11061.php

-------------------
Yuma - A Yuma man who kept the body of his dead roommate in his apartment for nearly 2 years will not be incarcerated under the terms of a plea agreement. Fifty nine year old Joseph Glenn Robinson is expected to get probation when he's sentenced later this month.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18741933/
-------------------

Ford had kept the body parts in a freezer in his Airstream trailer in Arcata for the past year but hid them in a hole at the base of a tree just days before turning himself in.

http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/F/FORD_wayne_adam.php

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

He moved the body 3 times

He accepted that he had then kept her body for five weeks - first in a shed behind his flat and then in a cardboard box at a storage depot in Brighton - before taking it to woodland near Pulborough, West Sussex, and setting it on fire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/05/ncout05.xml

[adnoid]

...What I need is for an energetic poster who's willing to call and ask the other storage company how big the unit described on the Crimenews2000site was.

Here's the place (thanks to a gal who lives in Modesto but who cannot post here due to the efforts of a small number of posters):

Security Public Storage - Modesto/1401 Woodland Ave. (http://64.168.158.169/Woodland/Rates.aspx)

Do you have the space number? I'll call them. I'm not shy.

ETA: Here is a map (http://www.google.com/maps?q=1401+Woodland+Ave,+Modesto,+CA+95351,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=37.654233,-121.029521&spn=0.002357,0.005831&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1) - not much room to swing a trailer in there (look at the satellite picture).

[TopGunner]

snip: DISTASO: Okay. So you talked about what your plans were for the evening on the 24th?
PETERSON: That's pretty much all we talked about, yes.
DISTASO: Okay. During that phone call did, did the defendant, or your son, tell you that he had been fishing at the Berkeley Marina that day?


Hey, I'll admit, my memory could be wrong on this - however, I still find it very telling that regardless of whether ISP was IN the boat, or pulling the boat, he didn't mention it or the trip. The boat that nobody knew about.

[Otter]

snip: DISTASO: Okay. So you talked about what your plans were for the evening on the 24th?
PETERSON: That's pretty much all we talked about, yes.
DISTASO: Okay. During that phone call did, did the defendant, or your son, tell you that he had been fishing at the Berkeley Marina that day?


Hey, I'll admit, my memory could be wrong on this - however, I still find it very telling that regardless of whether ISP was IN the boat, or pulling the boat, he didn't mention it or the trip. The boat that nobody knew about.

Careful TG, we've been down the boat road umpteenth times. [obligatory smiley] I believe it some strange tactic in that if its refuted enough you will believe the opposite. Not gonna happen.

No one knew about the boat. No one would ever know about the about because DRISP is "smarter" than everyone else. The man with the fake theology degree may have thought that buying a boat from someone name Peterson was God's providence. He may have been right, but His providence came back to bite him in azz.

Show me when SP registered the boat. The other Peterson, the seller, sent in his paperwork as he was obligated to do. Show me that SP, after a few weeks did his part.

TIA.

[attorneywan2be]

snip: DISTASO: Okay. So you talked about what your plans were for the evening on the 24th?
PETERSON: That's pretty much all we talked about, yes.
DISTASO: Okay. During that phone call did, did the defendant, or your son, tell you that he had been fishing at the Berkeley Marina that day?


Hey, I'll admit, my memory could be wrong on this - however, I still find it very telling that regardless of whether ISP was IN the boat, or pulling the boat, he didn't mention it or the trip. The boat that nobody knew about.


Very telling??

What difference does it make whether or not he told his father or his friend that he was out fishing?..right before he talked to his father he called Laci LEAVING a message that he was leaving Berkeley..so he was not hiding the fact that he was in the bay area...however, arguments were made by people who believe in his guilt that the call was to establish his alibi..IMO, if he told his father where he was, the same argument would have been made..! in addition, after couple of hours of talking to his father he informed the police that he had a boat and that he was fishing in Brooks Island area..that indicates to me that there was nothing sinister about Scott not telling his father about the boat or the trip...

[adnoid]

...Show me when SP registered the boat...

Sure. Bruce Peterson sent in a form that named Scott Peterson as the registered buyer.

Ouch! Hey! Stop throwing things! Oww!!!! Put down that axe!

[Lavindar]

how does the body prove no suicide or no accident?



I stick by what I said, just the bodies alone do not prove anything... they do not prove she didn't commit suicide, that she didn't have a brain aneurysm, or she didn't choke... the bodies don't prove anything..........you have to look at the circumstances to decide MOD...and the circumstances indicate homicide, but not the "how"..you have to look at other circumstances for the "how"... but there is nothing to prove that crime either... there are indications of a soft kill only b/c there is nothing else in the house... nothing else that points to a crime...

you can't rely on the body to prove the crime b/c they don't tell us anything.... you can't rely on the house to prove a crime b/c it doesn't tell us anything...... so you have to rely on the circumstances to come to the conclusion that she was murdered... and then guess it was done in the house just b/c....

if just given the body with no history on it.. and if just given the house with no history on it....... don't add in scott or any circumstances...... use only the body and use only the house..... prove a crime was committed..


Please explain to me how she committed suicide. She was alive the night before. Did she hitchhike to the Bay so she could cut off her forearms and her legs and her head, then throw herself into the water so that Scott would be blamed? You think this is "reasonable."? She had no means of getting to the Bay to commit suicide. No one drove her - her car was in the driveway and there are no buses that go there from Modesto. So, please tell me how this could by ANY stretch of the imagination be a suicide.

[attorneywan2be]

Please explain to me how she committed suicide. She was alive the night before. Did she hitchhike to the Bay so she could cut off her forearms and her legs and her head, then throw herself into the water so that Scott would be blamed? You think this is "reasonable."? She had no means of getting to the Bay to commit suicide. No one drove her - her car was in the driveway and there are no buses that go there from Modesto. So, please tell me how this could by ANY stretch of the imagination be a suicide.

I don't think ekg is saying that Laci committed suicide..



just the bodies alone do not prove anything... they do not prove she didn't commit suicide,

[Otter]

I don't think ekg is saying that Laci committed suicide..


No, maybe she didn't say that. Frankly its hard to keep up with the theories.

So, was Laci kidnapped and held prisoner in a bathtub for 2 months and then her corpse held for another two, or was this a natural death? Or will you argue that of course it was a natural death! Who wouldn't die being held in a bathtub?

Do you realize how many time DRISP's advocates have changed their thoughts on this one fact?

Sigh, why do I bother?

[Lavindar]

Sure. Bruce Peterson sent in a form that named Scott Peterson as the registered buyer.

Ouch! Hey! Stop throwing things! Oww!!!! Put down that axe!

Bruce Peterson sent in a RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM. Since it required no signature or anything from Scott Peterson, Bruce could have said he sold it to E.T. The boat would only be registered when Scott sent in the fees to do so and no one can show where he did that

[adnoid]

Bruce Peterson sent in a RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM. Since it required no signature or anything from Scott Peterson, Bruce could have said he sold it to E.T. The boat would only be registered when Scott sent in the fees to do so and no one can show where he did that








I know. :beer: There's no such THING as a "registered buyer". (milky way)

[attorneywan2be]

Quote:

The father of Lindsay Ann Hawker, the British woman whose body was found in a sand-filled bathtub at an apartment near Tokyo, today made an emotional appeal for information about his daughter's death.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,,2044797,00.html

[attorneywan2be]

Bruce Peterson sent in a RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM. Since it required no signature or anything from Scott Peterson, Bruce could have said he sold it to E.T.

Snip



That is not true..

From the trial:

Bruce Peterson: I wanted cash for the boat. He didn't have cash. Said he would come back the next morning after the banks opened.

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

Birgit Fladager: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.
Birgit Fladager: On December 9th of 02?
Craig Grogan: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.


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


Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically the DMV documents show Scott Peterson, his address, correct? And the transfer date as 12/9; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

[I'mSun]

That is not true..

From the trial:

Bruce Peterson: I wanted cash for the boat. He didn't have cash. Said he would come back the next morning after the banks opened.

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

Birgit Fladager: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.
Birgit Fladager: On December 9th of 02?
Craig Grogan: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.


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


Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically the DMV documents show Scott Peterson, his address, correct? And the transfer date as 12/9; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.Yes, it is true. I don't think you understand how it works and the difference between a transfer of liability and actually registering the vehicle. It has been posted a gazillion times, but somehow I think you missed it.

[PsychNurse;~)]

What? the coroner was the one that ruled it a homicide..that was definitely after the remains were found and after the autopsy was done..
I think you are referring to the MPD announcing in March 2003 that the case classification has been changed from a "missing person case" to a "homicide case"..the point is, it was not ruled a homicide from just examining the body as you stated..!

this case wasn' that unique. the medical examiner usually determines cause of death IF POSSIBLE while it's a separate determination, often by another entity who determines the manner of death.

just because someone dies form a gunshot wound it doesn't mean it was homicide. AFTER examination of all available information it can be determined to be suicide, homicide, accidental.

cyn

[TopGunner]

I know. :beer: There's no such THING as a "registered buyer". (milky way)



LOL @ Milky Way!!!:tongue:

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, it is true. I don't think you understand how it works and the difference between a transfer of liability and actually registering the vehicle. It has been posted a gazillion times, but somehow I think you missed it.


I don't think you understand my point...:seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

this case wasn' that unique. the medical examiner usually determines cause of death IF POSSIBLE while it's a separate determination, often by another entity who determines the manner of death.

just because someone dies form a gunshot wound it doesn't mean it was homicide. AFTER examination of all available information it can be determined to be suicide, homicide, accidental.

cyn

That's exactly what I have been saying..read my previous posts regarding the subject...!

[I'mSun]

I don't think you understand my point...:seeya:And, your point is...?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Sure. Bruce Peterson sent in a form that named Scott Peterson as the registered buyer.

Ouch! Hey! Stop throwing things! Oww!!!! Put down that axe!

until isp were to actually register the boat himself, it's not listed in the dmv database as being registered to him.

any officer running a dmv check on vehicles registered to him would not find that boat listed until actually registered.

cyn

[Lavindar]

That is not true..

From the trial:

Bruce Peterson: I wanted cash for the boat. He didn't have cash. Said he would come back the next morning after the banks opened.

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

Birgit Fladager: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.
Birgit Fladager: On December 9th of 02?
Craig Grogan: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.


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


Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically the DMV documents show Scott Peterson, his address, correct? And the transfer date as 12/9; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

I did not say Bruce Peterson DID That. I said he COULD Have put any name he wanted on that release of liability - like, for example Jacqueline Peterson. Scott did not have to sign that form or approve of it in any way shape or form. The paper only releases Bruce peterson from liability if the boat is involved in an accidnet or any parking tickets. The ownership is NOT transferred with this form - and the perfect example is the new owner Jacqueline Peterson with a Florida Driver's license # who bought the Mercedes from Griffith or Griffin. Registration of a vehicle in California requires the new owner filling out paperwork and mailing it or taking it in to DMV and PAYING FEES. PLease show me where Scott paid to register the boat.

[adnoid]

until isp were to actually register the boat himself, it's not listed in the dmv database as being registered to him.

any officer running a dmv check on vehicles registered to him would not find that boat listed until actually registered.

cyn

Sorry. Darned sarcasm tags appear to be broken again.

Doesn't help that the SII crowd managed (through a bit of dishonesty, but what do you expect) to get 306 of my posts deleted because I kept pointing out the truth to them and they didn't want to hear it, so you can't look at my post history. If you could, you would see that I had posted the relevant sections of the DMV code. It's been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that Scott NEVER REGISTERED THE BOAT but yet...

I await notification that my post has been reported. That's how they work. Honest debate doesn't do it for them.

[Lavindar]

until isp were to actually register the boat himself, it's not listed in the dmv database as being registered to him.

any officer running a dmv check on vehicles registered to him would not find that boat listed until actually registered.

cyn

Thank you, cyn. Geragos is playing word games again - that's about the only thing he does well. He KNOWS that boat was not registered. Scott knows that boat was not registered. I do not understand what is so hard for people to comprehend about the two step process in CA.

[Miss Bootsie]

Quote:

The father of Lindsay Ann Hawker, the British woman whose body was found in a sand-filled bathtub at an apartment near Tokyo, today made an emotional appeal for information about his daughter's death.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,,2044797,00.html

AW, what does a British woman being found in a sand-filled bathtub have to do with Scott Peterson?:confused:

[I'mSun]

until isp were to actually register the boat himself, it's not listed in the dmv database as being registered to him.

any officer running a dmv check on vehicles registered to him would not find that boat listed until actually registered.cyn
I posted this same thing yesterday, and on other days in the past, but somehow people keep missing it, or want to miss it, or just don't believe it.

[adnoid]

...but somehow people keep missing it, or want to miss it, or just don't believe it.

Or can't understand it, the poor dears.

[I'mSun]

Adnoid, have you posted the relevant sections of the DMV code yet? :biggrin:

[One2Snoop]

Sorry. Darned sarcasm tags appear to be broken again.

Doesn't help that the SII crowd managed (through a bit of dishonesty, but what do you expect) to get 306 of my posts deleted because I kept pointing out the truth to them and they didn't want to hear it, so you can't look at my post history. If you could, you would see that I had posted the relevant sections of the DMV code. It's been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that Scott NEVER REGISTERED THE BOAT but yet...

I await notification that my post has been reported. That's how they work. Honest debate doesn't do it for them.

http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/sign0004.gif - I'll vouch for you, I know you posted it at least 72 times and I posted it a few times and others have posted it too.

God Bless America :patriot:

[adnoid]

Adnoid, have you posted the relevant sections of the DMV code yet? :biggrin:

I'm going to give you such a pinch.

[I'mSun]

I'm going to give you such a pinch.Promises, promises. :D

[adnoid]

http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/sign0004.gif - I'll vouch for you, I know you posted it at least 72 times and I posted it a few times and others have posted it too.

God Bless America :patriot:

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever posted this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/head-in-sand.jpg

[frydaddy]

Here's the place (thanks to a gal who lives in Modesto but who cannot post here due to the efforts of a small number of posters):

Security Public Storage - Modesto/1401 Woodland Ave. (http://64.168.158.169/Woodland/Rates.aspx)

Do you have the space number? I'll call them. I'm not shy.

ETA: Here is a map (http://www.google.com/maps?q=1401+Woodland+Ave,+Modesto,+CA+95351,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=37.654233,-121.029521&spn=0.002357,0.005831&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1) - not much room to swing a trailer in there (look at the satellite picture).

Please forgive my delayed response...took the family to see fireworks on the riverfront. According to the site I referenced, it was storage space 679. If this was a small unit (they go from 5x5 up to 20x30), then it's much ado about nothing. If is was 20ft deep or more, it may mean something. I can't verify as fact on the space number, so maybe you can verify which stall SP had. Tell them you are a TV pundit doing research for a show or part of MG's staff if need be! :D

By the way, yes, those storage places are tight, but due to the size of the units, it can obviously be done. How hard would it be for one man to tug a Gamefisher on a trailer w/o the truck. We used to do our much heavier boat with two people, but that was with pops ready to toss us a beating if we messed up his toy, so we were motivated!

[adnoid]

Promises, promises. :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/chat.gif

[adnoid]

Saraliba just gave me negative rep, saying I'm "fulgar". We know who called her in, but what does that mean?

[frydaddy]

Saraliba just gave me negative rep, saying I'm "fulgar". We know who called her in, but what does that mean?

Take (http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/fulgar.htm)

your (http://www.fulgar.com/eng/contatti.php)

pick! (http://www.fulgur.co.uk/)

[One2Snoop]

Saraliba just gave me negative rep, saying I'm "fulgar". We know who called her in, but what does that mean?

I think it means your famous and you can summon deadly electricity from within anothers body. ... :read: :cool:

[adnoid]

Take (http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/fulgar.htm)

your (http://www.fulgar.com/eng/contatti.php)

pick! (http://www.fulgur.co.uk/)

I'll go for Door #2.

[frydaddy]

I'll go for Door #2.

Had a feeling! :D

[Lavindar]

Take (http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/fulgar.htm)

your (http://www.fulgar.com/eng/contatti.php)

pick! (http://www.fulgur.co.uk/)

If memory serves, a negative from a negative is a positive.

[adnoid]

If memory serves, a negative from a negative is a positive.

So, a negative from a zero would be...let me think...

[One2Snoop]

Last time I checked, a negative and a positive = 0 :hat:

[frydaddy]

So, a negative from a zero would be...let me think...


It's nearly midnight here, you and Lavindar are doing math, makes my head hurt. Frydaddy needs shut eye! Have a good 4th everyone, if I don't make it in tomorrow!!!

BTW - Anyone seen Accordn2me?

[One2Snoop]

It's nearly midnight here, you and Lavindar are doing math, makes my head hurt. Frydaddy needs shut eye! Have a good 4th everyone, if I don't make it in tomorrow!!!

BTW - Anyone seen Accordn2me?

She was having puter problems a few days back.... http://i11.tinypic.com/4y95cte.gif and haven't heard anything since...

Happy 4th to you frydaddy! :beer:

[adnoid]

It's nearly midnight here, you and Lavindar are doing math, makes my head hurt. Frydaddy needs shut eye! Have a good 4th everyone, if I don't make it in tomorrow!!!

BTW - Anyone seen Accordn2me?

Happy 4th to all - and I heard from a2me within this week, she's having computer issues but was fine.

[PsychNurse;~)]

It's nearly midnight here, you and Lavindar are doing math, makes my head hurt. Frydaddy needs shut eye! Have a good 4th everyone, if I don't make it in tomorrow!!!

BTW - Anyone seen Accordn2me?

night, frydaddy. enjoy your 4th!

cyn

[Heyes]

Don't laugh! Jayne Weintraub opined that Laci committed suicide (after learning about Amber, IIRC) and followed Scott to the Bay. At first I thought she was kidding, but she said it with a straight face, LOL!

IMO
No!, lol lol lol lol jane weintraub really said that? lol lol

[Lavindar]

No!, lol lol lol lol jane weintraub really said that? lol lol

She has said many many foolish things in this case. Based on her comments, I would never hire her for my defense atty, should I ever need one.

[Heyes]

She has said many many foolish things in this case. Based on her comments, I would never hire her for my defense atty, should I ever need one.
Or geragos, or joe tacopina. give them enough rope.........

[Miss Bootsie]

Saraliba just gave me negative rep, saying I'm "fulgar". We know who called her in, but what does that mean?

She gave me a neggie yesterday too, saying...I'm too bossy. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/censored.gif

[attorneywan2be]

I did not say Bruce Peterson DID That. I said he COULD Have put any name he wanted on that release of liability -

Snip



He could have? what is your point since you know that didn't happen?

From what I have been reading..I think most of the posts indicate to me that most of you missed the point I was making..I have posted on CTV years ago, not weeks ago, the CA code about selling and buying a boat..so I know the difference between registering the boat and the seller sending a "release of liability" form..that form registers Scott as THE BUYER OF THE BOAT.. it DOESN'T register the boat in his name, the buyer has to register the boat in his name..the point that I made and was missed, is that he knew that the DMV had a record of his name as the buyer of the boat..when the MPD went to the DMV to pull the docs related to the boat.. Scott's name and address were on those certified docs as the buyer of the boat..and according to Grogan the "release of liability" had to be signed by the buyer..Scott gave his correct name and address...IMO, the evidence indicates that he had nothing to hide and the boat was no secret...

IMO, Scott could have easily given a false name and address.. but he didn't..

Bruce Peterson: Actually, I never knew his name until he filled out the liability release form. [U]We had to put his name and address on the form.
Mark Geragos: The liability release form, Mr. Distaso was asking you about that, that's what you fill out for the DMV?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.

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

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?
Bruce Peterson: Yes

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically when you fill that out, you usually have the buyer sign it? Isn't that your understanding of how it operates?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I believe so

[Lavindar]

He could have? what is your point since you know that didn't happen?

From what I have been reading..I think most of the posts indicate to me that most of you missed the point I was making..I have posted on CTV years ago, not weeks ago, the CA code about selling and buying a boat..so I know the difference between registering the boat and the seller sending a "release of liability" form..that form registers Scott as THE BUYER OF THE BOAT.. it DOESN'T register the boat in his name, the buyer has to register the boat in his name..the point that I made and was missed, is that he knew that the DMV had a record of his name as the buyer of the boat..when the MPD went to the DMV to pull the docs related to the boat.. Scott's name and address were on those certified docs as the buyer of the boat..and according to Grogan the "release of liability" had to be signed by the buyer..Scott gave his correct name and address...IMO, the evidence indicates that he had nothing to hide and the boat was no secret...

IMO, Scott could have easily given a false name and address.. but he didn't..

Bruce Peterson: Actually, I never knew his name until he filled out the liability release form. [U]We had to put his name and address on the form.
Mark Geragos: The liability release form, Mr. Distaso was asking you about that, that's what you fill out for the DMV?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.

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

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?
Bruce Peterson: Yes

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically when you fill that out, you usually have the buyer sign it? Isn't that your understanding of how it operates?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I believe so


Congratulations, you found ONE time that Scott told the truth. You will note that he did not register the Mercedes that he bought using the name Jacqueline (it's a boy named sue kinda thing) Peterson and a fake Florida license number). That shows me that Scott KNOWS that a release of liability does not show anything. As Cyn said, a DMV check for Scott would NOT have shown his ownership of the boat in any way shape or form.

[ekg]

Why wasn't there someone elses dna on or around the bodies. Did the burglars put on lab suits to do the dumping? no tire tracks anywhere? nothing to indicate looking anywhere but scott. Those pesky facts.

was Scotts DNA on the bodies?

I know there were some un-ID'd dog hairs and other fibers right? but was his DNA and hair found on them?

[enlightenme]

Congratulations, you found ONE time that Scott told the truth. You will note that he did not register the Mercedes that he bought using the name Jacqueline (it's a boy named sue kinda thing) Peterson and a fake Florida license number). That shows me that Scott KNOWS that a release of liability does not show anything. As Cyn said, a DMV check for Scott would NOT have shown his ownership of the boat in any way shape or form.

I think Scott knew that IF he had bought the boat under a fake name and the seller saw his mug on TV, he would be toast right there. What excuse would he have for buying a boat before Laci "disappeared" under a fake name?

He thought some things out well and others hardly at all. He didn't follow his first lawyer's advice. He thought he was smarter (not kinda smart, REAL smart) than LE and the general public.

IMO

[ekg]

Please explain to me how she committed suicide. She was alive the night before. Did she hitchhike to the Bay so she could cut off her forearms and her legs and her head, then throw herself into the water so that Scott would be blamed? You think this is "reasonable."? She had no means of getting to the Bay to commit suicide. No one drove her - her car was in the driveway and there are no buses that go there from Modesto. So, please tell me how this could by ANY stretch of the imagination be a suicide.


Hi Lavindar....

I think if you go back and read any number of my posts on this topic you'll see that in each of them I said I believe she was murdered...... you'll also see that I said the bodies themselves don't prove murder or suicide... they only prove a death occured... if you want to know what 'manner' of death you would have to look at the circumstances surrounding the bodies.....



hth..

[attorneywan2be]

Congratulations, you found ONE time that Scott told the truth.

Snip




One time Scott told the truth?? are you kidding?...even Brocchini didn't say that...he testified to the exact opposite!!

Mark Geragos: And that one-hour interview was to also record it so that there wouldn't be any dispute as to what Mr. Peterson said, and what you said, and the information that you gleaned from him; isn't that correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And we don't have anywhere in there where he says, "I don't have a girlfriend." But we do have in there a number of things that we went through that I showed you, exhibits which turned out Mr. Peterson gave you the absolute correct information; isn't that true?
Allen Brocchini: Told me a lot of truth.
Mark Geragos: Right. And he told you a lot of truth throughout that interview. He told you where he had been that day, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He told you specifically what items were used for what, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He told you the timing of various things, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And as you say, he told you a lot of truth, correct?
Allen Brocchini: He did.

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


Example:
Who told the MPD?

-That he went to the bay on Dec 24th? Scott
-That he had a boat? Scott
-That the boat was at the warehouse? Scott
-That the name of the seller of the boat was Bruce Peterson and gave them his address? Scott
-That McKenzie was very protective of Laci? Scott (consciousness of innocence..if he was staging Laci's abduction by letting McKenzie loose and telling the police that she was going to walk the dog, why in the world would he tell the MPD that the dog was very protective of her?)
-That he had researched on his computer the fishing location where he went fishing? Scott
-That he searched fishing sites on the internet? Scott
-That he had purchased a mortiser and he assembled it? Scott
-That he made an anchor in a plastic bucket that he bought from Home Depot? Scott
-That Laci had inherited jewelry and that she was making a new diamond ring? Scott
-That they had an insurance policy on both of them? Scott

[ekg]

until isp were to actually register the boat himself, it's not listed in the dmv database as being registered to him.

any officer running a dmv check on vehicles registered to him would not find that boat listed until actually registered.

cyn

Birgit Fladager: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.
Birgit Fladager: On December 9th of 02?
Craig Grogan: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.

if the DMV wouldn't show anything...... then what DMV printout is showing that a buyer named Scott Peterson had release of liability transfer transfered to him?

wait... let me ask it this way........ if they ran Scott's name thru the DMV or ran the boat thru the DMV would anything show up?

[ekg]

Sorry. Darned sarcasm tags appear to be broken again.

Doesn't help that the SII crowd managed (through a bit of dishonesty, but what do you expect) to get 306 of my posts deleted because I kept pointing out the truth to them and they didn't want to hear it, so you can't look at my post history. If you could, you would see that I had posted the relevant sections of the DMV code. It's been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that Scott NEVER REGISTERED THE BOAT but yet...

I await notification that my post has been reported. That's how they work. Honest debate doesn't do it for them.

I don't think the registering is the issue.... you keep saying the boat was secret and would never show up b/c it wasn't registered..... but obviously it does show up in the DMV records as a transfer....now whether SP had anything to do with that or not who really cares... but the boat can't be a secret if the DMV knew about it and knew he had one transfered to him..

[deputydi]

Maybe this will help. From what I see here, the Release from Liability is just what the name implies. It protects the seller from certain liabilities involving the vehicle. It does not remove the sellers name as the "registered" owner of the vehicle -- that can only be done when the buyer registers the vehicle and pays the DMV fees. Scott had not had the boat transferred into his name and it was still registered to the Peterson guy who sold it to Scott.

edited to include quote and link:
Does the NRL remove my name from the vehicle record?
No. Only the buyer's application for transfer, using the endorsed title received from you, can do that. When the information required on the NRL is received by DMV and updated to the record, you are no longer responsible for civil or criminal actions arising with the vehicle after the date of sale.
For example, you will not be liable for:

Parking or traffic violations resulting from operation of the vehicle after the sale or transfer date, or
Civil litigation resulting from use of the vehicle after the date of sale.
Registration renewal fees and penalties resulting from operation of the vehicle after the sale.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/reg/nrl.htm

[Lavindar]

was Scotts DNA on the bodies?

I know there were some un-ID'd dog hairs and other fibers right? but was his DNA and hair found on them?


If I remember correctly, Scott and Laci lived in the same house. It would be normal to find both of their dna around the house. The fact that there was NO FOREIGN dna found around laci says that no stranger deposited any dna on her. The water would have washed off dna anyway.

Who cares about un id'd dog hairs - a dog sure didn't drive her to the Bay and dump her. She was found in a dog walking park. I'm sure there were strange dog hairs all around that area. A dig was chewung in her when she was found

[Lavindar]

I don't think the registering is the issue.... you keep saying the boat was secret and would never show up b/c it wasn't registered..... but obviously it does show up in the DMV records as a transfer....now whether SP had anything to do with that or not who really cares... but the boat can't be a secret if the DMV knew about it and knew he had one transfered to him..
'
As I have said before, Scott's signature would not appear on that form and the seller could have put any name he wanted on that form and sent it in to DMV. A good example is the Mercedes that SCOTT PURCHASED with a phony name and ID. So the name means nothing. I know people who fill those forms out and send them in with phony names and then junk the cars - letting themselves out of towing fees, etc. It's not uncommon at all. Just be aware that the buyer does not have to fill out the release form or sign it or anything. So the information is hearsay only.

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Griffin.htm so the release of liability means nothing and Scott knows it

[deputydi]

The form doesn't even require the buyers signature. It is totally filled in and signed by the seller. It is very possible Scott didn't even realize the other Mr Peterson had filled it out and sent it to the DMV. This form is not required with every transfer and it's likely (IMO) that Scott wasn't even aware of it.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg138.pdf

[deputydi]

'
As I have said before, Scott's signature would not appear on that form and the seller could have put any name he wanted on that form and sent it in to DMV. A good example is the Mercedes that SCOTT PURCHASED with a phony name and ID. So the name means nothing. I know people who fill those forms out and send them in with phony names and then junk the cars - letting themselves out of towing fees, etc. It's not uncommon at all. Just be aware that the buyer does not have to fill out the release form or sign it or anything. So the information is hearsay only.
I just posted links to exactly what you just said. Think anyone will believe us now???

[PsychNurse;~)]

He could have? what is your point since you know that didn't happen?

From what I have been reading..I think most of the posts indicate to me that most of you missed the point I was making..I have posted on CTV years ago, not weeks ago, the CA code about selling and buying a boat..so I know the difference between registering the boat and the seller sending a "release of liability" form..that form registers Scott as THE BUYER OF THE BOAT.. it DOESN'T register the boat in his name, the buyer has to register the boat in his name..the point that I made and was missed, is that he knew that the DMV had a record of his name as the buyer of the boat..when the MPD went to the DMV to pull the docs related to the boat.. Scott's name and address were on those certified docs as the buyer of the boat..and according to Grogan the "release of liability" had to be signed by the buyer..Scott gave his correct name and address...IMO, the evidence indicates that he had nothing to hide and the boat was no secret...

IMO, Scott could have easily given a false name and address.. but he didn't..

Bruce Peterson: Actually, I never knew his name until he filled out the liability release form. [U]We had to put his name and address on the form.
Mark Geragos: The liability release form, Mr. Distaso was asking you about that, that's what you fill out for the DMV?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.

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

Mark Geragos: As of December 9th the State of California had a record that Scott Peterson had bought a boat?
Bruce Peterson: Yes

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically when you fill that out, you usually have the buyer sign it? Isn't that your understanding of how it operates?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I believe so

i think you might be overlooking what others are trying to say. plenty of folks believe isp had zero intention of admitting to being out on a boat that day UNTIL he was seen at the marina by a couple workers.

had he not admitted to having a boat, etc., and the mpd had run a vehicle search, there would have been no boat come up since isp had never registered it.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

if the DMV wouldn't show anything...... then what DMV printout is showing that a buyer named Scott Peterson had release of liability transfer transfered to him?

wait... let me ask it this way........ if they ran Scott's name thru the DMV or ran the boat thru the DMV would anything show up?

ekg, if the boat #s were run through the dmv they would show bruce peterson as the current registered owner but would also show that a release of liability was on file.

if a dmv search was run for isp's vehicles, the boat would not show up since it was never registered by him.

just another thought--unrelated; the boat was never insured, either.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

The fact that there was NO FOREIGN dna found around laci says that no stranger deposited any dna on her

Snip




Unfortunately, we cannot say with certainty that there was no foreign DNA on Laci..the pubic hair that was found adhered to the duct tape that was attached to Laci's body was not tested for Mitochondrial DNA..

Mark Geragos: Yes. You would be able to -- and she said you are the expert on it -- would be -- you would be able to test a pubic hair for Mitochondrial DNA?
Constance Fisher: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Is there any prohibition, that you are aware of, to testing a pubic hair versus a head hair? Does it make any difference whatsoever for extracting and amplifying the DNA and doing the sequences?
Constance Fisher: No.
Mark Geragos: And did anybody ever submit to you a sample pubic hair, sample DNA from the duct tape on the remains of the Laci Peterson on the outside? Did anybody ever submit that to you for Mitochondrial DNA
testing?
Constance Fisher: No.
Mark Geragos: Okay. If they had submitted that hair to you, that pubic hair that was on the duct tape that was on the outside of the remains, and you tested it, would you expect it was Laci Peterson's hair, that it would match up with the same Q1.1 hair from the pliers and the Sharon Rocha sequence?
Constance Fisher: If the hair came from Laci Peterson, I would expect it to have the same sequence as we see in Q1.1 and K4.
Mark Geragos: If it came from somebody who was not a maternal relative, what would you expect?
Constance Fisher: I would not expect it to have the same sequence.
Mark Geragos: That would be the one thing that would -- Mitochondrial DNA would be really good at, which is to exclude a sample as not being part of the maternal lineage; is that correct?
Constance Fisher: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: That's basically the best thing Mitochondrial DNA does is this exclusion, correct?
Constance Fisher: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Is that correct?
Constance Fisher: Yes.

[attorneywan2be]

was Scotts DNA on the bodies?

I know there were some un-ID'd dog hairs and other fibers right? but was his DNA and hair found on them?

Actually a pubic hair was found on Laci's remains but it was not tested for Mitochondrial DNA..as far as I remember, they did a visual examination and decided it was Laci's..IMO, they should have done a DNA test..!

[adnoid]

I just posted links to exactly what you just said. Think anyone will believe us now???

It's clear, simple, straightforward and backed by references to the actual regulations in question. So my guess is "no", since it's hasn't worked the previous 72 times it's been posted.

[One2Snoop]

I don't think the registering is the issue.... you keep saying the boat was secret and would never show up b/c it wasn't registered..... but obviously it does show up in the DMV records as a transfer....now whether SP had anything to do with that or not who really cares... but the boat can't be a secret if the DMV knew about it and knew he had one transfered to him..

I don't think anyone's saying the boat's a secret to the DMV - just to Scott's family and friends.

[attorneywan2be]

SNIP

It is very possible Scott didn't even realize the other Mr Peterson had filled it out and sent it to the DMV. This form is not required with every transfer and it's likely (IMO) that Scott wasn't even aware of it.

SNIP



It's likely Scott wasn't even aware of it???

Bruce Peterson testified that Scott filled out the buyer's info part of the form..and we know that he gave his correct name and address..


Bruce Peterson: He gave me the cash for the boat. My wife and I signed off on the pink slip, the title. I had him fill out his portion of the liability release portion of the pink slip, and then after he got done, I filled my portion out, and then I mailed them off to the DMV.
Rick Distaso: Okay. That's just registration information for the boat?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.

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

Bruce Peterson: Actually, I never knew his name until he filled out the liability release form. We had to put his name and address on the form.
Mark Geragos: The liability release form, Mr. Distaso was asking you about that, that's what you fill out for the DMV?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.

[deputydi]

It's likely Scott wasn't even aware of it???

Bruce Peterson testified that Scott filled out the buyer's info part of the form..and we know that he gave his correct name and address..


Bruce Peterson: He gave me the cash for the boat. My wife and I signed off on the pink slip, the title. I had him fill out his portion of the liability release portion of the pink slip, and then after he got done, I filled my portion out, and then I mailed them off to the DMV.
Rick Distaso: Okay. That's just registration information for the boat?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.

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

Bruce Peterson: Actually, I never knew his name until he filled out the liability release form. We had to put his name and address on the form.
Mark Geragos: The liability release form, Mr. Distaso was asking you about that, that's what you fill out for the DMV?
Bruce Peterson: Correct.
I don't really care who printed Scott's name and address on the form. The fact is, it doesn't mean a darned thing. It doesn't transfer legal ownership and doesn't change the registered name on the boat.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't really care who printed Scott's name and address on the form. The fact is, it doesn't mean a darned thing. It doesn't transfer legal ownership and doesn't change the registered name on the boat.


Your opinion..

[Synopsis]

I just posted links to exactly what you just said. Think anyone will believe us now???

I don't think anyone is disputing the rules & regs of registering any type of vehicle or motorcraft or whatever in the state of California. IMO that's not even an issue. Regardless of whether or not it was officially registered, the DMV had knowledge of a boat transaction by Scott Peterson.

The issue as I see it, is that even though it is an easy if not a common practice to use a phoney name and information when transferring or registering property, Scott didn't do that. He was not making an attempt to hide the purchase of the boat. And if he planned to use it in the process of murdering his wife...this would be the time to use a phoney name in order to never having it traced back to him. And it would also have made it easier to hide his identity since the seller insisted on a cash sale.

And he certainly was aware of buying anonymously since he did do that in the purchase of the car in Jaqueline's name. And I'll just say up front that I believe that was done to avoid the media, not escape, since he knew they were digging and searching and reporting each and every tidbit of information they could find.

[Synopsis]

Actually a pubic hair was found on Laci's remains but it was not tested for Mitochondrial DNA..as far as I remember, they did a visual examination and decided it was Laci's..IMO, they should have done a DNA test..!

It has always been a mystery to me why the pubic hair was untested, and why the dog bite Laci received AT or near the time of death received no investigation at all.:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think anyone is disputing the rules & regs of registering any type of vehicle or motorcraft or whatever in the state of California. IMO that's not even an issue. Regardless of whether or not it was officially registered, the DMV had knowledge of a boat transaction by Scott Peterson.

The issue as I see it, is that even though it is an easy if not a common practice to use a phoney name and information when transferring or registering property, Scott didn't do that. He was not making an attempt to hide the purchase of the boat. And if he planned to use it in the process of murdering his wife...this would be the time to use a phoney name in order to never having it traced back to him. And it would also have made it easier to hide his identity since the seller insisted on a cash sale.

And he certainly was aware of buying anonymously since he did do that in the purchase of the car in Jaqueline's name. And I'll just say up front that I believe that was done to avoid the media, not escape, since he knew they were digging and searching and reporting each and every tidbit of information they could find.

Well said..and I would add that he didn't make any attempt to hide the purchase of the boat not only evidenced by the fact that he used his correct name and address when he purchased it..but also evidenced by the fact that he stored the boat at his place of business where anyone could have seen him towing his boat into the warehouse or out of the warehouse..he had no way of knowing that some neighbor would not stop him to look at the new boat as he was supposedly towing it with Laci's body in it..!!

[Synopsis]

I disagree. The boat was secrete he even talked to his own father while in the bay and didn't mention the boat, fishing, the bay nada.

My comments in red

He was not in the bay when he spoke to his father.

[adnoid]

I don't really care who printed Scott's name and address on the form. The fact is, it doesn't mean a darned thing. It doesn't transfer legal ownership and doesn't change the registered name on the boat.

Thank you for posting this wonderful, well researched FACT to counter the SPECULATION and OPINION surrounding this issue.

Facts are...well, you know.

[I'mSun]

Thank you for posting this wonderful, well researched FACT to counter the SPECULATION and OPINION surrounding this issue.

Facts are...well, you know.Well, uh, maybe not. Care to explain?? :tongue: So colorful. (Matches the language I'd like to use to reply to certain posts, but can't.)

[attorneywan2be]

He was not in the bay when he spoke to his father.


You're absolutely right..the point is he called Laci and left a message that he was leaving Berkeley..he did that BEFORE he talked to his father..so it is irrelevant whether or not he told his father about the boat or his fishing trip..he had already documented (via the phone message) that he was in the bay area..

[Synopsis]

I'd like to respond to more than this snippet, but I don't have time right now. :(

[QUOTE=deputydi;8893031]Anyway, I don't think anyone (the jury included) convicted Scott on the basis of his lies alone. Problem is, once he was caught in a couple of lies, it made you (well, maybe not you) wonder what else he was lying about. His lies were a contributing factor to the evolution of "absolute proof of guilt" but not the sole factor. At some point rational people are going to step back and realize that all these instances of bad luck/bad timing/bad choices have to add up to something more than just coincidence.

What you say is based on personal feelings about events. NOT evidence of murder. And there is no way to change that. Who would want to???? I don't have a dog in that fight. But I will say the only details attributed to Scott that were proved false dealt with Amber and the affair. PERIOD.

I don't for a single nano second believe AW2Bs bathtub theory.
That's all it is - just a theory. Something she believes COULD have happened.
Just as it is your theory that Scott dumped them in the bay. Nobody saw him do it, there is no scientific evidence to prove he did it, he didn't confess to doing it - so it's just a theory.
IMO there is absolutely no other plausible explanation for where the bodies washed up. If someone could come up with a scenario that made sense and fit the evidence as we know it, I might say there was room for doubt. So far, not one single person has been able to do it and that, I believe, is because there is none.
IMO there will never be an acceptable explanation for you, other than the one you now hold. Even if it made sense and fit the evidence would only generate room for doubt.
There are too many holes and assumptions that are not supported by the evidence for me to believe anyone other than Scott murdered his wife and child.
For these VERY SAME reasons there are some who feel he should never have been convicted.

[ekg]

If I remember correctly, Scott and Laci lived in the same house. It would be normal to find both of their dna around the house. The fact that there was NO FOREIGN dna found around laci says that no stranger deposited any dna on her. The water would have washed off dna anyway.

snipped

well I hope Heyes read this since s/he's the one who asked why there wasn't any strangers DNA on the body if a stranger did it...

and yes, they lived in the same house.... so Scotts DNA and/or fibers were found on her then?


Who cares about un id'd dog hairs - a dog sure didn't drive her to the Bay and dump her. She was found in a dog walking park. I'm sure there were strange dog hairs all around that area. A dig was chewung in her when she was found

except IIRC(which I'm not up to date on so I could be wrong) those hairs were found on the sticky part of the tape that was stuck to the body.... so how did they get on the inside part of the tape?

[ekg]

Actually a pubic hair was found on Laci's remains but it was not tested for Mitochondrial DNA..as far as I remember, they did a visual examination and decided it was Laci's..IMO, they should have done a DNA test..!

from what I remember the pubic hair had a root didn't it? so they wouldn't have to just rely on MtDNA right? they could have done a full-blown DNA test...??

[Lavindar]

I don't really care who printed Scott's name and address on the form. The fact is, it doesn't mean a darned thing. It doesn't transfer legal ownership and doesn't change the registered name on the boat.


This is correct. When Bruce Peterson's registration expired, no new one would be mailed out because Bruce had taken his name off the boat and no one had sent in a new registration or paid the fees.

[ekg]

ekg, if the boat #s were run through the dmv they would show bruce peterson as the current registered owner but would also show that a release of liability was on file.

if a dmv search was run for isp's vehicles, the boat would not show up since it was never registered by him.

just another thought--unrelated; the boat was never insured, either.

cyn
ok, so can you explain what this means then..

Birgit Fladager: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.
Birgit Fladager: On December 9th of 02?
Craig Grogan: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.

cuz it ssays to me that if the boat was run thru the DMV it would come up as sold to SP...... and if SP was run thru the DMV it would come up that he owns an unregistered boat..

so I must be missing why noone would be able to track the boat back to Scott..

[Synopsis]

Well said..and I would add that he didn't make any attempt to hide the purchase of the boat not only evidenced by the fact that he used his correct name and address when he purchased it..but also evidenced by the fact that he stored the boat at his place of business where anyone could have seen him towing his boat into the warehouse or out of the warehouse..he had no way of knowing that some neighbor would not stop him to look at the new boat as he was supposedly towing it with Laci's body in it..!!

A body that he presumably left "ripening" while he did menial tasks in the warehouse. Even if he was as arrogant or stupid as he has been described, this is too far fetched. There was too big a risk this same neighbor or anyone would have wanted a peek.

Although it is not evidence, but one of those things you think about when you "step back and look at things as a whole" I have wondered how it was feasible for this scenario to be believed. It's Christmas Eve, Laci is at home, Scott is away, why would it not be a concern to him that ANYONE, family or friend, might stop by at Covena?

If they found Laci NOT there, but car and other things in place, their first call would be to Scott. And there he would be at the warehouse, doing his ho-hum tasks.... with her body in his boat!

I don't care how arrogant or self assured he was, if he was transporting her body, he would be getting the he** out of Dodge!

[ekg]

I don't think anyone's saying the boat's a secret to the DMV - just to Scott's family and friends.

I disagree...

ekg, if the boat #s were run through the dmv they would show bruce peterson as the current registered owner but would also show that a release of liability was on file.

if a dmv search was run for isp's vehicles, the boat would not show up since it was never registered by him.




until isp were to actually register the boat himself, it's not listed in the dmv database as being registered to him.

any officer running a dmv check on vehicles registered to him would not find that boat listed until actually registered.

cyn


snipped
As Cyn said, a DMV check for Scott would NOT have shown his ownership of the boat in any way shape or form.




snipped
and the mpd had run a vehicle search, there would have been no boat come up since isp had never registered it.

cyn


I think that is exactly what ppl are saying.. but that's JMO...

[Lavindar]

A body that he presumably left "ripening" while he did menial tasks in the warehouse. Even if he was as arrogant or stupid as he has been described, this is too far fetched. There was too big a risk this same neighbor or anyone would have wanted a peek.

Although it is not evidence, but one of those things you think about when you "step back and look at things as a whole" I have wondered how it was feasible for this scenario to be believed. It's Christmas Eve, Laci is at home, Scott is away, why would it not be a concern to him that ANYONE, family or friend, might stop by at Covena?

If they found Laci NOT there, but car and other things in place, their first call would be to Scott. And there he would be at the warehouse, doing his ho-hum tasks.... with her body in his boat!

I don't care how arrogant or self assured he was, if he was transporting her body, he would be getting the he** out of Dodge!

Please, what do you mean by "ripening." He sure didn't want his employer to know he had a boat in the warehouse. At least he asked the police not to tell his employer.

[ekg]

I don't really care who printed Scott's name and address on the form. The fact is, it doesn't mean a darned thing. It doesn't transfer legal ownership and doesn't change the registered name on the boat.

But Aw2b was trying to help you understand where you were mistaken when you said.

The form doesn't even require the buyers signature. It is totally filled in and signed by the seller. It is very possible Scott didn't even realize the other Mr Peterson had filled it out and sent it to the DMV. This form is not required with every transfer and it's likely (IMO) that Scott wasn't even aware of it.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/reg/reg138.pdf

I would think that alone would matter. you can't come to a proper conclusion if you don't have all the facts, right? so knowing that Scott didn't fill it out would be relevant IMO..

the boat wasn't a secret to the DMV b/c they had the release of liability on it on file with Scott's name listed as the buyer

the boat wasn't a secret b/c the seller could ID who he sold it to

the boat wasn't a secret b/c when trying to buy it the 1st time Scott wanted to use a check but the seller wanted cash so Scott left and came back the next day with cash from his and Laci's checking account.

the boat just wasn't announced to his mom/dad and inlaws... big deal, I just bought a new generator for the house and haven't told anyone....... Hubby came home with a new trolling motor sometime this week but didn't tell me or his mom/dad, my g/parents who live next door or my parents....and he even used it when he caught his drum the other night, the drum he showed all those ppl I just mentioned.... even tho he didn't mention the motor too...

it's not that odd for an adult to buy something and not tell thier inlaws...

[Lavindar]

One time Scott told the truth?? are you kidding?...even Brocchini didn't say that...he testified to the exact opposite!!

Mark Geragos: And that one-hour interview was to also record it so that there wouldn't be any dispute as to what Mr. Peterson said, and what you said, and the information that you gleaned from him; isn't that correct?
Allen Brocchini: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And we don't have anywhere in there where he says, "I don't have a girlfriend." But we do have in there a number of things that we went through that I showed you, exhibits which turned out Mr. Peterson gave you the absolute correct information; isn't that true?
Allen Brocchini: Told me a lot of truth.
Mark Geragos: Right. And he told you a lot of truth throughout that interview. He told you where he had been that day, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He told you specifically what items were used for what, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: He told you the timing of various things, correct?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And as you say, he told you a lot of truth, correct?
Allen Brocchini: He did.

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


Example:
Who told the MPD?

-That he went to the bay on Dec 24th? Scott
-That he had a boat? Scott
-That the boat was at the warehouse? Scott
-That the name of the seller of the boat was Bruce Peterson and gave them his address? Scott
-That McKenzie was very protective of Laci? Scott (consciousness of innocence..if he was staging Laci's abduction by letting McKenzie loose and telling the police that she was going to walk the dog, why in the world would he tell the MPD that the dog was very protective of her?)
-That he had researched on his computer the fishing location where he went fishing? Scott
-That he searched fishing sites on the internet? Scott
-That he had purchased a mortiser and he assembled it? Scott
-That he made an anchor in a plastic bucket that he bought from Home Depot? Scott
-That Laci had inherited jewelry and that she was making a new diamond ring? Scott
-That they had an insurance policy on both of them? Scott

Yes, and who told Griffiths that his name was Jacqueline. Who told his mother that he'd talkied to the police in Longview Wa when he hadn't?
Who told the police that Laci was walking the dog? Who told the police that she was wearing a white top and black pants when she was not? Who told police there was no power to the warehouse? Who told Amber he had "lost" his wife? Who told Amber this would be his first Christmas without his wife (oh, wait, that WAS the truth). There was no proof that Scott pout that mortiser together that day. Who asked for cadaver dogs when Laci had been missing for less than 48 hours? If you want to compare his truth with his lies, I am sure people could write pages of his lies. Who told Diane Sawyer that he couldn't go in Conner's room when he had been putting furniture in it all along? Who told Brocchini that the gun was registered to him? I don't have enough time in my day to counter your truth's with his lies.

[PsychNurse;~)]

ok, so can you explain what this means then..



cuz it ssays to me that if the boat was run thru the DMV it would come up as sold to SP...... and if SP was run thru the DMV it would come up that he owns an unregistered boat..

so I must be missing why noone would be able to track the boat back to Scott..

if the boat itself was run it would come back showing the registered owner as bruce peterson, but showing a release of liability on file.

this requires there be knowledge of the boat.

there are those who believe isp never intended to admit to having a boat or being out on a boat that day until he was seen by the workers at the marina.

until isp himself registered the boat, any dmv checks done under isp's name would not show the boat.

cyn

[Hey Paula]

if the boat itself was run it would come back showing the registered owner as bruce peterson, but showing a release of liability on file.

this requires there be knowledge of the boat.

there are those who believe isp never intended to admit to having a boat or being out on a boat that day until he was seen by the workers at the marina.

until isp himself registered the boat, any dmv checks done under isp's name would not show the boat.

cyn

Hi Cyn!

I am one of those who believes Scott never intended to admit ownership of the boat. In fact, I believe Scott intended to get rid of the boat immediately after Christmas, before the 30 days were due to register it. Once Scott was seen at the marina, his original plan began to unravel. The now exposed secret boat, together with his fishing/trolling story LE questioned from the outset is what caused Scott to curse and throw his flashlight on the ground.

If things had gone the way Scott first planned, i.e., buying a boat from a Peterson, maintaining consistency in the name at the DMV, no one, and no State Dept, would have ever likely noticed liability was released from one Peterson to another.

I've always believed Scott, buying that boat from Bruce Peterson, was not accidental. I have no doubt there were other boats which could have better served the purpose, but maintaining the Peterson name was Scott's priority.

IMO

[Luke Davis]

Hi Cyn!

I am one of those who believes Scott never intended to admit ownership of the boat. In fact, I believe Scott intended to get rid of the boat immediately after Christmas, before the 30 days were due to register it. Once Scott was seen at the marina, his original plan began to unravel. The now exposed secret boat, together with his fishing/trolling story LE questioned from the outset is what caused Scott to curse and throw his flashlight on the ground.

If things had gone the way Scott first planned, i.e., buying a boat from a Peterson, maintaining consistency in the name at the DMV, no one, and no State Dept, would have ever likely noticed liability was released from one Peterson to another.

I've always believed Scott, buying that boat from Bruce Peterson, was not accidental. I have no doubt there were other boats which could have better served the purpose, but maintaining the Peterson name was Scott's priority.

IMO

ITA There were just too many coincidences to be believeable.

[adnoid]

A body that he presumably left "ripening" while he did menial tasks in the warehouse. Even if he was as arrogant or stupid as he has been described, this is too far fetched...

But 4 months in a bathtub is reasonable?

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, and who told Griffiths that his name was Jacqueline. Who told his mother that he'd talkied to the police in Longview Wa when he hadn't?

Just a reminder, you said that he only said the truth one time...I listed several pieces of information that Scott told the truth about..IMO, he didn't lie about the vital issues in the case....

As far as I know, he did talk to Longview as he stated, there was a call placed to Longview via directory assistance that had the exact call data as the one the prosecution had an audio for, unfortunately, the call that he made on the 30th didn't have the audio ..they only had the call data which matched the call data of the Longview call that he made via directory assistance....so I think he did call Longview as he stated....the prosecution didn't provide the audio for all his calls..IMO, we don't have the entire picture of his calls to be able to judge him fairly on that...

Who told the police that Laci was walking the dog? Who told the police that she was wearing a white top and black pants when she was not?

I don't consider this a lie, since I believe that Laci did indeed walk the dog and SEVERAL witnesses reported to the police that they saw her walking a golden retriever and wearing black pants and white top...and BTW, if he killed her then why didn't he describe the clothes she had on? in fact, that would even help the so called abduction he supposedly staged...

Who told police there was no power to the warehouse?

I don't buy that..I don't believe Brocchini.. he saw a fax machine and he saw a fax that Scott received..and he would believe that there was no power?? He is a detective but couldn't see a light switch...c'mon..note, he didn't bring this event when he was recording the interview..why didn't he ask him about it to have him on record saying it??

Who asked for cadaver dogs when Laci had been missing for less than 48 hours?

You must agree that had nothing to do with the list of lies..why list a non-lie when you think people can list pages of lies..

If you want to compare his truth with his lies, I am sure people could write pages of his lies. Who told Diane Sawyer that he couldn't go in Conner's room when he had been putting furniture in it all along? Who told Brocchini that the gun was registered to him? I don't have enough time in my day to counter your truth's with his lies.

Do we know for sure who put the furniture in Conner's room?

As to the gun registration.

PETERSON: Yeah. I think I got it ah, well you know, it may be registered to me. Or it may be registered to my father actually I had gotten that, before I was 18. I don’t know. It’s a Llama and he is, he is a buyer on it.

As to his lies to Amber, IMO they have no bearing on whether or not he killed Laci..!

[Otter]

attorneywan2be

I don't consider this a lie, since I believe that Laci did indeed walk the dog and SEVERAL witnesses reported to the police that they saw her walking a golden retriever and wearing black pants and white top...and BTW, if he killed her then why didn't he describe the clothes she had on? in fact, that would even help the so called abduction he supposedly staged...

IIRC, the defense vidoetapted Mrs. Mitchell and nothing was entered into the record. As for the SEVERAL witnesses ... where were they? They certainly weren't in court testifying under oath in MG's CIC. There isn't much to consider IMO, as to their reliability.

A very telling lie of omission was when Brocchini (paraphrasing) asked SP how his marriage was. Thankfully he refrained from using the term "glorious", but he did not mention that pesky affair with AF. This interview took place after midnight, a good 14 or so hours after Laci was "abducted". His beloved wife and long awaited baby are nowhere to be found and he didn't think he should allude to this fact? In retrospect though, he certainly seemed calm during this interview, even relaxed. His stutters were transcribed, there were very few, very rehearsed, IMO.

[TopGunner]

Oh c'mon AW2B - why (I ask myself) do you do this? You know that he lied about everything, to everyone, even lied about his lies. He is a certified pathalogical liar. Are you trying to say he ONLY lied to Amber and those lies didn't count?

He lied about what Laci was wearing: FACT. She was found in the same cloths she wore on the 23rd. Don't even "go there" with Amy mis-identifying them. My daughter has a closet full of cloths and I can tell you color, maybe style, i.e., capri's but I can't tell you anything else - and I wash and fold them. Amy said "tan capri's", and that's what Laci was found in, including the BLACK bra (which woman, in my world would never wear under white).

If ISP didn't put the furniture in Conner's room, who did? Where's the hard evidence?

I do not intend to spend this evening listing IPS lies, it would literally take all evening, but if I HAVE TO, I will.......:cuss: For the 1000th time.

Happy 4th to you btw. :patriot:

[Synopsis]

Please, what do you mean by "ripening." He sure didn't want his employer to know he had a boat in the warehouse. At least he asked the police not to tell his employer.

While it may be a crude choice of words, it's exactly what was happening if Scott's timeline on December 24th is to be believed. Granted, depending on whatever time he was supposed to have killed her (Dec. 23rd - 24th) would account for the condition of her body. Supposedly after killing her, he later carried her out to his truck. then drove to the warehouse the morning of the 24th. At the Warehouse, he unwrapped her from the tarp and put her into the boat, and covered her with the boat cover so she could not be seen - and proceeded to attend to menial tasks until leaving for the marina to dispose of her body in broad daylight.

Of course I don't know whether she was suppose to be inside the truck, the boat, or the warehouse while all this was going on, but I'm told insects know the moment of death.

[Hey Paula]

While it may be a crude choice of words, it's exactly what was happening if Scott's timeline on December 24th is to be believed. Granted, depending on whatever time he was supposed to have killed her (Dec. 23rd - 24th) would account for the condition of her body. Supposedly after killing her, he later carried her out to his truck. then drove to the warehouse the morning of the 24th. At the Warehouse, he unwrapped her from the tarp and put her into the boat, and covered her with the boat cover so she could not be seen - and proceeded to attend to menial tasks until leaving for the marina to dispose of her body in broad daylight.

Of course I don't know whether she was suppose to be inside the truck, the boat, or the warehouse while all this was going on, but I'm told insects know the moment of death.

How do we know Scott performed menial tasks (other than tending to the anchors)? I tend to doubt this, as I believe if Scott truly had time to perform menial tasks, he would have cleaned up the mess from the anchors he made, which caused him to feign a power failure had occurred because he didn't want Det Brocchini to see the mess.

IMO

[One2Snoop]

Oh c'mon AW2B - why (I ask myself) do you do this? You know that he lied about everything, to everyone, even lied about his lies. He is a certified pathalogical liar. Are you trying to say he ONLY lied to Amber and those lies didn't count?

He lied about what Laci was wearing: FACT. She was found in the same cloths she wore on the 23rd. Don't even "go there" with Amy mis-identifying them. My daughter has a closet full of cloths and I can tell you color, maybe style, i.e., capri's but I can't tell you anything else - and I wash and fold them. Amy said "tan capri's", and that's what Laci was found in, including the BLACK bra (which woman, in my world would never wear under white).

If ISP didn't put the furniture in Conner's room, who did? Where's the hard evidence?

I do not intend to spend this evening listing IPS lies, it would literally take all evening, but if I HAVE TO, I will.......:cuss: For the 1000th time.

Happy 4th to you btw. :patriot:

Wasn't he the only one living in the house at the time? Maybe Mckenzie moved the furniture and other stuff into Connor's room. :tongue: :patriot:

[Miss Bootsie]

* Snipped *

but I'm told insects know the moment of death.

* Snipped *

With this in mind, where do you think Laci's body was stored for 4-months.

[Synopsis]

Hi Cyn!

I am one of those who believes Scott never intended to admit ownership of the boat. In fact, I believe Scott intended to get rid of the boat immediately after Christmas, before the 30 days were due to register it. Once Scott was seen at the marina, his original plan began to unravel.

Scott had discussed buying a boat with at least 2 friends. In his pre-mediitation to murder-by-boat IMO he wouldn't ignore the fact that a local man would read about the disappearance or see his picture in the news and remember he had sold his boat to this guy? Which is exactly what he did.
He would surely have been better served by buying a boat from somewhere rather than Modesto. He did in fact look at another boat and turned it down. I think Bruce Peterson might have been the one who really wanted to make the sale, because Scott was able to bargain him DOWN in the price of the boat.

The now exposed secret boat, together with his fishing/trolling story LE questioned from the outset is what caused Scott to curse and throw his flashlight on the ground.
I can see where if the boat/fishing questions caused him to throw the flashlight down, it would/could be caused by feeling it was a waste of time to be concerned about what HE had been doing, when he didn't feel it had anything to do with where Laci was. IMO

If things had gone the way Scott first planned, i.e., buying a boat from a Peterson, maintaining consistency in the name at the DMV, no one, and no State Dept, would have ever likely noticed liability was released from one Peterson to another.
Even if that were to fall in place, with the husband's activities ALWAYS being checked out by police, he would have to explain the large withdrawal of money from the bank - thus the boat purchase. He certainly wouldn't want them to think it was a down payment on a murder-for-hire!
I've always believed Scott, buying that boat from Bruce Peterson, was not accidental. I have no doubt there were other boats which could have better served the purpose, but maintaining the Peterson name was Scott's priority.
Do you think he looked for a seller named Peterson, or after finding one the thoughts came to him?

[Lavindar]

Hi Cyn!

I am one of those who believes Scott never intended to admit ownership of the boat. In fact, I believe Scott intended to get rid of the boat immediately after Christmas, before the 30 days were due to register it. Once Scott was seen at the marina, his original plan began to unravel. The now exposed secret boat, together with his fishing/trolling story LE questioned from the outset is what caused Scott to curse and throw his flashlight on the ground.

If things had gone the way Scott first planned, i.e., buying a boat from a Peterson, maintaining consistency in the name at the DMV, no one, and no State Dept, would have ever likely noticed liability was released from one Peterson to another.

I've always believed Scott, buying that boat from Bruce Peterson, was not accidental. I have no doubt there were other boats which could have better served the purpose, but maintaining the Peterson name was Scott's priority.

IMO

I agree also as he overpaid for a boat of that size and quality imo.

It would have been easy for him to get rid of the boat, and report it stolen "before he had a chance to register it." I also think he did not have the money to register it - particularly since Laci was pawning jewelry for money shortly thereafter.

[Lavindar]

Scott had discussed buying a boat with at least 2 friends. In his pre-mediitation to murder-by-boat IMO he wouldn't ignore the fact that a local man would read about the disappearance or see his picture in the news and remember he had sold his boat to this guy? Which is exactly what he did.
He would surely have been better served by buying a boat from somewhere rather than Modesto. He did in fact look at another boat and turned it down. I think Bruce Peterson might have been the one who really wanted to make the sale, because Scott was able to bargain him DOWN in the price of the boat.


I can see where if the boat/fishing questions caused him to throw the flashlight down, it would/could be caused by feeling it was a waste of time to be concerned about what HE had been doing, when he didn't feel it had anything to do with where Laci was. IMO

Even if that were to fall in place, with the husband's activities ALWAYS being checked out by police, he would have to explain the large withdrawal of money from the bank - thus the boat purchase. He certainly wouldn't want them to think it was a down payment on a murder-for-hire!

Do you think he looked for a seller named Peterson, or after finding one the thoughts came to him?

I believe the testimony of Mr. Ullrich said he discussed a boat and fishing, nothing about BUYING a boat.

GERAGOS: Okay. You were interviewed by the, by Al Brocchini, correct?

ULLRICH: Correct.

GERAGOS: And he asked you if you knew if Scott had purchased a fishing boat?

ULLRICH: Yes.

GERAGOS: You told him that you remembered Scott talking about a boat three months before Laci going, going missing, correct?

ULLRICH: That, I don't know if that's,

GERAGOS: Let me show you.

ULLRICH: that he was,

GERAGOS: I'm looking at 1102, the upper yellow highlighted. Read that to yourself.

ULLRICH: Yeah.

GERAGOS: Does that refresh your recollection as to what you told Detective Brocchini?

ULLRICH: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you told him that you remembered Scott talking about a boat, fishing, or a boat over three months before Laci went missing?

ULLRICH: Correct.
It says nothing about BUYING a boat.

Also the other person did not testify and therefore that conversation was not in the trial and you cannot use it to defend him. You can only use what was testified to in the trial. He will not win an appeal on something that was not in the trial record.

[Hey Paula]

Scott had discussed buying a boat with at least 2 friends. In his pre-mediitation to murder-by-boat IMO he wouldn't ignore the fact that a local man would read about the disappearance or see his picture in the news and remember he had sold his boat to this guy? Which is exactly what he did.
He would surely have been better served by buying a boat from somewhere rather than Modesto. He did in fact look at another boat and turned it down. I think Bruce Peterson might have been the one who really wanted to make the sale, because Scott was able to bargain him DOWN in the price of the boat.


I can see where if the boat/fishing questions caused him to throw the flashlight down, it would/could be caused by feeling it was a waste of time to be concerned about what HE had been doing, when he didn't feel it had anything to do with where Laci was. IMO

Even if that were to fall in place, with the husband's activities ALWAYS being checked out by police, he would have to explain the large withdrawal of money from the bank - thus the boat purchase. He certainly wouldn't want them to think it was a down payment on a murder-for-hire!

Do you think he looked for a seller named Peterson, or after finding one the thoughts came to him?

I don't recall Scott discussing buying a boat with anyone prior to Laci's disappearance.

I think Scott's main problems were overestimating himself while underestimating everyone else, including LE and Laci's family, believing Laci would just be another missing person statistic, and everything would blow over in a month. He never anticipated anyone learning about the boat he was able to keep secret for 2 weeks, and never thought Laci would make media headlines.

IIRC, Scott first looked at ads for boats in Fresno.

I think once Scott saw the seller's name was Peterson, he took this as an omen of his good fortune, and couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the boat from a Peterson, transferred to a Peterson. But alas, it was his undoing; a portend of the discovery of his evil act.

IMO

[Lavindar]

Oh c'mon AW2B - why (I ask myself) do you do this? You know that he lied about everything, to everyone, even lied about his lies. He is a certified pathalogical liar. Are you trying to say he ONLY lied to Amber and those lies didn't count?

He lied about what Laci was wearing: FACT. She was found in the same cloths she wore on the 23rd. Don't even "go there" with Amy mis-identifying them. My daughter has a closet full of cloths and I can tell you color, maybe style, i.e., capri's but I can't tell you anything else - and I wash and fold them. Amy said "tan capri's", and that's what Laci was found in, including the BLACK bra (which woman, in my world would never wear under white).

If ISP didn't put the furniture in Conner's room, who did? Where's the hard evidence?

I do not intend to spend this evening listing IPS lies, it would literally take all evening, but if I HAVE TO, I will.......:cuss: For the 1000th time.

Happy 4th to you btw. :patriot:

Top Gunner, there is a video of him moving office furniture into his house. I don't recall on what station, but I have seen it as have others.

[Lavindar]

Just a reminder, you said that he only said the truth one time...I listed several pieces of information that Scott told the truth about..IMO, he didn't lie about the vital issues in the case....

As far as I know, he did talk to Longview as he stated, there was a call placed to Longview via directory assistance that had the exact call data as the one the prosecution had an audio for, unfortunately, the call that he made on the 30th didn't have the audio ..they only had the call data which matched the call data of the Longview call that he made via directory assistance....so I think he did call Longview as he stated....the prosecution didn't provide the audio for all his calls..IMO, we don't have the entire picture of his calls to be able to judge him fairly on that...

I don't consider this a lie, since I believe that Laci did indeed walk the dog and SEVERAL witnesses reported to the police that they saw her walking a golden retriever and wearing black pants and white top...and BTW, if he killed her then why didn't he describe the clothes she had on? in fact, that would even help the so called abduction he supposedly staged...



I don't buy that..I don't believe Brocchini.. he saw a fax machine and he saw a fax that Scott received..and he would believe that there was no power?? He is a detective but couldn't see a light switch...c'mon..note, he didn't bring this event when he was recording the interview..why didn't he ask him about it to have him on record saying it??



You must agree that had nothing to do with the list of lies..why list a non-lie when you think people can list pages of lies..



Do we know for sure who put the furniture in Conner's room? Yes, there was a video of him unloading the furniture from his truck in his driveway.

As to the gun registration.

PETERSON: Yeah. I think I got it ah, well you know, it may be registered to me. Or it may be registered to my father actually I had gotten that, before I was 18. I don’t know. It’s a Llama and he is, he is a buyer on it.

As to his lies to Amber, IMO they have no bearing on whether or not he killed Laci..!


Several witnesses reported seeing a woman in a white blouse and black pants. Chris Van Sant and Homer Maldonado saw this person walking the dog BEFORE Scott left the house. Chris Van Sant testified that he saw a pregnant woman in the park and it was NOT laci.l

The other witnesses saw this person over a mile from the Peterson house - in the OPPOSITE direction of the park and within 12 minutes from the time the dog was put in the back yard.

The Orowheat driver who saw Laci was driving in the SAME direction she was walking in a 35 mph speed zone. I seriously doubt that he could have seen her face at all. The man filling his prescription saw her at 10am - Scott could not have been gone for more than about 10 minutes, and again this was a mile in the wrong direction from the park.

Diane Campos saw a woman with a dog and two men from 100 yards away and up on a bluff. She could not have seen the white markings on Mac's chest as she claimed.

Vivian Mitchell, Dalton's 'star' witness said it was a sunshiney day and all the dog walkers were out. It was overcast and cold that morning - if memory serves it was about 41 degrees and did not clear up until about 5 that afternoon.

Yes there were witnesses. Oh, the witness who saw the lady peeing saw her at one of the busiest intersections in Modesto - yet only one person saw this occur? I firmly believe that NONE of these witnesses saw Laci - simply by the times and locations they claim. The only witness who identified a pregnant lady in the park was Chris Van Sant and he said it was definitely not Laci. The other people were mistaken, pure and simple.

here's the weather information for that day for Laci's zip
Time (PST): Temp: Dew Point: Humidity: Sea Level Pressure: Visibility: Wind Dir: Wind Speed: Gust Speed: Precip: Events: Conditions:
12:53 AM 36.0 °F / 2.2 °C 35.1 °F / 1.7 °C 97% 30.13 in / 1020.1 hPa 4.0 miles / 6.4 kilometers ESE 6.9 mph / 11.1 km/h / 3.1 m/s - N/A Clear
1:10 AM 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 33.8 °F / 1.0 °C 93% 30.13 in / 1020.2 hPa 2.5 miles / 4.0 kilometers ESE 6.9 mph / 11.1 km/h / 3.1 m/s - N/A Clear
1:30 AM 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 33.8 °F / 1.0 °C 93% 30.13 in / 1020.2 hPa 3.0 miles / 4.8 kilometers ESE 5.8 mph / 9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s - N/A Clear
1:53 AM 36.0 °F / 2.2 °C 35.1 °F / 1.7 °C 97% 30.15 in / 1020.8 hPa 4.0 miles / 6.4 kilometers ESE 6.9 mph / 11.1 km/h / 3.1 m/s - N/A Clear
2:53 AM 36.0 °F / 2.2 °C 35.1 °F / 1.7 °C 97% 30.15 in / 1020.9 hPa 4.0 miles / 6.4 kilometers ESE 5.8 mph / 9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s - N/A Clear
3:53 AM 37.9 °F / 3.3 °C 37.0 °F / 2.8 °C 97% 30.16 in / 1021.1 hPa 4.0 miles / 6.4 kilometers SSE 4.6 mph / 7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s - N/A Clear
4:53 AM 37.0 °F / 2.8 °C 35.1 °F / 1.7 °C 93% 30.17 in / 1021.4 hPa 2.5 miles / 4.0 kilometers Calm Calm - N/A Scattered Clouds
5:16 AM 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 100% 30.17 in / 1021.6 hPa 3.0 miles / 4.8 kilometers SSE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Scattered Clouds
5:44 AM 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 33.8 °F / 1.0 °C 93% 30.16 in / 1021.2 hPa 2.5 miles / 4.0 kilometers ESE 5.8 mph / 9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s - N/A Clear
5:53 AM 35.1 °F / 1.7 °C 34.0 °F / 1.1 °C 96% 30.16 in / 1021.3 hPa 2.5 miles / 4.0 kilometers ESE 6.9 mph / 11.1 km/h / 3.1 m/s - N/A Clear
6:53 AM 34.0 °F / 1.1 °C 33.1 °F / 0.6 °C 96% 30.18 in / 1022.0 hPa 2.0 miles / 3.2 kilometers SE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Clear
7:12 AM 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 33.8 °F / 1.0 °C 93% 30.19 in / 1022.2 hPa 3.0 miles / 4.8 kilometers SE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Clear
7:19 AM 35.6 °F / 2.0 °C 33.8 °F / 1.0 °C 93% 30.19 in / 1022.2 hPa 2.0 miles / 3.2 kilometers SSE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Clear
7:53 AM 36.0 °F / 2.2 °C 34.0 °F / 1.1 °C 93% 30.20 in / 1022.6 hPa 2.0 miles / 3.2 kilometers ESE 4.6 mph / 7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s - N/A Clear
8:53 AM 37.9 °F / 3.3 °C 36.0 °F / 2.2 °C 93% 30.23 in / 1023.5 hPa 2.5 miles / 4.0 kilometers ESE 4.6 mph / 7.4 km/h / 2.1 m/s - N/A Scattered Clouds
9:53 AM 41.0 °F / 5.0 °C 37.9 °F / 3.3 °C 89% 30.25 in / 1024.1 hPa 2.5 miles / 4.0 kilometers ESE 5.8 mph / 9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s - N/A Scattered Clouds
10:53 AM 43.0 °F / 6.1 °C 37.9 °F / 3.3 °C 82% 30.25 in / 1024.3 hPa 3.0 miles / 4.8 kilometers SE 5.8 mph / 9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s - N/A Haze
11:53 AM 45.0 °F / 7.2 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 80% 30.23 in / 1023.6 hPa 6.0 miles / 9.7 kilometers SE 6.9 mph / 11.1 km/h / 3.1 m/s - N/A Haze
12:53 PM 46.9 °F / 8.3 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 74% 30.21 in / 1023.0 hPa 6.0 miles / 9.7 kilometers SE 5.8 mph / 9.3 km/h / 2.6 m/s - N/A Haze
1:53 PM 46.9 °F / 8.3 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 74% 30.21 in / 1023.0 hPa 6.0 miles / 9.7 kilometers Variable 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Haze
2:53 PM 48.0 °F / 8.9 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 71% 30.22 in / 1023.2 hPa 6.0 miles / 9.7 kilometers SE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Haze
3:53 PM 48.9 °F / 9.4 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 69% 30.22 in / 1023.2 hPa 6.0 miles / 9.7 kilometers SSE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Haze
4:53 PM 46.0 °F / 7.8 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 76% 30.20 in / 1022.7 hPa 5.0 miles / 8.0 kilometers SSE 3.5 mph / 5.6 km/h / 1.5 m/s - N/A Haze
5:53 PM 43.0 °F / 6.1 °C 39.0 °F / 3.9 °C 86% 30.21 in / 1023.0 hPa 5.0 miles / 8.0 kilometers Calm Calm - N/A Clear
6:53 PM 41.0 °F /

[Wearing A Halo]

While it may be a crude choice of words, it's exactly what was happening if Scott's timeline on December 24th is to be believed. Granted, depending on whatever time he was supposed to have killed her (Dec. 23rd - 24th) would account for the condition of her body. Supposedly after killing her, he later carried her out to his truck. then drove to the warehouse the morning of the 24th. At the Warehouse, he unwrapped her from the tarp and put her into the boat, and covered her with the boat cover so she could not be seen - and proceeded to attend to menial tasks until leaving for the marina to dispose of her body in broad daylight.

Of course I don't know whether she was suppose to be inside the truck, the boat, or the warehouse while all this was going on, but I'm told insects know the moment of death.

Who told you insects know the moment of death and what is your understanding of insects knowing the moment of death?

[adnoid]

Who told you insects know the moment of death and what is your understanding of insects knowing the moment of death?

I guess they have the Insectnet, or Bumblebeeberrys. I always hear them buzzing, I guess they all have the same ring tone. Scares the daylights out of Mrs. Adnoid when they all go off at once when she's weeding.

[Otter]

I guess they have the Insectnet, or Bumblebeeberrys. I always hear them buzzing, I guess they all have the same ring tone. Scares the daylights out of Mrs. Adnoid when they all go off at once when she's weeding.

I don't blame her. Thank goodness she hadn't been weighed down in a big body of water where the insects can't get her.

Here's a link to insects and a body underwater:

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/underwater_insects_tell_tale.html

Unfortunately for the advocates, it seems that it only occurs in freshwater. More's the pity. :tongue:

:patriot: Happy Independence Day to you and yours! :seeya:

[Lavindar]

I guess they have the Insectnet, or Bumblebeeberrys. I always hear them buzzing, I guess they all have the same ring tone. Scares the daylights out of Mrs. Adnoid when they all go off at once when she's weeding.


Not many insects out in 41 degree weather, tho.

[Otter]

Who told you insects know the moment of death and what is your understanding of insects knowing the moment of death?


One of my favorite movie quotes is Joan Cusack from Working Girl:

"Just because I like to dance around the house in my underwear doesn't make me Madonna."

We all know bugs are invaluable in forensics. We watch tv, and we've read Patricia Cornwell. Doesn't make me an expert.

I would assume there's many variables. Especially in Laci's case in the timing when her body came to shore. But what would I know?

[Synopsis]

I don't blame her. Thank goodness she hadn't been weighed down in a big body of water where the insects can't get her.

Here's a link to insects and a body underwater:

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/underwater_insects_tell_tale.html

Unfortunately for the advocates, it seems that it only occurs in freshwater. More's the pity. :tongue:

:patriot: Happy Independence Day to you and yours! :seeya:

Sorry but in your haste to try and disprove my point you missed the time frame in question. It had nothing to do with her body underwater, so the link doesn't help, but thanks anyway.

I was discussing the time he was suppose to have left a dead body under a tarp or umbrellas while he fiddled around in his warehouse.

[Synopsis]

Who told you insects know the moment of death and what is your understanding of insects knowing the moment of death?

Actuall it was on Forensic Files on CTV:lol:

But I'll try and find a link.

[Synopsis]

This link mirrors what the TV program stated:
http://www.ucdmag.ucdavis.edu/issues/su99/Feature_Bugs.html

Excerpt:
The science of forensic entomology is based on the fact that a variety of insects invades and decomposes bodies in a regular, orderly pattern. "The green bottle flies, which we call blowflies, find you just as you die," Kimsey says. "They're remarkably clever at locating a dead person. Volatile hydrocarbon gases are given off a body almost immediately after death that these flies recognize. They're attracted to the odor of blood, they're attracted to the odor of wounds in general, they can detect the perfumes in the air. Often they're there before you die. If you're lying wounded, they'll be laying eggs on you when you're still alive and conscious."
Professor Robert Kimsey – University California - Davis

[Synopsis]

Looks like I'm the only one here - but we had a fireworks show in my city delayed due to rain. Don't mean to hold the floor, but I do want to make my point clear.

Several have responded, obviously thinking I was talking about the months Laci was suppose to be in the bay - underwater. That time frame or location has nothing at all to do with what I posted.

I was simply noting just ONE point that makes the theory of what Scott did on December 24th unreasonable to me. Albeit there were other reasons.

Again.... (to avoid the pity-as someone posted)Lydell Wall testified that at exactly 8:40 a.m. someone used the Peterson home laptop to look at a five-day weather forecast for San Jose and At 8:44 a.m. a Yahoo shopping site featuring a garden weather vane. Since the floating theory was it was Scott creating an alibi, Laci would already be dead.
Between between 9:20 and 9:40, Kristin D. says she saw Scott standing in the bed of his truck. Between 9:30-9:35 am Scott says he went to the warehouse office. Steven Jacobson at the Preliminary Hearing, indicates Scott used his computer from shortly after 10:08 a.m. until almost 11:00 a.m. Scott says he checked his e-mail and sent an e-mail and worked on building a mortising woodworking machine. Scott told Detective Evers that he arrived at the Berkeley Marina about Noon.

With all that being said, it creates a picture of him driving around, and fiddling around from 8:40 in the morning until noon with a dead body in tow. There was even a report that some lady phoned in that he was seen in a quick stop type store. If true, he would still have a body riding in the back of his truck. All in broad daylight, with absolutely no worry or fear of being "found out." Not even by insects. That just defies reason to me.

And even if you believe he strangled Laci and there were no wounds that would attract any activity, the gases alone produced by the body could have attracted insects. Especially if you believe, as some do, that he killed her the night before shortly after the 8:30 phone call. That would put her body being dead nearly 16 hours. But the time this dead body was suppose to be sitting at the warehouse, waiting for Scott to finish his tasks is just too much of a stretch IMO.
Happy 4th of July:patriot:

[One2Snoop]

Actuall it was on Forensic Files on CTV:lol:

But I'll try and find a link.

I don't understand why you think this is funny :confused: - anyhow just thought I'd share a little more research on this subject....

Determining time of death
The time of death is a critical piece of information for investigators attempting to understand the cause of suspicious deaths.

Temperature
The temperature of a body can be used to estimate time of death during the first 24 hours. Core temperature falls gradually with time since death, and depends on body mass, fat distribution and ambient temperature. If the body is discovered before the body temperature has come into equilibrium with the ambient temperature, forensic scientists can estimate the time of death by measuring core temperature of the body.

Rigor mortis
The presence of rigor mortis also assists forensic scientists in determining the time of death. The body muscles will normally be in a relaxed state for the first three hours after death, stiffening between 3 hours and 36 hours, and then becoming relaxed again. However, there is considerable uncertainty in estimates derived from rigor mortis, because the time of onset is highly dependent on the amount of work the muscles had done immediately before death.

Insects
The presence of insects in a corpse is a critical clue towards estimating the time of death for bodies dead for longer periods of time. Because flies rapidly discover a body and their development times are predictable under particular environmental conditions, the time of death can be calculated by counting back the days from the state of development of insects living on the corpse.

For example, if a body was found in an air-conditioned building (21°C) with second instar larvae (stage of development between moulting) of Lucilia sericata feeding on the corpse, a forensic entomologist could calculate that those larvae had moulted from their first instar sometime in the last 12 hours. Because the eggs take 18 hours to hatch and the first instar takes 20 hours to develop, the most recent time the eggs could have been laid was 38 hours earlier, if the larvae had just moulted. If they were old larvae, about to moult into their third instar, the most recent time of death would be 50 hours prior to discovery of the body.

Usually, time determinations would not be so easy because weather conditions are more variable, and identification of most maggots to species level is difficult. Forensic scientists usually undertake more detailed entomological work to determine time of death.

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/forensic/timing.htm

[Hey Paula]

Actuall it was on Forensic Files on CTV:lol:

But I'll try and find a link.

You're right, as crime watchers you'd think we'd know all these details by now, LOL!

I knew about the insect activity, albeit not the details of the various stages. They should have titled that segment Forensic Flies. :eek:

According to a link subsequent provided, the stages range from 12 to 50 hours after death. Even if Laci was killed after she'd spoken to Sharon, while changing into her sleepwear, perhaps sometime between 9 and 10 PM, Scott had ample time to remove her body from the house and out to the Bay before significant fly activity began.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Orginally posted by Synopsis:Of course I don't know whether she was suppose to be inside the truck, the boat, or the warehouse while all this was going on, but I'm told insects know the moment of death.

Regarding insects....you never answered my question Syn.

Where do you think Laci's body was stored for 4-months?

[attorneywan2be]

While it may be a crude choice of words, it's exactly what was happening if Scott's timeline on December 24th is to be believed. Granted, depending on whatever time he was supposed to have killed her (Dec. 23rd - 24th) would account for the condition of her body. Supposedly after killing her, he later carried her out to his truck. then drove to the warehouse the morning of the 24th. At the Warehouse, he unwrapped her from the tarp and put her into the boat, and covered her with the boat cover so she could not be seen - and proceeded to attend to menial tasks until leaving for the marina to dispose of her body in broad daylight.

Of course I don't know whether she was suppose to be inside the truck, the boat, or the warehouse while all this was going on, but I'm told insects know the moment of death.

Hey..you forgot the 5 imaginary anchors..he supposedly attached them to Laci's body..the prosecution didn't even tell the jury "How", "when" and "where" he supposedly attached them..

[attorneywan2be]

Oh c'mon AW2B - why (I ask myself) do you do this? You know that he lied about everything, to everyone, even lied about his lies. He is a certified pathalogical liar. Are you trying to say he ONLY lied to Amber and those lies didn't count?

He lied about what Laci was wearing: FACT. She was found in the same cloths she wore on the 23rd. Don't even "go there" with Amy mis-identifying them. My daughter has a closet full of cloths and I can tell you color, maybe style, i.e., capri's but I can't tell you anything else - and I wash and fold them. Amy said "tan capri's", and that's what Laci was found in, including the BLACK bra (which woman, in my world would never wear under white).

If ISP didn't put the furniture in Conner's room, who did? Where's the hard evidence?

I do not intend to spend this evening listing IPS lies, it would literally take all evening, but if I HAVE TO, I will.......:cuss: For the 1000th time.

Happy 4th to you btw. :patriot:



Thanks TopGunner...I hope you had a nice 4th of July..:patriot:

IMO, Scott being a pathological liar is nothing more than a MYTH...he didn't lie to the police except POSSIBLY not mentioning Amber...even Brocchini admitted that Scott told him a lot of truth...as to what Laci was wearing, what do you think his motive was to lie about it?..if he was staging Laci's abduction, then it would have been to his benefit to give the police the description of the clothes she had on (if he supposedly killed her) ..so if found, then police would find her wearing the same clothes he described..that would fit in his so called "staging Laci's abduction" plan....BTW, Amy Rocha testified that they were not the same pants..that's her testimony!...anyhow, several witnesses reported to the police that they saw Laci walking a golden retriever..I don't believe all of them were mistaken....all it takes is one of them to be right ..

I think I should be the one who would ask you where is the hard evidence Scott put the furniture in Conner's room?...maybe his parents put them there..maybe his brother and sister in-law...who knows!