Scott Peterson's appeal

[deputydi]

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.

Have you forgotten about the two months the "kidnappers" held her after her death? Can't have it both ways. All this scientific bug stuff would also apply to them.

[Hey Paula]

Have you forgotten about the two months the "kidnappers" held her after her death? Can't have it both ways. All this scientific bug stuff would also apply to them.

It would apply to them even more because Laci's remains would have been exposed for many, many hours with the insect activity reaching its peak, not to mention the odor of a decaying body.

Scott, OTOH, would have gotten Laci's remains in the Bay long before insect activity ever reached its' peak.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

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.

Snip



I don't think it is reasonable to expect the witnesses to be exact about the time they saw Laci..I don't think they looked at their watches when they saw her...so IMO, they could be off anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour depending on how organized that person is and how good is their memory..

From Dalton's book (I didn't read his book.. but those are excerpts quoted by a poster on another board)

Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma.
Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.

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

The Modesto police dispatch log shows two calls from Gene Pedrioli, who spotted a woman whom he thought was Laci about the same time as the other witness did. He had to pick up a prescription at his pharmacy at 10:00 AM and noticed the golden retriever because it was the same color as his own dog.
The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar spotted her. Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk and she and the dog walked around them.
When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince the police.

[TopGunner]

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..



He goes, "Well, I cut myself on December 24." I said, "Doing what?"

He says, "Reaching into the toolbox, I cut myself. So you should find my blood on the driver's side door" -- Heidi.

COLLINS: All right, well, something else that the prosecution focused on, cement. And you say that was pretty compelling stuff.

Why?

GOMEZ: Right. Because it was all over the warehouse. In fact, when crime scene investigators arrived at the warehouse, you could tell that Scott Peterson was busy doing a lot of cement work. And, of course, investigators focusing on a table where you could see at least four to five cement rings. So prosecutors contending that he was making cement anchors, but only one of those was found in his boat.

So what happened to the other four? Well, prosecutors are going to say well, those were used to weigh down Laci's body once he dumped her in the Bay -- Heidi.

COLLINS: And what's the defense going to say?

GOMEZ: Well, the defense is going to say well, there's a reasonable explanation for that. He was using those for maybe, A, making -- maybe he made a mistake, making the cement anchors, and so he had to make more than one. And they're obviously going to find other reasons for explaining this.

Of course, we haven't heard what the defense is going to say just yet.

COLLINS: Sure.

Of course not.

All right, well, what about this hair on a pliers? Why was that significant?

GOMEZ: Well, that's been a debate for a while now...

COLLINS: Right.

GOMEZ: ... because a strand of hair, possibly Laci's, was found on a pair of pliers in Scott Peterson's boat.


Five imaginary cement anchors? Aw2B, where does the word imaginary come in? Did you mean to say FOUR MISSING ANCHORS? 'Cause by golly, that's what they were. Five total, one found - four missing.

Four missing anchors + pliers w/Laci's hair in them + chicken wire in his truck = How, what, and where. Of course, NG's will say it was just more bad luck... Truthfully, I don't know why the guy didn't kill himself instead of his wife and son. He makes Murphy's Law (according the the NG's) look desireable.:punch:

[aingael]

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:




There is one major flaw in your thoughts about insect activity. Laci was placed in the bay and since most of her was gone before she surfaced and was found there would be no sign of insect activity that ~might~ have occurred will she was being transported to the bay by her husband.

This also goes for the theory of her being kept in a bathtub, but in the opposite direction. Even in a bathtub there would be insect activity due to the fact of the temperature of the room and water, the chemicals in the water from being treated, an environment where insects can and do have access to. If she was ~kept~ in any man made environment there would be evidence of insect activity.

At the bottom of the bay, the salinity of the water, the temperature of the water would all negate insect activity. Even Laci was free of the anchors, her body would surface and sink, due to decomposition gas release, and while she was surfaced, insects could have laid eggs ~but~ her sinking again into the salt water would eradicate activity.

[TopGunner]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the witnesses to be exact about the time they saw Laci..I don't think they looked at their watches when they saw her...so IMO, they could be off anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour depending on how organized that person is and how good is their memory..

From Dalton's book (I didn't read his book.. but those are excerpts quoted by a poster on another board)

Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma.
Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.

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

The Modesto police dispatch log shows two calls from Gene Pedrioli, who spotted a woman whom he thought was Laci about the same time as the other witness did. He had to pick up a prescription at his pharmacy at 10:00 AM and noticed the golden retriever because it was the same color as his own dog.
The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar spotted her. Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk and she and the dog walked around them.
When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince the police.

AW2B- You should read Dalton's book. Even you will fall off your chair howling at all the stuff he COMPLETELY made up! He distroyed his career competing with ISP as to who could tell the most outrageous lies to the most people.

My question, however, is if so many witnesses saw Laci, and were POSITIVE it was Laci - where's the testimony? More Murphy's Law?

I'll get back to those lies he told...I'm going to use my nap time to look up and post everything that I know you already know, but refuse to say so. Fine.

[attorneywan2be]

He goes, "Well, I cut myself on December 24." I said, "Doing what?"

He says, "Reaching into the toolbox, I cut myself. So you should find my blood on the driver's side door" -- Heidi.

COLLINS: All right, well, something else that the prosecution focused on, cement. And you say that was pretty compelling stuff.

Why?

GOMEZ: Right. Because it was all over the warehouse. In fact, when crime scene investigators arrived at the warehouse, you could tell that Scott Peterson was busy doing a lot of cement work. And, of course, investigators focusing on a table where you could see at least four to five cement rings. So prosecutors contending that he was making cement anchors, but only one of those was found in his boat.

So what happened to the other four? Well, prosecutors are going to say well, those were used to weigh down Laci's body once he dumped her in the Bay -- Heidi.

COLLINS: And what's the defense going to say?

GOMEZ: Well, the defense is going to say well, there's a reasonable explanation for that. He was using those for maybe, A, making -- maybe he made a mistake, making the cement anchors, and so he had to make more than one. And they're obviously going to find other reasons for explaining this.

Of course, we haven't heard what the defense is going to say just yet.

COLLINS: Sure.

Of course not.

All right, well, what about this hair on a pliers? Why was that significant?

GOMEZ: Well, that's been a debate for a while now...

COLLINS: Right.

GOMEZ: ... because a strand of hair, possibly Laci's, was found on a pair of pliers in Scott Peterson's boat.


Five imaginary cement anchors? Aw2B, where does the word imaginary come in? Did you mean to say FOUR MISSING ANCHORS? 'Cause by golly, that's what they were. Five total, one found - four missing.

Four missing anchors + pliers w/Laci's hair in them + chicken wire in his truck = How, what, and where. Of course, NG's will say it was just more bad luck... Truthfully, I don't know why the guy didn't kill himself instead of his wife and son. He makes Murphy's Law (according the the NG's) look desireable.:punch:

TopGunner...seriously..do you think the so called 5 ring imprints are proof that he made 5 anchors?..do you think it is fair to say that he made 5 anchors beyond a reasonable doubt?!

For example, if I made one cup of coffee and as I was pouring it the coffee overflowed from the cup..as I was working in the kitchen I kept taking a sip and placing the cup back on the counter..I did that 5 times..I made 5 ring imprints that match the bottom of my cup.. does that mean I made 5 cups of coffee??... c'mon!

[TopGunner]

TopGunner...seriously..do you think the so called 5 ring imprints are proof that he made 5 anchors?..do you think it is fair to say that he made 5 anchors beyond a reasonable doubt?!

For example, if I made one cup of coffee and as I was pouring it the coffee overflowed from the cup..as I was working in the kitchen I kept taking a sip and placing the cup back on the counter..I did that 5 times..I made 5 ring imprints that match the bottom of my cup.. does that mean I made 5 cups of coffee??... c'mon!


AW2B, if you did that five times, I'd suggest you switch to diet coke, in a can.

Yes, I think it's BEYOND EXTREMELY REASONABLE (as did 12 jurors) to agree that 5 anchors were made and 4 were MISSING. I see no other reasonable or unreasonable "excuse", which is what's happening here.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip
My question, however, is if so many witnesses saw Laci, and were POSITIVE it was Laci - where's the testimony? More Murphy's Law?

Snip




My personal opinion as to why those witnesses were not called to testify, I think given the emotionally charged atmosphere in Modesto against Scott..the witnesses were intimidated...maybe Geragos realized that they were reluctant to testify and he didn't want to take the risk...just my opinion...

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, if you did that five times, I'd suggest you switch to diet coke, in a can.

Snip



I expected a reply like that...:D

[Otter]

My personal opinion as to why those witnesses were not called to testify, I think given the emotionally charged atmosphere in Modesto against Scott..the witnesses were intimidated...maybe Geragos realized that they were reluctant to testify and he didn't want to take the risk...just my opinion...

The million dollar man who vowed to show his client factually innocent was suddenly risk adverse? The brilliant attorney with all his bluster would chance a guilty verdict because he was afraid some witnesses were intimidated? His client had his life on the line, that's his job to show reasonable doubt and a witness's reluctance shouldn't make a difference. Have them declared hostile and let the lack of testimony speak for itself.

You keep wondering why we don't understand that there was all this reasonable doubt. This is why we don't understand why you don't see the opposite. No one testified. Even the late Mrs. Mitchell on videotape. Who would intimidate her? Who, IYO, would intimidate any defense witness?

[adnoid]

...maybe Geragos realized that they were reluctant to testify and he didn't want to take the risk...

Do you seriously believe that, with Scott facing possible execution, the defense would have held back on testimony that would clear him in order to not inconvenience a witness? And if so, why have none of these witnesses been heard from since? If, indeed, they were ever in danger (which I do not believe), now that the case has been adjudicated the danger has passed.

[attorneywan2be]

Do you seriously believe that, with Scott facing possible execution, the defense would have held back on testimony that would clear him in order to not inconvenience a witness? And if so, why have none of these witnesses been heard from since? If, indeed, they were ever in danger (which I do not believe), now that the case has been adjudicated the danger has passed.

Of course..why? IMO, if he thought they were reluctant to testify because they were intimidated, calling them to the witness stand could be a huge risk to take, because it could backfire BIG TIME...what good would it do for his client, if they deliver a weak testimony? such as: "I think"..I'm not sure" etc..etc..he figured that using their police reports might do the trick...this is just my opinion as to why Geragos didn't call them....I might be wrong..having said that, I don't agree with that strategy...I still think he should have called them to testify..in fact, his failure to call them most likely would be an appeal issue...

[frydaddy]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the witnesses to be exact about the time they saw Laci..I don't think they looked at their watches when they saw her...so IMO, they could be off anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour depending on how organized that person is and how good is their memory..

From Dalton's book (I didn't read his book.. but those are excerpts quoted by a poster on another board)

Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma.
Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.

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

The Modesto police dispatch log shows two calls from Gene Pedrioli, who spotted a woman whom he thought was Laci about the same time as the other witness did. He had to pick up a prescription at his pharmacy at 10:00 AM and noticed the golden retriever because it was the same color as his own dog.
The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar spotted her. Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk and she and the dog walked around them.
When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince the police.

I think I have discovered why frustration sets in for those who think Scott is guilty, when it comes to you advocates. You've been posting this Dalton information for over a year or longer, it's been largely debunked hundreds of times, yet you still rely on it as if it's the first time being discussed. Why not use an eraser and get rid of it as non-credible information OR maybe you could put as much effort into scrutinizing your supportive information as you do that which is negative to Scott's cause.

Dalton (I've read the book) listed the following witnesses in his book.

Homer and Helen Maldonado
Tony Freitas
Martha Aguilar
Gene Pedrioli
Vivian Mitchell
Diana Campos

The Maldonado's were driving west on Miller Ave. from the gas station. Their story seems far fetched, depending on where Laci was standing. Dalton described Laci as standing on the west side of the street, which had to be Covena, two houses from the corner of Miller. I have a hard time believing someone in traffic can see a woman that far from the street and make out any detail on who it was. Not to mention there is a 50/50 chance she’d have her back to them. Plus, I have a hard time believing McKenzie would be prancing on his hind legs as if to jump on Laci. Plus, they spotted Laci between 9:50-10:00. Scott didn’t leave until at least ten and Laci wasn’t gone before 10:00. She’d have had to sprint to that spot, which we know she could not do.

Freitas spotted Laci on the south side of La Loma, heading west toward town between 9-10am. Laci would have been walking the same direction as Freitas, so I have a hard time believing he could recognize her. I also have a hard time believing that he could spot two scraggly looking men on the opposite side of the street at the same time. Must’ve been one very observant delivery guy! Again, the timeframe doesn’t fit, so I suppose folks could conveniently change it all to do so, if they chose to.

Martha Aguilar spots Laci between 9:45-10:00am. This was apparently somewhere near the other sightings, but not enough detail is given, other than Aguilar spotted Laci while driving. Again, the timeframe doesn’t fit and I have a hard time with all these witnesses driving having such good recall on details. Diane Jackson, Aguilar, Freitas, etc.

Gene Pedrioli spots Laci at 10:00am near his pharmacy. Not to be redundant, but the timeframe doesn’t fit. Depending on where this pharmacy is, it’s possible that it makes even less sense, but Dalton doesn’t give us that information, yet we are to believe it was Laci.

Vivian Mitchell – This one is the most unbelievable of the bunch. Laci walked up Covena to Miller in no time flat, covering .4 miles instantly, according to witnesses. Then, it takes her a half hour to walk 2/3 of a mile to get to the intersection near the Mitchell home. Obvious questions come up, such as how far a woman in her seventies can peer out a window and recognize someone struggling to get their dog to go a certain way. And if the Mitchells live at 231 Buena Vista Ave, I think it is impossible for her to have seen the intersection she describes with any accuracy, if at all.

Diana Compos – She spotted a white spot on McKenzie’s chest from fifty yards away, through the trees of the park. She saw a woman walking west, opposite direction of Laci’s alleged clockwise walking path, hears men screaming and swearing at the woman for five minutes. Then, she decides to stop watching and does nothing until seeing a flyer of Laci and THEN contacts hospital security?

So, these witnesses have severe timeline problems. We have to believe that Laci intentionally went on a 2+ mile walk with the dog, not always on the beaten path, where McKenzie was struggling with her on at least two occasions. We are to believe that twice she encountered questionable men. We are to believe that seven people, six of which were strangers to Laci, all saw her walking in a period of half an hour. Then, on this impossible journey, she happens upon someone who abducts her, the dog does nothing to protect Laci, then trots home for Karen Servas to find him at whatever time you want to use? For the last time, can you please not post this Dalton trash as if it is new information. If advocates believe that any of these witness sightings are credible, then any statement about wanting the truth is BS. You can’t be wise about that which supports Scott and then be completely obtuse about that which doesn’t, not with any amount of credibility.

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*

TopGunner...seriously..do you think the so called 5 ring imprints are proof that he made 5 anchors?..do you think it is fair to say that he made 5 anchors beyond a reasonable doubt?!



When you take into account the circumstances surrounding the ring imprints, yes it is quite fair to conclude Scott made 5 anchors.

[frydaddy]

My personal opinion as to why those witnesses were not called to testify, I think given the emotionally charged atmosphere in Modesto against Scott..the witnesses were intimidated...maybe Geragos realized that they were reluctant to testify and he didn't want to take the risk...just my opinion...

LOL - "Scott, you're gonna get the needle. I can't have a bunch of citizens intimidated and reluctant to testify. Sorry buddy!"

[Synopsis]

I knew about the insect activity, albeit not the details of the various stages. They should have titled that segment Forensic Flies. :eek:
:lol: Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone, but I thought this was funny too - and clever! Files/Flies

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.

I agree, but this is not the theory the prosecution presented. This is not what they argued happened and asked the jury to believe. And I'm not saying there were insects consuming the body. The basis of my point was that activity COULD have begun and would make it more of a riskfor Scott to be so casual about his activities. I would think his priority would be to get rid of the body ASAP!!!

[frydaddy]

Of course..why? IMO, if he thought they were reluctant to testify because they were intimidated, calling them to the witness stand could be a huge risk to take, because it could backfire BIG TIME...what good would it do for his client, if they deliver a weak testimony? such as: "I think"..I'm not sure" etc..etc..he figured that using their police reports might do the trick...this is just my opinion as to why Geragos didn't call them....I might be wrong..having said that, I don't agree with that strategy...I still think he should have called them to testify..in fact, his failure to call them most likely would be an appeal issue...

Weak testimony? This is information that some jilted attorney wrote, that you haven't read first hand or obviously proofed with any kind of scrutiny, and YOU believe it enough to call it an appellate issue? Yet a high price lawyer simply made a mistake in judgment, a man paid to defend citizens from the death penalty?

Whoosh!

[aingael]

My personal opinion as to why those witnesses were not called to testify, I think given the emotionally charged atmosphere in Modesto against Scott..the witnesses were intimidated...maybe Geragos realized that they were reluctant to testify and he didn't want to take the risk...just my opinion...


If a witness is subpoenaed then they ~have~ to testify, if they were not subpoenaed then it was Geragos's fault.

If he thought he didn't want to take the risk then he himself put the needle in Scott Peterson's arm.

[Synopsis]

I don't understand why you think this is funny :confused: - anyhow just thought I'd share a little more research on this subject....
*Snip*Snip*


Actually it wasn't so funny to me - it was my pre-conceived notion that there would be some who would joke about it coming from an "entertainment" medium as opposed to documented knowledge.

As for all the other information on decomp - although it's probably my least favorite subject, I wasn't confusing the variables in etomology.

[Wearing A Halo]

:lol: Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone, but I thought this was funny too - and clever! Files/Flies


I agree, but this is not the theory the prosecution presented. This is not what they argued happened and asked the jury to believe. And I'm not saying there were insects consuming the body. The basis of my point was that activity COULD have begun and would make it more of a riskfor Scott to be so casual about his activities. I would think his priority would be to get rid of the body ASAP!!!

"activity COULD have begun "

Do you know (or have any knowledge) the life cycle of insects that will come upon a dead body or incapacitated victim?

"I would think his priority would be to get rid of the body ASAP!!!"

DRISP did "get rid of the body ASAP!!!"

The only way DRISP would have done it any sooner than he did, would be, had he took upon the suggestions by some NGs, to take her to some remote spot in the woods or dump her over a bridge closer to their home (DRISP called it his home).

[Lavindar]

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:

Please reread the testimony. Scott told Brocchini that he and Laci had watched Martha Stewart and something about meringue. Martha Stewart only mentioned meringue at one point in her show on that day (thank you Mark Geragos) and that was at 9:48am - proving that either Scott lied, or he was still at the house at 9:48.

The value of "laci being on the computer" would only have been important if she was on the computer when he was not home. He was still home at 8"40 and was not driving around at all. Please tell me what insects thrive at 41 degrees fahrenheit. We don't have a problem with insects in the winter, do you?

[Lavindar]

Please reread the testimony. Scott told Brocchini that he and Laci had watched Martha Stewart and something about meringue. Martha Stewart only mentioned meringue at one point in her show on that day (thank you Mark Geragos) and that was at 9:48am - proving that either Scott lied, or he was still at the house at 9:48.

The value of "laci being on the computer" would only have been important if she was on the computer when he was not home. He was still home at 8"40 and was not driving around at all. Please tell me what insects thrive at 41 degrees fahrenheit. We don't have a problem with insects in the winter, do you?


Please provide the link where Steve Jacobsen said Scott was on the computer at 10:08 am that day at the warehouse. Jacobsen was in charge of wiretaps, not computers, I believe Jacobsen said that Scott checked the messages on his cell phone at 10:08. He was not on the computer at this time at all


YOU CANNOT USE ANYTHING SAID IN THE PRELIMINARY TRIAL TO GET HIM AN APPEAL IN THE REGULAR TRIAL. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE TRIALS AND ARE NOT FOR THE SAME PURPOSE

[Lavindar]

Please provide the link where Steve Jacobsen said Scott was on the computer at 10:08 am that day at the warehouse. Jacobsen was in charge of wiretaps, not computers, I believe Jacobsen said that Scott checked the messages on his cell phone at 10:08. He was not on the computer at this time at all


YOU CANNOT USE ANYTHING SAID IN THE PRELIMINARY TRIAL TO GET HIM AN APPEAL IN THE REGULAR TRIAL. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE TRIALS AND ARE NOT FOR THE SAME PURPOSE

Here's what Jacobson says about that 10:08 time on Scott's computer:

14 Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just
15 ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular
16 cell phone on December 24th?
17 A. There was several calls made.
18 Q. All right. Do you know when the first call was
19 made?
20 A. The first call that you had me look into was at
21 10:08 AM.
22 Q. All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific
23 Standard Time?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using
26 at that time?
27 A. At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was
28 at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523

1620
1 Covena.
2 Q. So the 1250 Brighton cell tower is the one that
3 services the area of the defendant's residence?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And how long was that particular call?
6 A. That call was -- that was the 10:08 AM. It was one
7 minute and 21 seconds.
8 Q. And what number did that call -- what number did
9 that call dial?
10 A. It dialed the same number you just gave, the (209)
11 505-0337. In essence, what happened was it called its
12 voicemail.


Please check your FACTS before posting untruths. Those of us who want the truth in this case thank you.

[Miss Bootsie]

:lol: Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone, but I thought this was funny too - and clever! Files/Flies


A body that he presumably left "ripening" while he did menial tasks in the warehouse.
:lol:


Oh, I don't find your humor offensive. I thought it was funny too.

[Lavindar]

Here's what Jacobson says about that 10:08 time on Scott's computer:

14 Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just
15 ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular
16 cell phone on December 24th?
17 A. There was several calls made.
18 Q. All right. Do you know when the first call was
19 made?
20 A. The first call that you had me look into was at
21 10:08 AM.
22 Q. All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific
23 Standard Time?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using
26 at that time?
27 A. At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was
28 at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523

1620
1 Covena.
2 Q. So the 1250 Brighton cell tower is the one that
3 services the area of the defendant's residence?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And how long was that particular call?
6 A. That call was -- that was the 10:08 AM. It was one
7 minute and 21 seconds.
8 Q. And what number did that call -- what number did
9 that call dial?
10 A. It dialed the same number you just gave, the (209)
11 505-0337. In essence, what happened was it called its
12 voicemail.


Please check your FACTS before posting untruths. Those of us who want the truth in this case thank you.HARRIS: What computer was that?

WALL: That would be on the Dell Work PC 4. That computer activity started at approximately 10:30 a.m., and ended at 10:56 a.m.

Scott was not on his computer at work at 10:08 AT ALL. He was driving to work. He did not get on it until 10:30/ Your timeline is wrong.

[Lavindar]

:lol:


Oh, I don't find your humor offensive. I thought it was funny too. The low temperature the night of the 24th was 34 degrees. I Don't think bodies ripen that close to freezing.

[adnoid]

Of course..why? IMO, if he thought they were reluctant to testify because they were intimidated, calling them to the witness stand could be a huge risk to take, because it could backfire BIG TIME...what good would it do for his client, if they deliver a weak testimony? such as: "I think"..I'm not sure" etc..etc..he figured that using their police reports might do the trick...this is just my opinion as to why Geragos didn't call them....I might be wrong..having said that, I don't agree with that strategy...I still think he should have called them to testify..in fact, his failure to call them most likely would be an appeal issue...

Mark Geragos has done quite well financially as an attorney. The thought that he would spike one of his clients to lay the groundwork for IAC is just not credible. What would he tell Scott - "Scott, you're going to have to take one for the team. I'm going to screw up on purpose here to help out on your appeal."

The problems with this (not a complete list):

1) The only appeal Scott is guaranteed to present is the direct appeal of the trial. This appeal CANNOT address anything that was not in the trial record. Therefore, any witness NOT CALLED cannot be brought up. The average wait for this appeal to be brought forward is 7 YEARS. When brought forward, the appeals court can decide not to hear it with no comment - Scott's only guarantee is that the appeal will be presented, not heard. Quite a chance to take, wouldn't you say?

2) After the direct appeal Scott can ask for a Habeus Corpus writ - which, again, he is not guaranteed to get. We're looking at ANOTHER 10 years or so for this. At THAT POINT he can again bring up these supposed witnesses, along with IAC and facts discovered since the trial, if any. However, it's really unlikely the Court will address the supposed witnesses absent finding IAC, as the witnesses were available for the original trial and are therefore not a new issue.

You may not agree with MG's tactics - but he is a real lawyer. From all accounts he did vigorously defend his client - how many "Thursday Surprises" did we have? Even The Media™ thought he was winning. Ultimately he did not. But could he ever hope to win another client if he was known for intentionally throwing trials and landing his clients on Death Row as part of some strategy? Would YOU hire him?

And as much as I dislike him, I do not feel he is incompetent. His strategy did not work, but he was hired BY his client to carry out the wishes OF his client. Scott could have Mark to put Scott on the stand, and Mark could have asked to be replaced rather than do it, for instance.

[Lavindar]

Grave wax, or adipocere, is a crumbly white, waxy substance that accumulates on those parts of the body that contain fat - the cheeks, breasts, abdomen and buttocks. It is the product of a chemical reaction in which fats react with water and hydrogen in the presence of bacterial enzymes, breaking down into fatty acids and soaps. Adipocere is resistant to bacteria and can protect a corpse, slowing further decomposition. Adipocere starts to form within a month after death and has been recorded on bodies that have been exhumed after 100 years. If a body is readily accessible to insects, adipocere is unlikely to form.

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

Dr, Peterson testified to the presence of adipocere forming on Laci. From this, it sounds like there were no insects that attacked Laci's body.

[frydaddy]

Mark Geragos has done quite well financially as an attorney. The thought that he would spike one of his clients to lay the groundwork for IAC is just not credible. What would he tell Scott - "Scott, you're going to have to take one for the team. I'm going to screw up on purpose here to help out on your appeal."

The problems with this (not a complete list):

1) The only appeal Scott is guaranteed to present is the direct appeal of the trial. This appeal CANNOT address anything that was not in the trial record. Therefore, any witness NOT CALLED cannot be brought up. The average wait for this appeal to be brought forward is 7 YEARS. When brought forward, the appeals court can decide not to hear it with no comment - Scott's only guarantee is that the appeal will be presented, not heard. Quite a chance to take, wouldn't you say?

2) After the direct appeal Scott can ask for a Habeus Corpus writ - which, again, he is not guaranteed to get. We're looking at ANOTHER 10 years or so for this. At THAT POINT he can again bring up these supposed witnesses, along with IAC and facts discovered since the trial, if any. However, it's really unlikely the Court will address the supposed witnesses absent finding IAC, as the witnesses were available for the original trial and are therefore not a new issue.

You may not agree with MG's tactics - but he is a real lawyer. From all accounts he did vigorously defend his client - how many "Thursday Surprises" did we have? Even The Media™ thought he was winning. Ultimately he did not. But could he ever hope to win another client if he was known for intentionally throwing trials and landing his clients on Death Row as part of some strategy? Would YOU hire him?

And as much as I dislike him, I do not feel he is incompetent. His strategy did not work, but he was hired BY his client to carry out the wishes OF his client. Scott could have Mark to put Scott on the stand, and Mark could have asked to be replaced rather than do it, for instance.

:beer: :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

:lol: Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone, but I thought this was funny too - and clever! Files/Flies


I agree, but this is not the theory the prosecution presented. This is not what they argued happened and asked the jury to believe. And I'm not saying there were insects consuming the body. The basis of my point was that activity COULD have begun and would make it more of a riskfor Scott to be so casual about his activities. I would think his priority would be to get rid of the body ASAP!!!

I agree. Anyone with a body on their hands would want to get rid of the body ASAP.;)

Getting rid of the body would be top priority for the fictional characters you say abducted Laci.
That same feeling of urgency wouldn't allow them to wait four months to plant severely decomposed bodies on two different shores of the SF Bay.

[attorneywan2be]

Mark Geragos has done quite well financially as an attorney. The thought that he would spike one of his clients to lay the groundwork for IAC is just not credible.

Snip



Where did I say MG did that to lay the groundwork for IAC? please don't put words in my mouth...thank you

IMO, Mark Geragos goofed..he did a horrible job representing Scott...Scott's appellate attorneys will most likely use it as an appeal issue....

[adnoid]

Where did I say MG did that to lay the groundwork for IAC? please don't put words in my mouth...thank you

IMO, Mark Geragos goofed..he did a horrible job representing Scott...Scott's appellate attorneys will most likely use it as an appeal issue....

I did not intend to, nor do I wish to, put anything into your mouth. I was making a point that he would NOT do so, therefore if he did do so it was due to incompetence. I then made the argument that he is not incompetent. My conclusion is that his client was found guilty because he did it, and the appeals court(s) will feel the same way.

You snipped most of my post - any comments on that part? I think more substance was in the part you snipped than the part you quoted and responded to.

[Lavindar]

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..

Nor did they say she was wrapped in a tarp. what happened to the missing rope that had been cut from the role in storage? I do not think it is any stretch of the imagination to believe that the anchors became detached when her limbs disarticulated and are buried deep in the silt of San Francisco Bay.

[frydaddy]

I did not intend to, nor do I wish to, put anything into your mouth. I was making a point that he would NOT do so, therefore if he did do so it was due to incompetence. I then made the argument that he is not incompetent. My conclusion is that his client was found guilty because he did it, and the appeals court(s) will feel the same way.

You snipped most of my post - any comments on that part? I think more substance was in the part you snipped than the part you quoted and responded to.

I've come to the conclusion that it is critical for advocates to ignore all common sense analysis that is unfavorable to Scott, as if it never occured or existed. It's an odd phenomenon, IMO!

[Lavindar]

Where did I say MG did that to lay the groundwork for IAC? please don't put words in my mouth...thank you

IMO, Mark Geragos goofed..he did a horrible job representing Scott...Scott's appellate attorneys will most likely use it as an appeal issue....

Mark Garegos said on LKL that he would NOT be upset if they went for IAC against him - that, to me, was a flag for them to do just that. He was there for the trial; he cross-examined witnesses; he hired experts. Just where was he ineffective. IAC is a tough thing to prove. Attys have sat at the table and done nothing and still appeal is not granted for IAC

[TopGunner]

I did not intend to, nor do I wish to, put anything into your mouth. I was making a point that he would NOT do so, therefore if he did do so it was due to incompetence. I then made the argument that he is not incompetent. My conclusion is that his client was found guilty because he did it, and the appeals court(s) will feel the same way.

You snipped most of my post - any comments on that part? I think more substance was in the part you snipped than the part you quoted and responded to.



Adnoid, I have observed that snipping/ommitting is quite common here overall, and I too would like to know why? :no:

[Otter]

Adnoid, I have observed that snipping/ommitting is quite common here overall, and I too would like to know why? :no:


I don't know TG. Maybe:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j269/raystanford/smallJackNicholson_RSSize401x641.jpg

I don't know how to hide the link like adnoid and FD do. :-(

[Lavindar]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the witnesses to be exact about the time they saw Laci..I don't think they looked at their watches when they saw her...so IMO, they could be off anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour depending on how organized that person is and how good is their memory..

From Dalton's book (I didn't read his book.. but those are excerpts quoted by a poster on another board)

Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma.
Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.


Just because Martha Aguilar went to the same physician GROUP that Laci went to does not mean that she KNEW Laci. Her time line is also off by as Scott was still home at 9:45. SHe also saw Laci a mile in the wrong directions - i.e., SW and the Park was N. I would imagine that Hera Medical Group had many pregnant women. I wonder how many of them "knew" Laci.

I have read Dalton. His book is full of major lies and innuendo. He is obsessed with the Church of Satan which he says started in Berkeley which is coincidentally where Laci was found. The Church of Satan was started in 1966 in San Francisco

http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

He also tried to link this case to a multiple murder in Salida that occured some 25+ years ago and the perps in that case are still in prison. Are you also aware that Dalton tried to steal Peterson from Geragos and take him to a "nicer" firm in LA with nicer conference rooms. Oh yes, and Dalton would also be hired on by that company. He is a liar. He is also highly unethical and does not check his facts.

I believe he also says in his book that Amy went and had pizza at the house the 23rd which is not true. He also claims conner was cremated - he was not. His little body was buried in the same casket with his mother. I read Dalton's book. I can tear him apart practically word for word. He is another whiner. He whines that the defense did not depose Vivian Mitchell. Her allegedly siting occured when she was 79. Did Dalton think she would live forever? She died a year after he talked to her yet he never thought it necessary to do that deposition before she died in 2004.

Dalton was another publicity hound who wanted to line his pockets from this case. Perfect example is his standing in the yard at Covena screaming for someone to call the police, while he is holding a cell phone. Don't even talk Dalton to me.

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

The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar spotted her.[/B] Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk and she and the dog walked around them.
When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince the police.
There are no pharmacies on the way to the park. Again, he saw a dog walker a mile SE of a park that was N.

Since you want to be an attorney you must KNOW that witness testimony is the most unreliable. I am not an attorney but I can discredit them. You have to think critically. There were other dog walkers in that neighborhood who DID walk in the area where these witnesses saw someone they THOUGHT was Laci. It could not have been unless she was a marathon walker. Scott was still in the area at 10:08 as Synopsis made me point out. These people saw her in a very short time frame and a good distance from where she was going. I believe her pattern was to go North into the park, walk about a mile round trip and return home. Her pattern was NOT to walk a mile in the opposite direction in a time span of less than 12 minutes, then turn around and walk UPHILL home. Yes, it's a slight incline, not good for speed walking when you are very pregnant. Not to mention there are no bathrooms for a pregnant woman to make a pit stop in the direction these witnesses saw her.

[Lavindar]

I've come to the conclusion that it is critical for advocates to ignore all common sense analysis that is unfavorable to Scott, as if it never occured or existed. It's an odd phenomenon, IMO!
I agree

also imo

[attorneywan2be]

I did not intend to, nor do I wish to, put anything into your mouth. I was making a point that he would NOT do so, therefore if he did do so it was due to incompetence. I then made the argument that he is not incompetent. My conclusion is that his client was found guilty because he did it, and the appeals court(s) will feel the same way.

You snipped most of my post - any comments on that part? I think more substance was in the part you snipped than the part you quoted and responded to.

I strongly believe that Scott is innocent, I also believe that there was ZERO evidence he committed the murder..so my conclusion is that MG did a horrible job representing Scott..! An example of a poor strategy..he was all over the place as to who else could have done it..he pointed the finger at Kim McGregor..at Amber..at the burglars..at the homeless..at the sex offenders ...IMO, that was foolish, the jury probably figured that he was taking them for a ride....they wouldn't know what to believe..however, he should have been reasonable and focused on one theory and backed it up with evidence....for example, "the burglars abducted Laci"...I realize the burden of proof is on the prosecution.. the defense doesn't have to present a case..however, given the high profile status of this case and the media's bad publicity about Scott/ the affair etc BEFORE and DURING the trial.....he should have realized that it is an uphill battle and he definitely needed to present a strong case...that is my opinion...

[attorneywan2be]

Just because Martha Aguilar went to the same physician GROUP that Laci went to does not mean that she KNEW Laci. .

Snip



In addition, Martha Aguilar was also Laci's neighbor..she lived on Covena ave..so IMO, she would recognize Laci...

[Lavindar]

I strongly believe that Scott is innocent, I also believe that there was ZERO evidence he committed the murder..so my conclusion is that MG did a horrible job representing Scott..! An example of a poor strategy..he was all over the place as to who else could have done it..he pointed the finger at Kim McGregor..at Amber..at the burglars..at the homeless..at the sex offenders ...IMO, that was foolish, the jury probably figured that he was taking them for a ride....they wouldn't know what to believe..however, he should have been reasonable and focused on one theory and backed it up with evidence....for example, "the burglars abducted Laci"...I realize the burden of proof is on the prosecution.. the defense doesn't have to present a case..however, given the high profile status of this case and the media's bad publicity about Scott/ the affair etc BEFORE and DURING the trial.....he should have realized that it is an uphill battle and he definitely needed to present a strong case...that is my opinion...

That old "toss everything on the wall and see what sticks" didn't work out too well for him, did it?

[adnoid]

...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...

Never let it be said I leave a point unaddressed. That would be rude.

Space #679 is a 5' x 10' unit with an exterior door. No link, but if anyone wants to verify this information the facility's phone number is 209-529-0252.

It is very difficult to fit a 14 foot boat into such a space. However, if it would point to Scott's innocence, then I'm sure that's what he did. :rolleyes:

A special tip of the Adnoid fedora to my source on the ground in Modesto!

[Lavindar]

In addition, Martha Aguilar was also Laci's neighbor..she lived on Covena ave..so IMO, she would recognize Laci...

Yes, she lived 3 Blocks south from Laci. I do not know anyone who lives that far away from me. In addition, Martha was closer to Laci's mother's age than Laci's. I can see two pregnant women in a waiting room gabbing to each other about their pregnancies. But I find her KNOWING Laci to be a stretch of the imagination. I certainly doubt that she was good buddies with her to recognize her a mile away from her home. There are many women who are short with dark hair in Modesto.

Who said she went to the same OB/GYN? The only source for that is Dalton. At her age, she would only go once a year for a pap and odds of her running into Laci were slim to none

[adnoid]

...MG did a horrible job representing Scott..! An example of a poor strategy..he was all over the place as to who else could have done it..he pointed the finger at Kim McGregor..at Amber..at the burglars..at the homeless..at the sex offenders ...IMO, that was foolish, the jury probably figured that he was taking them for a ride...

Why would the jury think that - he didn't do any of those things in the courtroom?

[frydaddy]

Never let it be said I leave a point unaddressed. That would be rude.

Space #679 is a 5' x 10' unit with an exterior door. No link, but if anyone wants to verify this information the facility's phone number is 209-529-0252.

It is very difficult to fit a 14 foot bot into such a space. However, if it would point to Scott's innocence, then I'm sure that's what he did. :rolleyes:

A special tip of the Adnoid fedora to my source on the ground in Modesto!

Thanks for the info...and a salute also to your source on the ground! :patriot:

[frydaddy]

Yes, she lived 3 Blocks south from Laci. I do not know anyone who lives that far away from me. In addition, Martha was closer to Laci's mother's age than Laci's. I can see two pregnant women in a waiting room gabbing to each other about their pregnancies. But I find her KNOWING Laci to be a stretch of the imagination. I certainly doubt that she was good buddies with her to recognize her a mile away from her home. There are many women who are short with dark hair in Modesto.

No question that "neighbor" is a huge stretch of assumption, as is the opinion that she'd recognize Laci.

[adnoid]

No question that "neighbor" is a huge stretch of assumption, as is the opinion that she'd recognize Laci.

Exactly. I've got folks I live across the street from that I once totally failed to recognize in the market!

[JustMyOpinion]

I strongly believe that Scott is innocent, I also believe that there was ZERO evidence he committed the murder..so my conclusion is that MG did a horrible job representing Scott..! ...

I don't understand your logic. Based on reading many posts authored by you on this board, it appears to me you believe Scott is innocent, THEREFORE, you conclude the jury was biased, the Judge was incompetent, Geragos did a horrible job, and you continue to say there was ZERO evidence, (when it's quite evident to everyone that the State brought forward a signficant amount of circumstantial evidence over 19 weeks of their CIC.)
YET, with NO actual evidence brought forward at trial by the defense which supports your own theory.. you believe BURGLARS kidnapped LACI, passed her off to others, they held her against her will, performed a crude cesarean section, kept her body in a bathtub, kept the baby in some other protected/flud/sterile environment, then people planted bodies in two different places in order to frame Scott Peterson.
Scott had motive, opportunity, access, means of disposal, he admitted he was in Berkeley with a boat on the day he reported them missing, one concrete anchor was in evidence, and pregnant women are frequently the victim of homicide by intimate partner. At least two of the triggers commonly found in spousal homicide were present in the Peterson marriage ( an affair.. a pregnancy).
For "burglars" to kidnap a pregnant woman, pass her off to accomplices, ( who ignore a 500K reward).. who then murder this innocent woman and murder her baby.., store decomposing bodies over time, drive 90 miles to a location that is under survelliance to "plant' bodies would require a conspiracy, complicity among several, a willing to take huge risks, depraved indifference to human life, and a tremendous hatred for SCOTT PETERSON, IMO. Yet..you think these alleged perpetrators just randomly decided to do all of this, is that right?

[Lavindar]

No question that "neighbor" is a huge stretch of assumption, as is the opinion that she'd recognize Laci. Also Aguilar was in a car, so I can only hope she was paying attention to the road instead of the pedistrians. Again she was a mile SE from the park where Laci walked the dog.


The only source to Martha "knowing" laci because they went to the same doctor" was Dalton. I am looking for another source that is not so biased. Maybe I should ask that ground source in Modesto to call or drive by.

[ekg]

Please reread the testimony. Scott told Brocchini that he and Laci had watched Martha Stewart and something about meringue. Martha Stewart only mentioned meringue at one point in her show on that day (thank you Mark Geragos) and that was at 9:48am - proving that either Scott lied, or he was still at the house at 9:48.

The value of "laci being on the computer" would only have been important if she was on the computer when he was not home. He was still home at 8"40 and was not driving around at all. Please tell me what insects thrive at 41 degrees fahrenheit. We don't have a problem with insects in the winter, do you?

about the meringue


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



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




45. He ordered -- received and viewed it. The meringue segment is included on December 23rd, but is not mentioned on December 24. Can you play the December 24 segment?



46. MR. GERAGOS: I played it twice just to make sure Modesto PD could hear it this time.



47. Now, the fact of the matter is, that was the basis for the search warrant to put in the trackers, and to tap his phones, because he has lied about the meringue. Somebody -- and it was Brocchini -- had said that he watched the tape. It mentioned nothing about meringue either. Meringue was the 23rd.



48. By the way, you will see the 23rd there is a segment on meringue on the 23rd also. But this guy just went through, blatantly refused to listen or watch the tape, or something more sinister, and puts in -- and Jacobson puts that into a search warrant affidavit that he swears under penalty of perjury to give to a judge to incriminate my client.

I remember that....I didn't remember MPD lied about it tho to get the wiretaps..

so here's another thing Scott told the truth about....

this is completely non-sequitur I know... I don't even know why I looked at this part of the TS...... but, it shows something else besides MPD propagandizing about Scott....It shows(again-another puzzle piece) that early on they suspected him... they suspected him so much they were willing to falsify a sworn affidavit for the wiretaps. .. or more correctly, willing to make false claims to someone else so he could get swear out the affidavit...

so my long drawn out question is..... how are the wiretaps still admissible when they were ordered on false information?

[Lavindar]

I don't understand your logic. Based on reading many posts authored by you on this board, it appears to me you believe Scott is innocent, THEREFORE, you conclude the jury was biased, the Judge was incompetent, Geragos did a horrible job, and you continue to say there was ZERO evidence, (when it's quite evident to everyone that the State brought forward a signficant amount of circumstantial evidence over 19 weeks of their CIC.)
YET, with NO actual evidence brought forward at trial by the defense which supports your own theory.. you believe BURGLARS kidnapped LACI, passed her off to others, they held her against her will, performed a crude cesarean section, kept her body in a bathtub, kept the baby in some other protected/flud/sterile environment, then people planted bodies in two different places in order to frame Scott Peterson.
Scott had motive, opportunity, access, means of disposal, he admitted he was in Berkeley with a boat on the day he reported them missing, one concrete anchor was in evidence, and pregnant women are frequently the victim of homicide by intimate partner. At least two of the triggers commonly found in spousal homicide were present in the Peterson marriage ( an affair.. a pregnancy).
For "burglars" to kidnap a pregnant woman, pass her off to accomplices, ( who ignore a 500K reward).. who then murder this innocent woman and murder her baby.., store decomposing bodies over time, drive 90 miles to a location that is under survelliance to "plant' bodies would require a conspiracy, complicity among several, a willing to take huge risks, depraved indifference to human life, and a tremendous hatred for SCOTT PETERSON, IMO. Yet..you think these alleged perpetrators just randomly decided to do all of this, is that right?

The word "reasonable" comes to mind. Burglars with no history of violence kidnap and stash a woman? The don't have a car yet drive 90 miles to dispose of a body. Why didn't they just dump her in an orchard? That night. Oh, that's right. They had to frame a man they didn't know and had no motive to frame. Hey it just gets wilder and wilder.

[frydaddy]

I don't understand your logic. Based on reading many posts authored by you on this board, it appears to me you believe Scott is innocent, THEREFORE, you conclude the jury was biased, the Judge was incompetent, Geragos did a horrible job, and you continue to say there was ZERO evidence, (when it's quite evident to everyone that the State brought forward a signficant amount of circumstantial evidence over 19 weeks of their CIC.)
YET, with NO actual evidence brought forward at trial by the defense which supports your own theory.. you believe BURGLARS kidnapped LACI, passed her off to others, they held her against her will, performed a crude cesarean section, kept her body in a bathtub, kept the baby in some other protected/flud/sterile environment, then people planted bodies in two different places in order to frame Scott Peterson.
Scott had motive, opportunity, access, means of disposal, he admitted he was in Berkeley with a boat on the day he reported them missing, one concrete anchor was in evidence, and pregnant women are frequently the victim of homicide by intimate partner. At least two of the triggers commonly found in spousal homicide were present in the Peterson marriage ( an affair.. a pregnancy).
For "burglars" to kidnap a pregnant woman, pass her off to accomplices, ( who ignore a 500K reward).. who then murder this innocent woman and murder her baby.., store decomposing bodies over time, drive 90 miles to a location that is under survelliance to "plant' bodies would require a conspiracy, complicity among several, a willing to take huge risks, depraved indifference to human life, and a tremendous hatred for SCOTT PETERSON, IMO. Yet..you think these alleged perpetrators just randomly decided to do all of this, is that right?

It's mind-boggling, isn't it?

[adnoid]

...YET, with NO actual evidence brought forward at trial by the defense which supports your own theory.. you believe BURGLARS kidnapped LACI, passed her off to others, they held her against her will, performed a crude cesarean section, kept her body in a bathtub, kept the baby in some other protected/flud/sterile environment, then people planted bodies in two different places in order to frame Scott Peterson....For "burglars" to kidnap a pregnant woman, pass her off to accomplices, ( who ignore a 500K reward).. who then murder this innocent woman and murder her baby.., store decomposing bodies over time, drive 90 miles to a location that is under survelliance to "plant' bodies would require a conspiracy, complicity among several, a willing to take huge risks, depraved indifference to human life, and a tremendous hatred for SCOTT PETERSON, IMO. Yet..you think these alleged perpetrators just randomly decided to do all of this, is that right?

Remember, too - by early January the burglars had GONE TO THE POLICE and fessed up - and they were IN CUSTODY! How did they get the DSSs to do their bidding at that point - and why did they do so, with the burglars in custody and the $500K out there waiting to be grabbed by the first one that squealed?

It defies logic without some other reason being provided for the people allegedly involved to act this way, never mind the point that these people (the DSSs) have never been identified.

[frydaddy]

Also Aguilar was in a car, so I can only hope she was paying attention to the road instead of the pedistrians. Again she was a mile SE from the park where Laci walked the dog.


The only source to Martha "knowing" laci because they went to the same doctor" was Dalton. I am looking for another source that is not so biased. Maybe I should ask that ground source in Modesto to call or drive by.

See, this was my point with my windy post from earlier. You get that people don't ordinarily pick up details when driving, yet three separate people supposedly did just that. Adnoid didn't notice a neighbor in the store, yet six of seven people could tell it was Laci and McKenzie from decent distances on their first and only sighting. And the seventh went from someone who shared the same physician and lived three blocks away to best friends. Even if the timeline fit, even if we were to believe Laci was going on a two mile hike that day, the witness input still makes virtually no sense.

Having said that...once again, there is silence on the issue of the Laci sightings. I suppose a few people unfamiliar with the case might pick up Dalton's book and think he's credible and want to support Scott. But for those capable of independent thought and research, it won't fly for a full minute. Even Dalton seemed to wilt under the pressure of the interviews, IIRC.

[adnoid]

...Even Dalton seemed to wilt under the pressure of the interviews, IIRC.

Ah yes, Mr. Dalton. The unimpeachable Dalton, who described Scott and Al sitting on the front porch of Scott & Laci's house, talking. Unfortunately, I have been by the house myself, and just got confirmation from my source in Modesto, that the house HAS NO FRONT PORCH for them to sit on.

But Dalton supports Scott, so he must be right. I guess the DSSs stole the porch and "placed" it on the shore of the Salton Sea or something.

[Hey Paula]

See, this was my point with my windy post from earlier. You get that people don't ordinarily pick up details when driving, yet three separate people supposedly did just that. Adnoid didn't notice a neighbor in the store, yet six of seven people could tell it was Laci and McKenzie from decent distances on their first and only sighting. And the seventh went from someone who shared the same physician and lived three blocks away to best friends. Even if the timeline fit, even if we were to believe Laci was going on a two mile hike that day, the witness input still makes virtually no sense.

Having said that...once again, there is silence on the issue of the Laci sightings. I suppose a few people unfamiliar with the case might pick up Dalton's book and think he's credible and want to support Scott. But for those capable of independent thought and research, it won't fly for a full minute. Even Dalton seemed to wilt under the pressure of the interviews, IIRC.

Hi FD!

The Scott Peterson Appeal website, which is run by the family, contains a link to the Geragos and Geragos website. If MG failed to call credible witnesses, whose tesitimony could not be refuted, not only would the family website not link to G&G, but they would have already sued MG for malpractice.

IMO

http://scottpetersonappeal.org/id22.html (See "Other Links", last listed).

[PsychNurse;~)]

I strongly believe that Scott is innocent, I also believe that there was ZERO evidence he committed the murder..so my conclusion is that MG did a horrible job representing Scott..! An example of a poor strategy..he was all over the place as to who else could have done it..he pointed the finger at Kim McGregor..at Amber..at the burglars..at the homeless..at the sex offenders ...IMO, that was foolish, the jury probably figured that he was taking them for a ride....they wouldn't know what to believe..however, he should have been reasonable and focused on one theory and backed it up with evidence....for example, "the burglars abducted Laci"...I realize the burden of proof is on the prosecution.. the defense doesn't have to present a case..however, given the high profile status of this case and the media's bad publicity about Scott/ the affair etc BEFORE and DURING the trial.....he should have realized that it is an uphill battle and he definitely needed to present a strong case...that is my opinion...

i agree geragos' 'throw plenty of spaghetti on the walls to see if any sticks' method of defending this case was terrible. i'm seriously doubtful that it will meet the requirements for iac.

imo he had to attempt something because the reality is that there was plenty of ce to justify isp's convictions. however he should have picked one strategy and stuck with it.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

In addition, Martha Aguilar was also Laci's neighbor..she lived on Covena ave..so IMO, she would recognize Laci...

maybe i'm the exception to the rule, but unless you live within 3 houses of me in either direction on either side, i'm not going to recognize you. iirc martha aguilar lived quite a distance from laci.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

about the meringue







I remember that....I didn't remember MPD lied about it tho to get the wiretaps..

so here's another thing Scott told the truth about....

this is completely non-sequitur I know... I don't even know why I looked at this part of the TS...... but, it shows something else besides MPD propagandizing about Scott....It shows(again-another puzzle piece) that early on they suspected him... they suspected him so much they were willing to falsify a sworn affidavit for the wiretaps. .. or more correctly, willing to make false claims to someone else so he could get swear out the affidavit...

so my long drawn out question is..... how are the wiretaps still admissible when they were ordered on false information?

can you refresh my memory on this? was there an actual segment on meringue that day (the 24th) or was something just mentioned in passing on her show?

tia.

cyn

[frydaddy]

about the meringue







I remember that....I didn't remember MPD lied about it tho to get the wiretaps..

so here's another thing Scott told the truth about....

this is completely non-sequitur I know... I don't even know why I looked at this part of the TS...... but, it shows something else besides MPD propagandizing about Scott....It shows(again-another puzzle piece) that early on they suspected him... they suspected him so much they were willing to falsify a sworn affidavit for the wiretaps. .. or more correctly, willing to make false claims to someone else so he could get swear out the affidavit...

so my long drawn out question is..... how are the wiretaps still admissible when they were ordered on false information?

Can you provide the context for the transcripts you posted? I know lines 45-48 were MG's opening statement, but only because I got lucky in searching for it. It's a little difficult to determine who is talking without some context. TIA!

Also, do you have any information that the wiretaps were approved solely because of the Brocchini/meringue issue, other than MG's commentary in his open? Also TIA!

[adnoid]

...The Scott Peterson Appeal website, which is run by the family, contains a link to the Geragos and Geragos website...

If anyone believes what's posted on that site, I've got some lovely silicone rubber bracelets to sell you...

[Lavindar]

maybe i'm the exception to the rule, but unless you live within 3 houses of me in either direction on either side, i'm not going to recognize you. iirc martha aguilar lived quite a distance from laci.

cyn
Laci lived at 523 Covena. Martha lived at 215 - by my calculations, that's 3 blocks. I only knew people that far away if my kids were friends with their kids. Since Laci didn't have that connection and Martha was old for child-bearing, I can't see a connection.

I think all the witnesses were just "trying to be helpful." THere's usully a rush in a big trial to be a "hero" and maybe they all thought they really did see Laci that morning, when in reality they saw one of the other dog walkers.

[Lavindar]

If anyone believes what's posted on that site, I've got some lovely silicone rubber bracelets to sell you...
Do they have beads on them? Paris might like them.

[adnoid]

...I know lines 45-48 were MG's opening statement...

Which, of course, is NOT evidence.

[adnoid]

Do they have beads on them? Paris might like them.

Not as far as I can tell... (http://web.archive.org/web/20060131025643/www.4-justice.com/MelAwarBrac.html)

[Lavindar]

Can you provide the context for the transcripts you posted? I know lines 45-48 were MG's opening statement, but only because I got lucky in searching for it. It's a little difficult to determine who is talking without some context. TIA!

Also, do you have any information that the wiretaps were approved solely because of the Brocchini/meringue issue, other than MG's commentary in his open? Also TIA!


I believe those records are sealed. I know that Judge Delucchi refused to subpoena Judge Ladine to give his reasoning - good thing, cuz Ladine had a heart attack and died on the bench. I would be you money that they got the wire taps because of his affair more than anything. There is so much we do NOT know. We only have Mark Geragos's word for it. And if that is from his opening statement, it's not allowed to be considered testimony. I can copy his opening and send it to you if you want.

[Lavindar]

Judge's instructions to jurors:

[B]5) Judge Delucchi: Okay. What I am going to do this morning, I'm going to pre-instruct you with respect to certain issues during this trial that you would be called on to resolve. And you will hear these all over again. These are only part of the instructions, but they are very important. And I wanted to instruct you now about some of the evidence that you are going to hear first of all. Members and alternate members of the jury, you have been selected and sworn as jurors and alternate jurors. I shall now instruct you as to your basic functions, duties, and conduct. At the conclusion of the case I will give you further instructions on the law.
All of the Court's instructions, whether given before, during or after the taking of testimony are of equal importance. You must base the decision you make on the facts and the law.
First, you must determine the facts from the evidence received in the trial, and not from any other source. A fact is something proved by the evidence or by a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement between the attorneys regarding the facts.
Second, you must apply the law that I state to you to the facts as you determine them, and in this way arrive at your verdict and any finding you are instructed to include in your verdict. You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you regardless of whether you agree with it or not. If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments or at any other time during the trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions.
You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.
During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.
Statements made by the attorneys during the trial are not evidence. However, if the attorneys stipulate or agree to a fact, you must regard that fact as proven as to the party or parties making the stipulation.
If an objection is sustained to a question, do not guess what the answer might have been. Do not speculate as to the reason for the objection. Do not assume to be true any insinuation suggested by a question asked a witness. A question is not evidence, and may be considered only as it helps you understand the answer.
Do not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that is rejected, or any evidence that is stricken by the Court. Treat it as though you had never heard it.
You must not independently investigate the facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference works or persons for additional information.
You must not converse among yourselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial except when all the following conditions exist:
A) the case has been submitted to you for your decision by the Court following arguments by counsel and jury instructions;
B) you are discussing the case with a fellow juror; and,
C) all twelve jurors and no other persons are present in the jury deliberating room.
You must not read or listen to any accounts or discussions of the case reported by the newspapers or other news media, including radio, television, internet, or any other electronic source.
You have been given notebooks and pencils. Leave them on your seat when you leave each day and at each recess. You will be able to take them into the jury room when you deliberate. A word of caution. You may take notes. However, you should not permit note taking to distract you from the ongoing proceedings. Remember, you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses. Notes are only an aid to memory, and should not take precedence over recollection. A juror who does not take notes should rely on his or her recollection of the evidence and not be influenced by the fact that other jurors do take notes. Notes are for the note taker's own personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence. Should a discrepancy exist between a juror's recollection of the evidence and a juror's notes, or between a juror's recollection and that of another, you have a right to and may request that the reporter read back the relevant testimony, which must prevail.
You will be permitted to separate at recesses. You must return following recesses at such time as I instruct. During recesses you must not discuss with anyone any subject connected with this trial.
As for the alternate jurors, you are bound by all of those admonitions. You must not converse among yourselves, or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion upon it until the case is submitted to you, which means until such time as you are substituted in for one of the twelve jurors and begin deliberating on this case. This means that you must not decide how you would vote if you were deliberating with the other jurors, and that you must not form or express an opinion about this case unless and until you have been substituted in as a juror in this case.
You must not visit or view the premises or place where the crime or crimes charged were allegedly committed, or any other premises or place mentioned or involved in this case.
During the course of this trial, and before you begin your deliberations, you must keep an open mind on this case and upon all of the issues that you will be asked to decide. In other words, you must not form or express any opinion on this case until the matter is finally submitted to you.
Before and within ninety days of your discharge as a juror in this matter, you must not request, accept, agree to accept, or discuss with any person receiving or accepting any payment or benefit in consideration for supplying any information concerning the trial.
You must promptly report to the Court any incidents within your knowledge involving an attempt by any person either to improperly influence any member of the jury, or to tell a juror his or her view of the evidence of the case.
At this time the lawyers will be permitted to make an opening statement if they choose to do. An opening statement is not evidence; neither is it an argument. Counsel are not permitted to argue the case at this point in the proceedings. An opening statement is simply an outline of what he or she believes or expects the evidence will show in this trial. Its sole purpose to assist you in understanding the case as it is presented to you.
You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other source. When a witness has testified through a Certified Interpreter, you must accept the English interpretation of that testimony even if you would have translated the foreign language differently.

[Lavindar]

You must not independently investigate facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference works or persons for additional information. You must not discuss this case with any other person, including your spouse, except a fellow juror during deliberations, when all twelve jurors are together in the jury room, then only after the case is submitted to you for your decision, and only when twelve jurors are present in the jury room.
There is just a few more here. Remember when you were being voir dired we went into this issue of direct and circumstantial evidence? I'm going to instruct you on that now so you know what we're talking about. You will hear it again before we ask you to decide this case.
Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial.
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which, by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.
It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They also may be proved by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, (1) consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.
Further, each fact which is essential to meet a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.
If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appeared to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
Every person who testifies under oath or affirmation is a witness, and you are the sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness.
In determining the believability of a witness, you may consider anything that has a tendency reasonably to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness including, but not limited to, any of the following:
* The extent of the opportunity or ability of the witness to see, or hear, or otherwise become aware of any matter about which the witness testified;
* The ability of the witness to remember or to communicate any matter about which the witness has testified;
* The character and quality of that testimony;
* The demeanor and manner of the witness while testifying;
* The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive;
* The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness;
* The attitude of the witness toward this action or toward the giving of testimony;
* A statement previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony;
* And the witness's prior conviction of a felony, if any.
Discrepancies in a witness's testimony, or between a witness's testimony and that of another witness or witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that a witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common, and innocent mis-recollection is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. You should consider whether a discrepancy relates to an important matter or only to something trivial.
A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You nay reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point, unless from all the evidence you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.
You are not required to decide any issue of fact in accordance with the testimony of a number of witnesses, which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a lesser number, or other evidence, which you find more convincing. You nay not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim or prejudice, or from a desire to favor one of side against the other.
You must not decide an issue by the simple process of counting the number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides. The final test is not in the relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of the evidence.
You have heard a lot about presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm going to define that for you now you. You will hear it again before you have to decide this case.
A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the people the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. That's the definition of reasonable doubt.
Okay. Now, that's the last you are going to hear from me this morning. We're going to start with the opening statements. We're going to start out with Mr. Distaso. As I told you before in these jury instructions, the opening statement is sort of a roadmap of what the attorney for either side intends to prove in this case. We'll start out with Mr. Distaso. He's estimated his opening statement will take approximately two hours. We'll have a recess in between. And then this afternoon Mr. Geragos has indicated he will be making an opening statement. We'll hear from Mr. Geragos this afternoon. [/B]

What Geragos says is NOT testimony and cannot be used to prove your point. That is the LAW

[Lavindar]

about the meringue







I remember that....I didn't remember MPD lied about it tho to get the wiretaps..

so here's another thing Scott told the truth about....

this is completely non-sequitur I know... I don't even know why I looked at this part of the TS...... but, it shows something else besides MPD propagandizing about Scott....It shows(again-another puzzle piece) that early on they suspected him... they suspected him so much they were willing to falsify a sworn affidavit for the wiretaps. .. or more correctly, willing to make false claims to someone else so he could get swear out the affidavit...

so my long drawn out question is..... how are the wiretaps still admissible when they were ordered on false information?

Please provide a link that proves they falsified information. It is NOT in the trial record - it is sealed. Do you have access to them - the Judge would lovve to know if you did. You only have what Geragos said in his opening statement and that is NOT testimony and cannot be used as such.

An opening statement is not evidence; neither is it an argument. Where is your evidence that falsified information was used? Without it, it's merely an uneducated opinion and should be stated as such.

[Lavindar]

about the meringue







I remember that....I didn't remember MPD lied about it tho to get the wiretaps..

so here's another thing Scott told the truth about....

this is completely non-sequitur I know... I don't even know why I looked at this part of the TS...... but, it shows something else besides MPD propagandizing about Scott....It shows(again-another puzzle piece) that early on they suspected him... they suspected him so much they were willing to falsify a sworn affidavit for the wiretaps. .. or more correctly, willing to make false claims to someone else so he could get swear out the affidavit...

so my long drawn out question is..... how are the wiretaps still admissible when they were ordered on false information? Please provide PROOF that they were ordered on false information.

[frydaddy]

Ah yes, Mr. Dalton. The unimpeachable Dalton, who described Scott and Al sitting on the front porch of Scott & Laci's house, talking. Unfortunately, I have been by the house myself, and just got confirmation from my source in Modesto, that the house HAS NO FRONT PORCH for them to sit on.

But Dalton supports Scott, so he must be right. I guess the DSSs stole the porch and "placed" it on the shore of the Salton Sea or something.

:lol: This post is kinda funny!

[frydaddy]

Hi FD!

The Scott Peterson Appeal website, which is run by the family, contains a link to the Geragos and Geragos website. If MG failed to call credible witnesses, whose tesitimony could not be refuted, not only would the family website not link to G&G, but they would have already sued MG for malpractice.

IMO

http://scottpetersonappeal.org/id22.html (See "Other Links", last listed).

Perhaps MG had a heart to heart with them after the trial, explaining that much as he tried, he couldn't make chicken from red herring? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

about the meringue






I remember that....I didn't remember MPD lied about it tho to get the wiretaps..

so here's another thing Scott told the truth about....

this is completely non-sequitur I know... I don't even know why I looked at this part of the TS...... but, it shows something else besides MPD propagandizing about Scott....It shows(again-another puzzle piece) that early on they suspected him... they suspected him so much they were willing to falsify a sworn affidavit for the wiretaps. .. or more correctly, willing to make false claims to someone else so he could get swear out the affidavit...

so my long drawn out question is..... how are the wiretaps still admissible when they were ordered on false information?
This is not testimony - this is an opening statement and cannot be used as fact. Learn something about the law.

[frydaddy]

Which, of course, is NOT evidence.

Actually, by now, you should know, that media excerpts, interviews, books from the fiction section, conversations between family members, opening statements, closing statements, virtually anything uttered in favor of Scott IS evidence. However, anything unfavorable is not only a rush to judgment, it's a frame, conspiracy, and is based solely on his affair. Keep up! :D

[frydaddy]

I believe those records are sealed. I know that Judge Delucchi refused to subpoena Judge Ladine to give his reasoning - good thing, cuz Ladine had a heart attack and died on the bench. I would be you money that they got the wire taps because of his affair more than anything. There is so much we do NOT know. We only have Mark Geragos's word for it. And if that is from his opening statement, it's not allowed to be considered testimony. I can copy his opening and send it to you if you want.

Thanks for the info on the sealed info! It is unnecessary to send me the trannies...I have most of it still...I just normally post who's talking or who's testifying (if it ain't obvious) when I post it. Some do not, which is NOT purposely done I'm sure. I just hope in the future, folks will indicate who's talking!

[Lavindar]

can you refresh my memory on this? was there an actual segment on meringue that day (the 24th) or was something just mentioned in passing on her show?

tia.

cyn

hope this helps:

Martha Stewart Living Television program that Scott Peterson stated Laci Peterson was watching as he left their home on the morning of December 24, 2002; program that Scott Peterson stated had something to do with meringue on the December 24, 2002 airing—a recollection that Det. Al Brocchini declared as untrue after viewing tapes of the program, but which was shown to be arguably true during the opening statement of Mark Geragos at Scott Peterson's trial when the attorney played a clip in which the word "meringue" was uttered; program that mentioned "meringue" once at approximately 9:48 a.m. on December 24, 2002, supporting Scott Peterson's alibi but also placing him at his home later than he had stated to investigators; program that included eight mentions of "meringue" on the December 23, 2002, airing; aired from 9:00–10:00 a.m.;

[adnoid]

Actually, by now, you should know, that media excerpts, interviews, books from the fiction section, conversations between family members, opening statements, closing statements, virtually anything uttered in favor of Scott IS evidence. However, anything unfavorable is not only a rush to judgment, it's a frame, conspiracy, and is based solely on his affair. Keep up! :D

You forgot how to classify what the voices in my Cheerios tell me. They say Scott was framed. That or "Scotch tape the plane", which makes more sense.

[ekg]

Can you provide the context for the transcripts you posted? I know lines 45-48 were MG's opening statement, but only because I got lucky in searching for it. It's a little difficult to determine who is talking without some context. TIA!

Also, do you have any information that the wiretaps were approved solely because of the Brocchini/meringue issue, other than MG's commentary in his open? Also TIA!


this 1st quote is RD's opening

175 pages $205.00

JUNE 1, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE





(PROCEEDINGS ARE HELD IN CAMERA COMPRISING PAGES 8405 TO

8411. TRANSCRIPT OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS ARE ORDERED SEALED

SEPARATELY PURSUANT TO CRC 243.)


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



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


the 2nd quote is from MG's opening

90 pages $120.00

JUNE 2, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE



(PROCEEDINGS HELD IN CHAMBERS COMPRISING PAGES 8585 TO 8595.

TRANSCRIPT IS SEALED SEPARATELY PURSUANT TO CRC 243)




45. He ordered -- received and viewed it. The meringue segment is included on December 23rd, but is not mentioned on December 24. Can you play the December 24 segment?



46. MR. GERAGOS: I played it twice just to make sure Modesto PD could hear it this time.



47. Now, the fact of the matter is, that was the basis for the search warrant to put in the trackers, and to tap his phones, because he has lied about the meringue. Somebody -- and it was Brocchini -- had said that he watched the tape. It mentioned nothing about meringue either. Meringue was the 23rd.



48. By the way, you will see the 23rd there is a segment on meringue on the 23rd also. But this guy just went through, blatantly refused to listen or watch the tape, or something more sinister, and puts in -- and Jacobson puts that into a search warrant affidavit that he swears under penalty of perjury to give to a judge to incriminate my client.

I guess Lavidar wants testimony to so ... so maybe this will answer both of your questions...

it's Brocchini. testimony


81 pages $111.00

JUNE 23, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE







301. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, after you prepared this report here on January 21st, you then wrote in the same report: I find it highly suspicious first that Scott Peterson would describe clothing to me that Laci was wearing on 12/24 as the same clothing she was wearing on 12/23, and you also find it suspicious that Scott Peterson would claim to be watching Martha Stewart with Laci on 12/24 while Martha Stewart was baking with meringue. And then your conclusion is there is no meringue mentioned on the show on 12/24, correct?

302. A. That's what I wrote. But I was wrong.

303. Q. Okay. You had sat down and watched this tape, correct?

304. A. I sat down and watched it.

305. Q. Okay. And you then sat down and wrote this report, correct?

306. A. I wrote this -- I probably wrote this report, sitting down.

307. Q. Right. And that was probably on -- do you know the date? It was also on the 21st, wasn't it?

308. A. No, I don't --

309. Q. The bottom there, January 21st?

310. A. Do you want me to look?

311. THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead.

312. MR. GERAGOS: Q. It looks -- says right on the bottom. You see where it says --

313. A. Yeah.

314. Q. -- you wrote 012103?

315. THE COURT: Can you see that far?

316. THE WITNESS: I can.

317. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, after that you gave the information to Investigator Jacobson, right?

318. A. Sometime after that, yeah.

319. Q. Yeah. And he filed a wiretap application, correct?

320. A. Yes, he did.

321. Q. Okay. And he -- when he files that wiretap application, he prepares an affidavit, correct?

322. A. Yes.

323. Q. And that affidavit is based upon what the detectives in the Modesto Police Department tell him are the results so far of their investigation, right?

324. A. It's based on what the detectives believe are -- what the -- what's in the investigation up to that point.

325. Q. Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that -- is that accurate?

326. A. That's accurate.

327. Q. And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?

328. A. No. Wiretap.

329. Q. Wiretap.

330. A. That's correct.

331. Q. That's correct. Now, let's go to the next. Now, this is a segment -- that was declared under penalty of perjury by Steven Jacobson, correct? As all affidavits are, right?

332. A. Yes.

333. Q. Okay. Now, this segment is from 82, I believe is the 24th?

334. THE COURT: Yes.

335. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, apparently when you watched this video, you missed that?

336. A. I missed it.

337. Q. Okay. That was something that you thought -- the absence of that was something you thought was suspicious and part of the -- what did you discuss, as the "puzzle" is the way you said it?

338. MR. DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.

339. THE COURT: No, overruled. He can answer that. You can answer that Detective.

340. THE WITNESS: Well, I thought it was suspicious that it wasn't in there, but I also think it's better that it is.


sorry for the colors.. it's just a big piece of testimony and I wanted to point out the answers to the questions I think you have...

so if the wiretap affidavit was a lie... or false if you'd rather use that word.. then how are the wiretaps still admissible?

[adnoid]

hope this helps:

Martha Stewart Living Television program that Scott Peterson stated Laci Peterson was watching as he left their home on the morning of December 24, 2002; program that Scott Peterson stated had something to do with meringue on the December 24, 2002 airing—a recollection that Det. Al Brocchini declared as untrue after viewing tapes of the program, but which was shown to be arguably true during the opening statement of Mark Geragos at Scott Peterson's trial when the attorney played a clip in which the word "meringue" was uttered; program that mentioned "meringue" once at approximately 9:48 a.m. on December 24, 2002, supporting Scott Peterson's alibi but also placing him at his home later than he had stated to investigators; program that included eight mentions of "meringue" on the December 23, 2002, airing; aired from 9:00–10:00 a.m.;

Thus reaffirming the saying "Be careful what you wish for, as you may receive it."

I love doing the colors - it's like being back in the second grade all over again!

[ekg]

I believe those records are sealed. I know that Judge Delucchi refused to subpoena Judge Ladine to give his reasoning - good thing, cuz Ladine had a heart attack and died on the bench. I would be you money that they got the wire taps because of his affair more than anything. There is so much we do NOT know. We only have Mark Geragos's word for it. And if that is from his opening statement, it's not allowed to be considered testimony. I can copy his opening and send it to you if you want.


or we have Brochinni's word.

I know... not much better but RD didn't seem to mind b/c he didn't object


325. Q. Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that -- is that accurate?

326. A. That's accurate.

327. Q. And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?

328. A. No. Wiretap.

329. Q. Wiretap.

330. A. That's correct

[ekg]

Which, of course, is NOT evidence.

you're right..... I was just using them to summarize the testimony since the other day someone asked AW2B to not post so much of a TS b/c she didn't always have time to read them all and would rather a summation... so I figured using the summation(openings statements) by both RD and MG was appropriate....next time I'll just post it all..

:seeya:

[ekg]

can you refresh my memory on this? was there an actual segment on meringue that day (the 24th) or was something just mentioned in passing on her show?

tia.

cyn


yes.... it was mentioned


RD questioning Brochinni


141 pages $171.00

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge







459. Q. On the 24th, the show on the 24th, when you originally watched the show, did -- did you see any reference to meringue?

460. A. No.

461. Q. All right. The -- when you -- have you since gone back and watched those shows again?

462. A. Yes.

463. Q. And did you find out you made a mistake?

464. A. Yes.

465. Q. What was your mistake?

466. A. That the word "meringue" was mentioned in -- on the 24th.

[ekg]

You must not independently investigate facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference works or persons for additional information. You must not discuss this case with any other person, including your spouse, except a fellow juror during deliberations, when all twelve jurors are together in the jury room, then only after the case is submitted to you for your decision, and only when twelve jurors are present in the jury room.
There is just a few more here. Remember when you were being voir dired we went into this issue of direct and circumstantial evidence? I'm going to instruct you on that now so you know what we're talking about. You will hear it again before we ask you to decide this case.
Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial.
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which, by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.
It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They also may be proved by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, (1) consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.
Further, each fact which is essential to meet a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.
If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appeared to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
Every person who testifies under oath or affirmation is a witness, and you are the sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness.
In determining the believability of a witness, you may consider anything that has a tendency reasonably to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness including, but not limited to, any of the following:
* The extent of the opportunity or ability of the witness to see, or hear, or otherwise become aware of any matter about which the witness testified;
* The ability of the witness to remember or to communicate any matter about which the witness has testified;
* The character and quality of that testimony;
* The demeanor and manner of the witness while testifying;
* The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive;
* The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness;
* The attitude of the witness toward this action or toward the giving of testimony;
* A statement previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony;
* And the witness's prior conviction of a felony, if any.
Discrepancies in a witness's testimony, or between a witness's testimony and that of another witness or witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that a witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common, and innocent mis-recollection is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. You should consider whether a discrepancy relates to an important matter or only to something trivial.
A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You nay reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point, unless from all the evidence you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.
You are not required to decide any issue of fact in accordance with the testimony of a number of witnesses, which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a lesser number, or other evidence, which you find more convincing. You nay not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim or prejudice, or from a desire to favor one of side against the other.
You must not decide an issue by the simple process of counting the number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides. The final test is not in the relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of the evidence.
You have heard a lot about presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm going to define that for you now you. You will hear it again before you have to decide this case.
A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the people the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. That's the definition of reasonable doubt.
Okay. Now, that's the last you are going to hear from me this morning. We're going to start with the opening statements. We're going to start out with Mr. Distaso. As I told you before in these jury instructions, the opening statement is sort of a roadmap of what the attorney for either side intends to prove in this case. We'll start out with Mr. Distaso. He's estimated his opening statement will take approximately two hours. We'll have a recess in between. And then this afternoon Mr. Geragos has indicated he will be making an opening statement. We'll hear from Mr. Geragos this afternoon. [/B]

What Geragos says is NOT testimony and cannot be used to prove your point. That is the LAW

yes I know what MG and RD said isn't testimony....... but since DD said

For me, it would be beneficial for you to post a synopsis or a few quoted lines and then a link to the entire testimony for anyone who is interested.
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8889941&postcount=387


I thought I was doing a favor to others who didn't have much time......and have read them before...

[Lavindar]

More of Garegos's opening statement:

The one thing that you're going to hear and that you're going to see is that there is direct evidence in this case. The direct evidence in this case specifically is of the eyewitnesses who saw her come around that day and saw her walk the dog that day. The evidence is going to show you that she was alive on December 24th when Scott went to the marina.


The jury heard NO witness evidence, Some "road map" Garegos gave, He delivered none of his promises imo. Probably because he couldn't. He tried to put a "fertility" expert on as an expert in anthropological age. He managed to implode. Witnesses were NOT intimidated by MPD - that is not how they operate.

[frydaddy]

You forgot how to classify what the voices in my Cheerios tell me. They say Scott was framed. That or "Scotch tape the plane", which makes more sense.

My bad...forgive me Fulgar...I'm new at this!

[ekg]

Please provide a link that proves they falsified information. It is NOT in the trial record - it is sealed. Do you have access to them - the Judge would lovve to know if you did. You only have what Geragos said in his opening statement and that is NOT testimony and cannot be used as such.

An opening statement is not evidence; neither is it an argument. Where is your evidence that falsified information was used? Without it, it's merely an uneducated opinion and should be stated as such.


Is Brochinni's testimony where he admits it good enough evidence to make my
'uneducated opinion' ?




81 pages $111.00

JUNE 23, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE







301. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, after you prepared this report here on January 21st, you then wrote in the same report: I find it highly suspicious first that Scott Peterson would describe clothing to me that Laci was wearing on 12/24 as the same clothing she was wearing on 12/23, and you also find it suspicious that Scott Peterson would claim to be watching Martha Stewart with Laci on 12/24 while Martha Stewart was baking with meringue. And then your conclusion is there is no meringue mentioned on the show on 12/24, correct?

302. A. That's what I wrote. But I was wrong.

303. Q. Okay. You had sat down and watched this tape, correct?

304. A. I sat down and watched it.

305. Q. Okay. And you then sat down and wrote this report, correct?

306. A. I wrote this -- I probably wrote this report, sitting down.

307. Q. Right. And that was probably on -- do you know the date? It was also on the 21st, wasn't it?

308. A. No, I don't --

309. Q. The bottom there, January 21st?

310. A. Do you want me to look?

311. THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead.

312. MR. GERAGOS: Q. It looks -- says right on the bottom. You see where it says --

313. A. Yeah.

314. Q. -- you wrote 012103?

315. THE COURT: Can you see that far?

316. THE WITNESS: I can.

317. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, after that you gave the information to Investigator Jacobson, right?

318. A. Sometime after that, yeah.

319. Q. Yeah. And he filed a wiretap application, correct?

320. A. Yes, he did.

321. Q. Okay. And he -- when he files that wiretap application, he prepares an affidavit, correct?

322. A. Yes.

323. Q. And that affidavit is based upon what the detectives in the Modesto Police Department tell him are the results so far of their investigation, right?

324. A. It's based on what the detectives believe are -- what the -- what's in the investigation up to that point.

325. Q. Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that -- is that accurate?

326. A. That's accurate.

327. Q. And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?

328. A. No. Wiretap.

329. Q. Wiretap.

330. A. That's correct.

331. Q. That's correct. Now, let's go to the next. Now, this is a segment -- that was declared under penalty of perjury by Steven Jacobson, correct? As all affidavits are, right?

332. A. Yes.

333. Q. Okay. Now, this segment is from 82, I believe is the 24th?

334. THE COURT: Yes.

335. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, apparently when you watched this video, you missed that?

336. A. I missed it.

337. Q. Okay. That was something that you thought -- the absence of that was something you thought was suspicious and part of the -- what did you discuss, as the "puzzle" is the way you said it?

338. MR. DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.

339. THE COURT: No, overruled. He can answer that. You can answer that Detective.

340. THE WITNESS: Well, I thought it was suspicious that it wasn't in there, but I also think it's better that it is.

[frydaddy]

this 1st quote is RD's opening



the 2nd quote is from MG's opening



I guess Lavidar wants testimony to so ... so maybe this will answer both of your questions...

it's Brocchini. testimony




sorry for the colors.. it's just a big piece of testimony and I wanted to point out the answers to the questions I think you have...

so if the wiretap affidavit was a lie... or false if you'd rather use that word.. then how are the wiretaps still admissible?

1. Thanks for providing context for the passages originally posted.

2. The testimony, like all other testimony, is choppy as a read. The question was whether or not you're in the know on the wording of the actual wiretap apllication and approval. Without it, one could conclude that MG got out of AB what he wanted the jury to hear, but that there may be more to the actual application, which the prosecution may have deemed irrelevant enough to let it go. I can see your point though, I'm just a bit more skeptical.

[ekg]

Please provide PROOF that they were ordered on false information.

81 pages $111.00

JUNE 23, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE







301. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, after you prepared this report here on January 21st, you then wrote in the same report: I find it highly suspicious first that Scott Peterson would describe clothing to me that Laci was wearing on 12/24 as the same clothing she was wearing on 12/23, and you also find it suspicious that Scott Peterson would claim to be watching Martha Stewart with Laci on 12/24 while Martha Stewart was baking with meringue. And then your conclusion is there is no meringue mentioned on the show on 12/24, correct?

302. A. That's what I wrote. But I was wrong.

303. Q. Okay. You had sat down and watched this tape, correct?

304. A. I sat down and watched it.

305. Q. Okay. And you then sat down and wrote this report, correct?

306. A. I wrote this -- I probably wrote this report, sitting down.

307. Q. Right. And that was probably on -- do you know the date? It was also on the 21st, wasn't it?

308. A. No, I don't --

309. Q. The bottom there, January 21st?

310. A. Do you want me to look?

311. THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead.

312. MR. GERAGOS: Q. It looks -- says right on the bottom. You see where it says --

313. A. Yeah.

314. Q. -- you wrote 012103?

315. THE COURT: Can you see that far?

316. THE WITNESS: I can.

317. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, after that you gave the information to Investigator Jacobson, right?

318. A. Sometime after that, yeah.

319. Q. Yeah. And he filed a wiretap application, correct?

320. A. Yes, he did.

321. Q. Okay. And he -- when he files that wiretap application, he prepares an affidavit, correct?

322. A. Yes.

323. Q. And that affidavit is based upon what the detectives in the Modesto Police Department tell him are the results so far of their investigation, right?

324. A. It's based on what the detectives believe are -- what the -- what's in the investigation up to that point.

325. Q. Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that -- is that accurate?

326. A. That's accurate.

327. Q. And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?

328. A. No. Wiretap.

329. Q. Wiretap.

330. A. That's correct.

331. Q. That's correct. Now, let's go to the next. Now, this is a segment -- that was declared under penalty of perjury by Steven Jacobson, correct? As all affidavits are, right?

332. A. Yes.

333. Q. Okay. Now, this segment is from 82, I believe is the 24th?

334. THE COURT: Yes.

335. MR. GERAGOS: Q. Now, apparently when you watched this video, you missed that?

336. A. I missed it.

337. Q. Okay. That was something that you thought -- the absence of that was something you thought was suspicious and part of the -- what did you discuss, as the "puzzle" is the way you said it?

338. MR. DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.

339. THE COURT: No, overruled. He can answer that. You can answer that Detective.

340. THE WITNESS: Well, I thought it was suspicious that it wasn't in there, but I also think it's better that it is.

[ekg]

This is not testimony - this is an opening statement and cannot be used as fact. Learn something about the law.


I'll do that...:seeya:

[ekg]

Actually, by now, you should know, that media excerpts, interviews, books from the fiction section, conversations between family members, opening statements, closing statements, virtually anything uttered in favor of Scott IS evidence. However, anything unfavorable is not only a rush to judgment, it's a frame, conspiracy, and is based solely on his affair. Keep up! :D


except I was talking about testimony..by summarizing it with the openings for those who don't have the time to read a lengthy TS-quote post....

thanks FD...

[ekg]

Thus reaffirming the saying "Be careful what you wish for, as you may receive it."

I love doing the colors - it's like being back in the second grade all over again!

it also reaffirm something else Scott told the truth about ..... and something MPD lied about...

[frydaddy]

except I was talking about testimony..by summarizing it with the openings for those who don't have the time to read a lengthy TS-quote post....

thanks FD...

That post, to adnoid, had zero to do with you. Sorry you took it that way! :o

[ekg]

1. Thanks for providing context for the passages originally posted.

2. The testimony, like all other testimony, is choppy as a read. The question was whether or not you're in the know on the wording of the actual wiretap apllication and approval. Without it, one could conclude that MG got out of AB what he wanted the jury to hear, but that there may be more to the actual application, which the prosecution may have deemed irrelevant enough to let it go. I can see your point though, I'm just a bit more skeptical.

normally I might agree... but this seems pretty straight forward to me..

325. Q. Okay. Now, in that, contained in that affidavit, which Investigator Jacobson swore under oath, was the following statement: During your interview with Scott Peterson, Peterson claimed he woke up on December 24th and watched Martha Stewart with Laci. According to Scott, the show aired on the date containing a segment about meringue. Detective Brocchini learned that Martha Stewart show is date sensitive as the date is broadcast as part of the program. He ordered, received and viewed the videotapes of the 23rd and the 24th. The meringue segment is included on the 23rd, but is not mentioned on the 24th. Is that -- is that accurate?

326. A. That's accurate.

327. Q. And that's what you told Jacobson so that he could swear under oath so that they could get a search warrant, correct?

328. A. No. Wiretap.

329. Q. Wiretap.

330. A. That's correct.

Brochinni wasn't afraid to get 'smarty' with MG and IMO if there had been more he would have mentioned it... and the fact that RD didn't bring it up says to me that this was the sole reason for the tap..... remember this is coming off a pretty big embarrassment in RD's opening... I think if he could have salvage something at that time by wrecking MG's implication of AB's lie he would have...

[frydaddy]

it also reaffirm something else Scott told the truth about ..... and something MPD lied about...


Correction: Something AB lied about, intentionally or unintentionally is open for debate. MPD is a collection of many people, it's not fair to lump them together. I mean, with Dalton's book, I would never say "advocates lied". Just Dalton and those who agree with his "prose"!

[frydaddy]

normally I might agree... but this seems pretty straight forward to me..



Brochinni wasn't afraid to get 'smarty' with MG and IMO if there had been more he would have mentioned it... and the fact that RD didn't bring it up says to me that this was the sole reason for the tap..... remember this is coming off a pretty big embarrassment in RD's opening... I think if he could have salvage something at that time by wrecking MG's implication of AB's lie he would have...

I know, hence my disclaimer that I see YOUR point, but in the same vain as the tipsheet, I reserve my judgment for the actual document, should I ever see it! ;)

[ekg]

That post, to adnoid, had zero to do with you. Sorry you took it that way! :o


since Adnoid's was, it was the only way I could take it........but thank you for clarifying..:)

now, I must feed the kids and hubbie before they eat me.... so if I need to reply to something I will as soon as I can.. that way Lavindar doesn't have to ask me the same question 7-8 times..

[ekg]

Correction: Something AB lied about, intentionally or unintentionally is open for debate. MPD is a collection of many people, it's not fair to lump them together. I mean, with Dalton's book, I would never say "advocates lied". Just Dalton and those who agree with his "prose"!

I can agree with that, and will edit my posts on this in the future....... Jacobson was lied to, so he didn't technically lie.

and I don't know what's allowed on here or not..... but didn't AB have some issues with shady things in other cases? I'm not accusing anyone and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look since the 10-mile thread is dead... so I'm just asking:shrug:

[TopGunner]

You forgot how to classify what the voices in my Cheerios tell me. They say Scott was framed. That or "Scotch tape the plane", which makes more sense.

Are you talkin about the Honey Nut Cheerios? Mine don't tell me anything. But they sing!

[frydaddy]

I can agree with that, and will edit my posts on this in the future....... Jacobson was lied to, so he didn't technically lie.

and I don't know what's allowed on here or not..... but didn't AB have some issues with shady things in other cases? I'm not accusing anyone and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look since the 10-mile thread is dead... so I'm just asking:shrug:


In truth, I have no idea. I know plenty was slung at ole AB, but I do not recall specifics on other cases. Two things are certain on that front...1) I'm not defending AB, but I likely differ - not on his actions, but his intent. and 2) If there was dirt from other cases, the ten mile thread would have been the place to find it. However, I would caution that not all information on that thread was factual or reliable, IMO!

Enjoy dinner!

[frydaddy]

Are you talkin about the Honey Nut Cheerios? Mine don't tell me anything. But they sing!

Saves you from having an I-Pod! :)

[Otter]

EKG, sorry you're all bent out of shape.

I feel for you, being that you're left here all alone trying to defend a double murderer. I don't know how you do it. :(

The straws are thinner all the time. Keep grasping...maybe one of your posts will make me change my mind.

Naaaah.

[Lavindar]

yes.... it was mentioned


RD questioning Brochinni

) Rick Distaso: All right. When you watched the show originally on the 24th, I mean of the -- when you watched the show of the 24th, okay, you originally watched it on the 17th, correct?
1284) Allen Brocchini: Of 2003.
1285) Rick Distaso: Did you hear any mention of meringue?
1286) Allen Brocchini: No.
1287) Rick Distaso: So what happened?
1288) Allen Brocchini: I missed the mention of meringue while I was watching the show.
1289) Rick Distaso: Did you give that information to any other officer?
1290) Allen Brocchini: Well, I wrote it in my police report and I gave it to a lot of different officers.
1291) Rick Distaso: Okay. So you documented in your reports that you had not heard a mention of meringue?
1292) Allen Brocchini: That's right.
1293) Rick Distaso: And did you also document that you heard a mention of meringue on the show on the 23rd?
1294) Allen Brocchini: Yes, I did.
1295) Rick Distaso: And you have since learned that that was a mistake?
1296) Allen Brocchini: That was a mistake.
1297) Rick Distaso: Okay. The -- that information, did you also give that information to Investigator Jacobson?
1298) Allen Brocchini: Yes, I did.
1299) Rick Distaso: And to your knowledge did he use that information as part of an affidavit that he wrote for -- for a wiretap in the case?
1300) Allen Brocchini: Yes, he did.
1301) Rick Distaso: The -- after you watched these shows and documented that information, what -- that was on the 17th of January, correct?
1302) Allen Brocchini: Yes.


You can bet Jackobsen used more than just meringue for the affidavit - like maybe the fact that Scot had a mistress.

And I have to take issue with your claim of trying to save time by reporting synopsis of things - You report non-factual synopsises. And that's the sme thing as lying in my book. Scott did NOT leave his house at 9:30 - he was still in the cell tower range at 10:08. IF you are going to summarize, please at least make it with the facts, not the innuendos of a lying attorney.

[frydaddy]

That post, to adnoid, had zero to do with you. Sorry you took it that way! :o

Just to follow up on this, I could see how you thought this was directed towards you with the OS and CS portion coming on the heels of that issue. The true target of my satire was any advocate who refuses to answer the tough questions and buys into Scott's BS hook, line, and sinker. You are not guilty of that in MY eyes. Any time I've asked you a question, you've responded. Now, if I could just get you to ask THEM the tough questions...:tongue:

[Lavindar]

normally I might agree... but this seems pretty straight forward to me..



Brochinni wasn't afraid to get 'smarty' with MG and IMO if there had been more he would have mentioned it... and the fact that RD didn't bring it up says to me that this was the sole reason for the tap..... remember this is coming off a pretty big embarrassment in RD's opening... I think if he could have salvage something at that time by wrecking MG's implication of AB's lie he would have...


Again, you miss the part where he says is was PART of what was used to get the taps, not the whole thing. And yes, Brocchini did get in troub le on another case FOR TESTIFYING TO THE TRUTH. Villify him ]all you want; he is a good man and an honorable one. Geragos is the lying snake in the grass in this case. Read his pack of lies opening statement. Stone cold innocnet my rosy red big toe
1299) Rick Distaso: And to your knowledge did he use that information as part of an affidavit that he wrote for -- for a wiretap in the case?
1300) Allen Brocchini: Yes, he did.

[adnoid]

Are you talkin about the Honey Nut Cheerios? Mine don't tell me anything...

Of course they don't. That's not what they do.

[attorneywan2be]

Why would the jury think that - he didn't do any of those things in the courtroom?

Yes, IMO, he did it in court..he asked questions regarding Kim McGregor's alibi on Dec 24th..same goes to Amber..his line of questioning suggested a connection between Kim McGregor and Amber..he also asked if hair samples were taken from Kim and Amber to compare to hair in evidence in this case..he went thru several of the sex offenders checking their alibi on Dec 24th..he also asked questions regarding the homeless..

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

The don't have a car yet drive 90 miles to dispose of a body..

Snip



According to the burglars, they had a car and they used it to transfer the safe....in addition, Diane Jackson reported a van parked in front of the Medinas and a safe being removed from their house..the police found the safe in Todd's possession..

[attorneywan2be]

Hi FD!

The Scott Peterson Appeal website, which is run by the family, contains a link to the Geragos and Geragos website. If MG failed to call credible witnesses, whose tesitimony could not be refuted, not only would the family website not link to G&G, but they would have already sued MG for malpractice.

IMO

http://scottpetersonappeal.org/id22.html (See "Other Links", last listed).

Hi Paula..

IMO, MG's failure to call the witnesses that reported seeing Laci on the 24th will be used in the appeal..I think Mark expects, understands and accepts that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

[attorneywan2be]

maybe i'm the exception to the rule, but unless you live within 3 houses of me in either direction on either side, i'm not going to recognize you. iirc martha aguilar lived quite a distance from laci.

cyn

Same here..I don't think I can recognize all neighbors that live on the same street with me..

I think I'm looking at the entire picture..1-Aguilar lived on Covena...2-Laci used to walk the dog regularly..3-both Laci and Aguilar went to the same Doctor..so IMO, based on 1+2+3 ----> chances are Aguilar would recognize Laci..

[ekg]

) snipped

And I have to take issue with your claim of trying to save time by reporting synopsis of things - You report non-factual synopsises. And that's the sme thing as lying in my book. Scott did NOT leave his house at 9:30 - he was still in the cell tower range at 10:08. IF you are going to summarize, please at least make it with the facts, not the innuendos of a lying attorney.




take issue all you want..... I already posted the quote from the person who ask for a synopsis b/c they didn't always need the entire quote b/c of time constraints//

what was non-factual about my synopsis? Did RD say meringue wasn't on that day? Did he say this b/c AB told him that? and finally, was it mentioned in the episode in question or not?

now when adnoid was on hiatus it was mentioned that we should address things on the board, that way 'we' could decide whether or not something was over the top, out of line, etc etc.......

you're calling me a liar and giving me negs for using OS as testimony... so I ask the 'others' here for comments on this.......

did DD ask that AW2B to summarize long TS quotes b/c ppl have already read them, and it made it less time consuming? Did I report a " non-factual synopsises" or lie as Lavindar calls it?

and did I mention anything about the time Scott left his house?



I don't take kindly to being called a liar.....and IMO I'm owed an apology at the very least.... but I'll let you guys decide....:shrug:

[ekg]

Just to follow up on this, I could see how you thought this was directed towards you with the OS and CS portion coming on the heels of that issue. The true target of my satire was any advocate who refuses to answer the tough questions and buys into Scott's BS hook, line, and sinker. You are not guilty of that in MY eyes. Any time I've asked you a question, you've responded. Now, if I could just get you to ask THEM the tough questions...:tongue:


Thank you again for explaining it...

and I try to answer it all.. but I know I miss alot too...:read:


:beer:

[TopGunner]

Same here..I don't think I can recognize all neighbors that live on the same street with me..

I think I'm looking at the entire picture..1-Aguilar lived on Covena...2-Laci used to walk the dog regularly..3-both Laci and Aguilar went to the same Doctor..so IMO, based on 1+2+3 ----> chances are Aguilar would recognize Laci..



If Martha Aguilar was not called to testify by ISP million dollar defense, do you believe it was because she was intimidated or because she couldn't swear under oath that it was Laci she saw? Because we all know it wasn't Laci she saw, so chances are good that she knew what we know, and chickened out.

Besides....even if she did get up on the stand and SWEAR it was Laci she saw, it wouldn't put a dent in the rest of the trial. Everyone would have assumed she was mistaken because of the volume of evidence proving she was mistaken.

And because she didn't testify is this grounds for appeal? Does it mean he's innocent? Didn't get a fair trial? I admit I shoud of scrolled back and read more, so I'm really just asking what the point is?

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

IMO, MG's failure to call the witnesses that reported seeing Laci on the 24th will be used in the appeal..I think Mark expects, understands and accepts that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

Hi AW2B!

Why do you think MG didn't call any witnesses who claimed to see Laci? What reason would MG have for not doing so, after he promised he would in his OS?

[Lavindar]

According to the burglars, they had a car and they used it to transfer the safe....in addition, Diane Jackson reported a van parked in front of the Medinas and a safe being removed from their house..the police found the safe in Todd's possession.. You are wrong. Let me find the testimony. They had to BORROW a car to move the save.


FLADAGER: How did you know Mr. Todd?

HICKS: I have known Mr. Todd for about seven years.

FLADAGER: And is that as a result of your being a police officer?

HICKS: Yes it is.

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

HICKS: He's never had a car. He's always road a bicycle



FLADAGER: Do you know what kind of car it was that Mr. Pearce was driving?

HICKS: Yes. It was a small four-door Honda.

FLADAGER: This is like a white Honda?

HICKS: A little white Honda.

FLADAGER: Is this the car that Mr. Pearce shares with his mother?

HICKS: Yes. He actually drove up in it the night we were at the house.

FLADAGER: Did Mr. Pearce tell you that after getting the safe in the car he then drove Mr. Todd back to their residence?

HICKS: Yes. Back to the 1406 Tenaya.

FLADAGER: Did he describe for you


I think it's clear that Mr. Todd did NOT have a vehicle. That is why Mr. Pearce was only charged with accessory after the fact. He only drove the vehicle

[Lavindar]

Hi AW2B!

Why do you think MG didn't call any witnesses who claimed to see Laci? What reason would MG have for not doing so, after he promised he would in his OS?

They were on the list of witnesses he intended to call.

[Hey Paula]

They were on the list of witnesses he intended to call.

I think MG knew the Pros would destroy their credibility and that was the reason why he didn't call them. IIRC, weren't some of those "defense witnesses" also on the Pros' list too?

IMO

[Lavindar]

take issue all you want..... I already posted the quote from the person who ask for a synopsis b/c they didn't always need the entire quote b/c of time constraints//

what was non-factual about my synopsis? Did RD say meringue wasn't on that day? Did he say this b/c AB told him that? and finally, was it mentioned in the episode in question or not?

now when adnoid was on hiatus it was mentioned that we should address things on the board, that way 'we' could decide whether or not something was over the top, out of line, etc etc.......

you're calling me a liar and giving me negs for using OS as testimony... so I ask the 'others' here for comments on this.......

did DD ask that AW2B to summarize long TS quotes b/c ppl have already read them, and it made it less time consuming? Did I report a " non-factual synopsises" or lie as Lavindar calls it?

and did I mention anything about the time Scott left his house?



I don't take kindly to being called a liar.....and IMO I'm owed an apology at the very least.... but I'll let you guys decide....:shrug:

That Jacobsen said that Scott got on his work computer at 10:08

I POSTED THE TESTIMONY. i THINK YOU AN FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS EVIDENCE AND WHAT WERE LIES BY A DEFENSE ATTORNEY

[attorneywan2be]

If Martha Aguilar was not called to testify by ISP million dollar defense, do you believe it was because she was intimidated or because she couldn't swear under oath that it was Laci she saw? Because we all know it wasn't Laci she saw, so chances are good that she knew what we know, and chickened out.

Besides....even if she did get up on the stand and SWEAR it was Laci she saw, it wouldn't put a dent in the rest of the trial. Everyone would have assumed she was mistaken because of the volume of evidence proving she was mistaken.

And because she didn't testify is this grounds for appeal? Does it mean he's innocent? Didn't get a fair trial? I admit I shoud of scrolled back and read more, so I'm really just asking what the point is?


"Because we all know it wasn't Laci she saw"??

How do we all know that? ..I personally believe that Laci did indeed take that walk and I also believe that she was seen by several witnesses..it is my opinion that MG's failure to call the witnesses will be part of the appeal..

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

Why do you think MG didn't call any witnesses who claimed to see Laci? What reason would MG have for not doing so, after he promised he would in his OS?


Hi Paula..

As I mentioned before, IMO, the witnesses were intimidated to testify for the defense due to the emotionally charged atmosphere against Scott in Modesto..let me say that it is pure speculation on my part, and I think MG was worried if he would compel them to testify they would be reluctant witnesses and they would not be of much help to his case..

[attorneywan2be]

You are wrong. Let me find the testimony. They had to BORROW a car to move the save.


FLADAGER: How did you know Mr. Todd?

HICKS: I have known Mr. Todd for about seven years.

FLADAGER: And is that as a result of your being a police officer?

HICKS: Yes it is.

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

HICKS: He's never had a car. He's always road a bicycle



FLADAGER: Do you know what kind of car it was that Mr. Pearce was driving?

HICKS: Yes. It was a small four-door Honda.

FLADAGER: This is like a white Honda?

HICKS: A little white Honda.

FLADAGER: Is this the car that Mr. Pearce shares with his mother?

HICKS: Yes. He actually drove up in it the night we were at the house.

FLADAGER: Did Mr. Pearce tell you that after getting the safe in the car he then drove Mr. Todd back to their residence?

HICKS: Yes. Back to the 1406 Tenaya.

FLADAGER: Did he describe for you


I think it's clear that Mr. Todd did NOT have a vehicle. That is why Mr. Pearce was only charged with accessory after the fact. He only drove the vehicle


IMO, Pearce took part in the burglary of the Medina's house..didn't I say "THEY had a car THEY used to transfer the safe" ..where did I say that Todd had a car?

[Lavindar]

hERE'S YOUR POST = I HAVE PUT IN GREEN THE ERRORS

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. she dis not testify ]Between 9:30-9:35 am Scott says he went to the warehouse office. [/Testimony showed that scott was still at home to see Martha Stewart mention meringue at 9:48am
Steven Jacobson at the Preliminary Hearing, indicates Scott used his computer from shortly after 10:08 a.m. until almost 11:00 a.m. [B] Steven Jacobsen testified that Scott was on his CELL PHONE at 10:08 for 7 minutes checking his voice mail. It was tracked by the Brighton cell tower near his home[/[B]
e14 Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just
15 ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular
16 cell phone on December 24th?
17 A. There was several calls made.
18 Q. All right. Do you know when the first call was
19 made?
20 A. The first call that you had me look into was at
21 10:08 AM.
22 Q. All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific
23 Standard Time?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using
26 at that time?
27 A. At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was
28 at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523
Covena.


and the computer activity at work was testified to by WALL, not Jacobsen.

HARRIS: What computer was that?

WALL: That would be on the Dell Work PC 4. That computer activity started at approximately 10:30 a.m., and ended at 10:56 a.m.

you have the wrong people testifying to things that they did not. THAT is mis-information.















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

[Lavindar]

hERE'S YOUR POST = I HAVE PUT IN GREEN THE ERRORS

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. she dis not testify ]Between 9:30-9:35 am Scott says he went to the warehouse office. [/Testimony showed that scott was still at home to see Martha Stewart mention meringue at 9:48am
Steven Jacobson at the Preliminary Hearing, indicates Scott used his computer from shortly after 10:08 a.m. until almost 11:00 a.m. [B] Steven Jacobsen testified that Scott was on his CELL PHONE at 10:08 for 7 minutes checking his voice mail. It was tracked by the Brighton cell tower near his home[/[B]
e14 Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just
15 ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular
16 cell phone on December 24th?
17 A. There was several calls made.
18 Q. All right. Do you know when the first call was
19 made?
20 A. The first call that you had me look into was at
21 10:08 AM.
22 Q. All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific
23 Standard Time?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using
26 at that time?
27 A. At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was
28 at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523
Covena.


and the computer activity at work was testified to by WALL, not Jacobsen.

HARRIS: What computer was that?

WALL: That would be on the Dell Work PC 4. That computer activity started at approximately 10:30 a.m., and ended at 10:56 a.m.

you have the wrong people testifying to things that they did not. THAT is mis-information.















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
Scott's ticket at the marina was closer to 1pm than noon. He could not get to Berkeley from his warehouse in an hour towing a boat and following the legal driving laws. It's almost 90 miles which means he'd have to have been driving 90 mph to get there by noon. Not likely as 580 thru the Livermore Valley is patrolled by plane and a speed trap.

[adnoid]

Yes, IMO, he did it in court..he asked questions regarding Kim McGregor's alibi on Dec 24th..same goes to Amber..his line of questioning suggested a connection between Kim McGregor and Amber..he also asked if hair samples were taken from Kim and Amber to compare to hair in evidence in this case..he went thru several of the sex offenders checking their alibi on Dec 24th..he also asked questions regarding the homeless..

So, he was expecting the jurors to use their brains and their life experiences to extrapolate from his line of questioning that these people might be suspects?

If they did that, and decided that one of those others could have been the killer, would it have been proper of them to do so during deliberations as part of the process that lead them to their verdict?

If so, would their verdict be subject to being overturned because they drew conclusions from the evidence that were not made explicitly?

[Lavindar]

hERE'S YOUR POST = I HAVE PUT IN GREEN THE ERRORS

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. she dis not testify ]Between 9:30-9:35 am Scott says he went to the warehouse office. [/Testimony showed that scott was still at home to see Martha Stewart mention meringue at 9:48am
Steven Jacobson at the Preliminary Hearing, indicates Scott used his computer from shortly after 10:08 a.m. until almost 11:00 a.m. [B] Steven Jacobsen testified that Scott was on his CELL PHONE at 10:08 for 7 minutes checking his voice mail. It was tracked by the Brighton cell tower near his home[/[B]
e14 Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just
15 ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular
16 cell phone on December 24th?
17 A. There was several calls made.
18 Q. All right. Do you know when the first call was
19 made?
20 A. The first call that you had me look into was at
21 10:08 AM.
22 Q. All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific
23 Standard Time?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using
26 at that time?
27 A. At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was
28 at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523
Covena.


and the computer activity at work was testified to by WALL, not Jacobsen.

HARRIS: What computer was that?

WALL: That would be on the Dell Work PC 4. That computer activity started at approximately 10:30 a.m., and ended at 10:56 a.m.

you have the wrong people testifying to things that they did not. THAT is mis-information.















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 Why are you ignoring the external temperature. Gasses do not built up quickly in cold weather. I believe the low during the night was 34 and the high was a chilly 48. Cold preserves.

[PsychNurse;~)]

this 1st quote is RD's opening



the 2nd quote is from MG's opening



I guess Lavidar wants testimony to so ... so maybe this will answer both of your questions...

it's Brocchini. testimony




sorry for the colors.. it's just a big piece of testimony and I wanted to point out the answers to the questions I think you have...

so if the wiretap affidavit was a lie... or false if you'd rather use that word.. then how are the wiretaps still admissible?

i'm serioiusly doubtful that the use of the word meringue one time at 9:48 am during a one hour show can be considered the same as there being a segment on meringue...

cyn

[Synopsis]

Have you forgotten about the two months the "kidnappers" held her after her death? Can't have it both ways. All this scientific bug stuff would also apply to them.

But they weren't charged with murder. My point involved the case/timeline as it applied to Scott Peterson.

[adnoid]

...now when adnoid was on hiatus it was mentioned that we should address things on the board, that way 'we' could decide whether or not something was over the top, out of line, etc etc...and IMO I'm owed an apology at the very least...

Well, since we're going to address things on the board as you pointed out, I was NOT on "hiatus", I was improperly banned due to the actions of biased forum "leaders" and their fellow traveler(s). I have received a public apology from FW, which I accepted. But if more apologies are going to be handed out, there are a couple folks in line before you. Including me.

[adnoid]

But they weren't charged with murder. My point involved the case/timeline as it applied to Scott Peterson.

So the insects would know not to do their thing on Laci's body and leave their telltale signs because the DSSs were not going to be charged? How would they know?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi Paula..

IMO, MG's failure to call the witnesses that reported seeing Laci on the 24th will be used in the appeal..I think Mark expects, understands and accepts that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

you may well be right but it's (imo) not going to be something an appeal will be won on in this case.

personally i'd LOVE to see isp win a new trial just so we could do this in full all over again.

cyn

[Lavindar]

"Because we all know it wasn't Laci she saw"??

How do we all know that? ..I personally believe that Laci did indeed take that walk and I also believe that she was seen by several witnesses..it is my opinion that MG's failure to call the witnesses will be part of the appeal..
If you believe that the witnesses saw Laci, you have to admit that Scott lied then as he said she rarely walked the city streets and never very far - considering most of these sitings were over a mile away on city streets, Scott lied to the police. If you believe Scott told the truth, none of those people could have seen laci. The pharmacy guy who saw her at 10 had to be close to Yosemite cuz there are no pharmacies nearby. Laci could sure make fast time - over a mile in 10 minutes. I don't know many non-pregnant people who walk that fast. Or Laci had to have been gone while Scott was still at home. Maldonado saw her BEFORE Scott left the house. Campos wasn't sure if she saw Laci from the BLUFF by Health Services Agency at 9:45 or 10:45/ Dalton claims she saw the white on Mac's chest (from 100 yards away above the dog. This was also about a mile farther than Laci was used to walking. She wasn't an Olympic athelete.

By the way, NONE of these people testified so their information cannot be used for an appeal unless it's "new" evidence. Dalton kinda shot the appeal through the foot with that one.

[attorneywan2be]

So, he was expecting the jurors to use their brains and their life experiences to extrapolate from his line of questioning that these people might be suspects?

If they did that, and decided that one of those others could have been the killer, would it have been proper of them to do so during deliberations as part of the process that lead them to their verdict?

If so, would their verdict be subject to being overturned because they drew conclusions from the evidence that were not made explicitly?

IMO, he pointed the finger at other people to raise reasonable doubt, I don't think he expected the jury to decide that one of those others might have done it since he didn't provide the evidence..but rather he was pointing out to the jury that there were too many unanswered questions regarding other people that were somehow connected in some fashion to the case...but I think that was a poor strategy!

[Lavindar]

you may well be right but it's (imo) not going to be something an appeal will be won on in this case.

personally i'd LOVE to see isp win a new trial just so we could do this in full all over again.

cyn

If my legal sources are correct, they cannot be. It has to be NEW evidence and this is all old hat. I would be more than happy to volunteer to interrogate these witnesses personally. I have been to the house and I know that Laci could not have made that Herculean walk. So you must accept the premise that the witnesses are right and Scott lied or Scott told the truth and the witnesses saw someone else. No one was close enough to her to see her face....period.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Scott's ticket at the marina was closer to 1pm than noon. He could not get to Berkeley from his warehouse in an hour towing a boat and following the legal driving laws. It's almost 90 miles which means he'd have to have been driving 90 mph to get there by noon. Not likely as 580 thru the Livermore Valley is patrolled by plane and a speed trap.

not to mention that he was driving in major holiday traffic that day.

cyn

[adnoid]

IMO, he pointed the finger at other people to raise reasonable doubt, I don't think he expected the jury to decide that one of those others might have done it since he didn't provide the evidence..but rather he was pointing out to the jury that there were too many unanswered questions regarding other people that were somehow connected in some fashion to the case...but I think that was a poor strategy!

OK, how about we try it this way:

Despite the fact that MG never explicitly said some other person or group COULD have committed the crimes Scott was on trial for, it would have been proper for the jury to INFER from the evidence presented and MG's arguments that one of those people/groups could have been responsible and therefore Scott was not. In other words, the jury is allowed to make such an inference using their own judgement - it is not improper.

Yes or No?

[Lavindar]

IMO, he pointed the finger at other people to raise reasonable doubt, I don't think he expected the jury to decide that one of those others might have done it since he didn't provide the evidence..but rather he was pointing out to the jury that there were too many unanswered questions regarding other people that were somehow connected in some fashion to the case...but I think that was a poor strategy! The operative word is REASONABLE. Is it reasonable to think that two bumbling burglars kidnapped her and kept her until they could somehow get her to the Bay (on Todd's bicycle, maybe) and put her in the exact spot where Scott is alleged to have put her body? Is it reasonable to think that homeless people kidnapped her and stole a car and a boat or called the Union of Homeless People in the Bay Area to come and get her and dump her in the Bay? There is no other REASONABLE scenario. Scott was the one whose time line fit and she washed ashore within a couple of miles of where Scott put himself. A couple of miles in a 500 sq mile body of water are awfully small odds. No one planted her as there was LE presence at Berkeley long before it was known that he even went to Berkeley and the dog hit on her scent at the launch ramp on the morning of the 28th so it had to be done between the time Scott was there on the 24th and the 27th yet no one knew Scott was at Bertkeley until the 11 pm news on the 27th. Not to mention that they'd have to get their hands on a boat to do it.

[PsychNurse;~)]

hERE'S YOUR POST = I HAVE PUT IN GREEN THE ERRORS

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. she dis not testify ]Between 9:30-9:35 am Scott says he went to the warehouse office. [/Testimony showed that scott was still at home to see Martha Stewart mention meringue at 9:48am
Steven Jacobson at the Preliminary Hearing, indicates Scott used his computer from shortly after 10:08 a.m. until almost 11:00 a.m. [B] Steven Jacobsen testified that Scott was on his CELL PHONE at 10:08 for 7 minutes checking his voice mail. It was tracked by the Brighton cell tower near his home[/[B]
e14 Okay. On December 24th -- well, actually, let me just
15 ask you this. How many calls were made from that particular
16 cell phone on December 24th?
17 A. There was several calls made.
18 Q. All right. Do you know when the first call was
19 made?
20 A. The first call that you had me look into was at
21 10:08 AM.
22 Q. All right. And at 10:08 AM, that's Pacific
23 Standard Time?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Where -- what cell phone tower was that phone using
26 at that time?
27 A. At the initiation of the call, the cell tower was
28 at 1250 Brighton Avenue, which services the area of 523
Covena.


and the computer activity at work was testified to by WALL, not Jacobsen.

HARRIS: What computer was that?

WALL: That would be on the Dell Work PC 4. That computer activity started at approximately 10:30 a.m., and ended at 10:56 a.m.

you have the wrong people testifying to things that they did not. THAT is mis-information.

SNIPPED FOR SPACE

i want to address the yahoo shopping site again if no one minds.

we all know that when we're searching the web (if we don't have pop ups blocked) that we'll get those little shopping windows based on what we're looking at.

i'm still convinced that weather vane showed up as a pop up based on isp's searching weather reports.

jmo

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

So, he was expecting the jurors to use their brains and their life experiences to extrapolate from his line of questioning that these people might be suspects?

If they did that, and decided that one of those others could have been the killer, would it have been proper of them to do so during deliberations as part of the process that lead them to their verdict?

If so, would their verdict be subject to being overturned because they drew conclusions from the evidence that were not made explicitly?

if the jurors found isp not guilty based on anything it's called reasonable doubt. and while a guilty verdict can be overturned, a not guilty verdict cannot be.

cyn

[Lavindar]

SNIPPED FOR SPACE

i want to address the yahoo shopping site again if no one minds.

we all know that when we're searching the web (if we don't have pop ups blocked) that we'll get those little shopping windows based on what we're looking at.

i'm still convinced that weather vane showed up as a pop up based on isp's searching weather reports.

jmo

cyn
ITA - there is nothing that says WHO was on the computer that morning. Scott's email was checked however. It would have been truly significant if someone had been on the computer after Scott left the house. Since someone was on during the time Scott was there, it's unimportant who it was.

[attorneywan2be]

If you believe that the witnesses saw Laci, you have to admit that Scott lied then as he said she rarely walked the city streets and never very far - considering most of these sitings were over a mile away on city streets, Scott lied to the police. If you believe Scott told the truth, none of those people could have seen laci. The pharmacy guy who saw her at 10 had to be close to Yosemite cuz there are no pharmacies nearby. Laci could sure make fast time - over a mile in 10 minutes. I don't know many non-pregnant people who walk that fast. Or Laci had to have been gone while Scott was still at home. Maldonado saw her BEFORE Scott left the house. Campos wasn't sure if she saw Laci from the BLUFF by Health Services Agency at 9:45 or 10:45/ Dalton claims she saw the white on Mac's chest (from 100 yards away above the dog. This was also about a mile farther than Laci was used to walking. She wasn't an Olympic athelete.

By the way, NONE of these people testified so their information cannot be used for an appeal unless it's "new" evidence. Dalton kinda shot the appeal through the foot with that one.

Mansfield testified that Scott told him that Laci normally walked a mile loop that took her 45 minutes..anyhow, I would not say that either Scott lied or the witnesses were mistaken..it's quite possible they were both right, I mean what if Laci decided to take a different route that day for some unknown reason to us? ..IMO, Scott didn't have a motive to lie about Laci's route..and I have a hard time believing that all the witnesses were mistaken..if one of them was right, that is what it takes..

I remember I had a detailed map that showed the park, the tennis court ,and the location of Laci's sightings..I can't find it..if anyone has that map please post it...thanks

As to the appeal, I'm not saying that their info would be used as evidence Laci was alive..the police reports are evidence in this case...right? IMO, they can use that info to show that Mark failed to use vital evidence that would have helped his client..

David Harris: He said it was into the park, it was up towards the tennis court, it was kind of about a mile loop that she would take?
Doug Mansfield: That's what he told me.

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

Mark Geragos: There is a path that leads into the park, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He said that she would generally go down there, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Down the path.
Mark Geragos: Half the time he said he would walk with her?
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: She would walk towards the tennis courts which are over by the parking lot, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: So if you were walking in that direction, clearly a car or vehicle would have access, or could get access to, by where the tennis courts are, because there is a parking lot?
Doug Mansfield: Because there is a parking lot.
Mark Geragos: She would walk over there, and that that generally took her about 45 minutes?
Doug Mansfield: Yes.

[attorneywan2be]

OK, how about we try it this way:

Despite the fact that MG never explicitly said some other person or group COULD have committed the crimes Scott was on trial for, it would have been proper for the jury to INFER from the evidence presented and MG's arguments that one of those people/groups could have been responsible and therefore Scott was not. In other words, the jury is allowed to make such an inference using their own judgement - it is not improper.

Yes or No?
\
No..IMO, the jury cannot speculate...no evidence was presented that someone else was responsible for Laci's murder..I think MG was raising reasonable doubt by pointing out to the jury that the police didn't do a thorough investigation and left too many unanswered questions regarding others that were connected in some fashion to the case...

[adnoid]

No..IMO, the jury cannot speculate...no evidence was presented that someone else was responsible for Laci's murder...

I agree that the jury cannot speculate, but do you believe they are allowed to infer?

[Lavindar]

Mansfield testified that Scott told him that Laci normally walked a mile loop that took her 45 minutes..anyhow, I would not say that either Scott lied or the witnesses were mistaken..it's quite possible they were both right, I mean what if Laci decided to take a different route that day for some unknown reason to us? ..IMO, Scott didn't have a motive to lie about Laci's route..and I have a hard time believing that all the witnesses were mistaken..if one of them was right, that is what it takes..

I remember I had a detailed map that showed the park, the tennis court ,and the location of Laci's sightings..I can't find it..if anyone has that map please post it...thanks

As to the appeal, I'm not saying that their info would be used as evidence Laci was alive..the police reports are evidence in this case...right? IMO, they can use that info to show that Mark failed to use vital evidence that would have helped his client..

David Harris: He said it was into the park, it was up towards the tennis court, it was kind of about a mile loop that she would take?
Doug Mansfield: That's what he told me.

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

Mark Geragos: There is a path that leads into the park, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He said that she would generally go down there, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Down the path.
Mark Geragos: Half the time he said he would walk with her?
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: She would walk towards the tennis courts which are over by the parking lot, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: So if you were walking in that direction, clearly a car or vehicle would have access, or could get access to, by where the tennis courts are, because there is a parking lot?
Doug Mansfield: Because there is a parking lot.
Mark Geragos: She would walk over there, and that that generally took her about 45 minutes?
Doug Mansfield: Yes.


A MILE LOOP IN THE PARK. The witnesses saw her a mile AWAY on the city streets(msking it a TWO MILE LOOP) within a 12 minute window from when the dog was put back in the yard. The math alone makes the witnesses out of "the loop" so to speak. She would have had to do that in about one quarter of her normal time. Do you see how ridiculous it is now? Actually, had she left right after Martha Stewart at 9:48, she would have had to make that walk in 12 minutes and still leave 18 minutes for Mac to return home. And, even more importantly, why wasn't Mac protecting her? Wasn't it testified to that Mac was VERY protective of Laci. He just stands there and lets someone take her without barking or anything. And why did no one see a dog walking around loose with a leash on. It just gets more and more implausible.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree that the jury cannot speculate, but do you believe they are allowed to infer?

Of course..they are allowed to infer..

Here is a good explanation:

Quote:

Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence
of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let me give you an example of the difference between
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

Suppose that in a trial one of the parties is trying to prove
that it was raining on a certain morning. A witness testifies that
on that morning she walked to the subway and as she walked she
saw rain falling, she felt it striking her face, and she heard it
splashing on the sidewalk. That testimony of the witness's
perceptions would be direct evidence that it rained on that
morning.

Suppose, on the other hand, the witness testified that it was
clear as she walked to the subway, that she went into the subway
and got on the train and that while she was on the train, she saw
passengers come in at one station after another carrying wet
umbrellas and wearing wet clothes and raincoats. That testimony
constitutes direct evidence of what the witness observed. And
because an inference that it was raining in the area would flow
naturally, reasonably, and logically from that direct evidence, the
witness's testimony would constitute circumstantial evidence that
it was raining in the area.

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial
evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance.
Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the
jury finds them to be.

Because circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of
inferences, I will explain the process involved in analyzing that
evidence and what you must do before you may return a verdict
of guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Initially, you must decide, on the basis of all of the evidence,
what facts, if any, have been proven. Any facts upon which an
inference of guilt can be drawn must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

After you have determined what facts, if any, have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must decide what
inferences, if any, can be drawn from those facts.

Before you may draw an inference of guilt, however, that
inference must be the only one that can fairly and reasonably be
drawn from the facts, it must be consistent with the proven facts,
and it must flow naturally, reasonably, and logically from them.

Again, it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only
one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and
that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts
consistent with the defendant's innocence, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.

If the only reasonable inference you find is that the
defendant is guilty of a charged crime, and that inference is
established beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty of that crime.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Evidence-Circumstantial.pdf

[attorneywan2be]

A MILE LOOP IN THE PARK. The witnesses saw her a mile AWAY on the city streets(msking it a TWO MILE LOOP) within a 12 minute window from when the dog was put back in the yard. The math alone makes the witnesses out of "the loop" so to speak. She would have had to do that in about one quarter of her normal time. Do you see how ridiculous it is now? Actually, had she left right after Martha Stewart at 9:48, she would have had to make that walk in 12 minutes and still leave 18 minutes for Mac to return home. And, even more importantly, why wasn't Mac protecting her? Wasn't it testified to that Mac was VERY protective of Laci. He just stands there and lets someone take her without barking or anything. And why did no one see a dog walking around loose with a leash on. It just gets more and more implausible.


In fact, it was Scott who told Mansfield that Mckenzie was very protective of Laci..that indicates to me that he was not trying to make it look like Laci was abducted as she was walking the dog..why in the world would he tell that to the police if he had staged Laci's abduction by letting Mckenzie loose with his leash attached? I think he told the truth about that because he had no reason to lie about it..IMO, it's an indication of consciousness of innocence..

Anyhow, IMO your argument is based on the assumption that the witnesses were accurate about the exact time they saw Laci..I don't see it that way!

[Synopsis]

hERE'S YOUR POST = I HAVE PUT IN GREEN THE ERRORS
you have the wrong people testifying to things that they did not. THAT is mis-information.
Sorry dear....that green is such a terrible color - especially when you're wrong! Perhaps this will refresh your memory:

Preliminary Hearing Day #12
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Witness for the People: Steve Jacobson
. 12 Q. Okay. You have some indication -- I mean, you're
13 familiar with this investigation; is that correct?
14 A. I am, yes, sir.
15 Q. We had on yesterday a computer expert. That
16 computer expert's taken a look at his hard drive. You're
17 familiar with that; isn't that correct?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. Okay. You're familiar that he's at the warehouse
20 sometime shortly after 10:08, if you believe that he's the
21 one that accessed the computer at the warehouse; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And he's there at the warehouse for a period of
24 time up until almost 11:00 o'clock, if you accept that he's
25 the one that's on the computer and using that hard drive?
26 A. That's correct.

Gosh! That's almost word-for-word what I posted!

and the computer activity at work was testified to by WALL, not Jacobsen.

Well somebody should have told Jacobson!!

Also, you will note I said "Scott says" he left at the aproximate times. Since he didn't testify, just SAID it, maybe that's what you're calling wrong information?? Right??
Okay this item and the Kristin D. I'll deal with tomorrow, just so as not to be posting mis-information!! We don't want to do that do we???
If I can find where someone else testified to the above facts, and got away with hearsay, would that be acceptable to post??
I'm tired - sure wish I could have gotten here earlier.:seeya:

[Heyes]

You forgot how to classify what the voices in my Cheerios tell me. They say Scott was framed. That or "Scotch tape the plane", which makes more sense.
Dang it adnoid!
I normally look at the name who is posting, but this morning I'm zooming through to play catch up. SOOOO not noticing it was you I failed in putting my carnation Instant breakfast down before reading........ yup, all over the keyboard! Drat.

[frydaddy]

In fact, it was Scott who told Mansfield that Mckenzie was very protective of Laci..that indicates to me that he was not trying to make it look like Laci was abducted as she was walking the dog..why in the world would he tell that to the police if he had staged Laci's abduction by letting Mckenzie loose with his leash attached? I think he told the truth about that because he had no reason to lie about it..IMO, it's an indication of consciousness of innocence..

Anyhow, IMO your argument is based on the assumption that the witnesses were accurate about the exact time they saw Laci..I don't see it that way!

LMAO - So you are telling people that all these witnesses just happened to see a walker they could definitely tell was Laci and that ALL of them erred on their timeline? Do you realize the foolishness of this? That one person can spot a stranger from their car while moving in traffic with great detail, remember that fact for a couple of days until her picture was in the media, but can't make out the correct time on their watch or remember what time it was? And that all of them happen to be early in their error? And that Laci just happened to walk opposite of how she normally walked? And that she just happened to walk twice as far as normal? And she happened to hastily prepare for this walk and jet out the door, after a leisurely morning of two breakfasts, watching TV, and surfing the net? And Karen Servas just happens to also be wrong early AND the cash register just happened to not put the proper time on the receipt? And all of this just happened to occur within a half hour of Scott leaving to go on a phony fishing trip?

For the love!!!

[PsychNurse;~)]

whatever happened to the reports that laci wasn't even walking mckenzie much anymore?

[frydaddy]

whatever happened to the reports that laci wasn't even walking mckenzie much anymore?

If if don't fit, you must omit!

[adnoid]

Of course..they are allowed to infer....

Thank you for the explanation, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. I wanted to see if your understanding is the same as mine. I was hoping for something in your own words, but the excerpt you posted summarizes my understanding pretty well - do you concur?

[Mark]

LMAO - So you are telling people that all these witnesses just happened to see a walker they could definitely tell was Laci and that ALL of them erred on their timeline? Do you realize the foolishness of this? That one person can spot a stranger from their car while moving in traffic with great detail, remember that fact for a couple of days until her picture was in the media, but can't make out the correct time on their watch or remember what time it was? And that all of them happen to be early in their error? And that Laci just happened to walk opposite of how she normally walked? And that she just happened to walk twice as far as normal? And she happened to hastily prepare for this walk and jet out the door, after a leisurely morning of two breakfasts, watching TV, and surfing the net? And Karen Servas just happens to also be wrong early AND the cash register just happened to not put the proper time on the receipt? And all of this just happened to occur within a half hour of Scott leaving to go on a phony fishing trip?

For the love!!!

Boggles the mind doesn't it? Same person who is trying to convince us that Scott's lies were a MYTH. I spat my lunch out when I read it. It doesn't do Scott any good when he's supporters are lying themselves. They embarass themselves each and every time.

:rolleyes:

[deputydi]

Hi Paula..
IMO, MG's failure to call the witnesses that reported seeing Laci on the 24th will be used in the appeal..I think Mark expects, understands and accepts that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is probably the most common appeal issue used and one that's very hard to prove. I suppose IF his appeal attorneys can show that these eyewitnesses could have provided exculpatory evidence, it might get him a new trial. I seriously doubt it, though. Each of their statements are on record and it shows the time and location of each witness which makes Laci's path easy to track. This was done on the old CTV board and it is immediately obvious that it would have been impossible for her to be everywhere she was "seen". This, combined with the incorrect description of what she was wearing, would in effect (my opinion) discredit all of the witnesses.

[aingael]

Hi Paula..

IMO, MG's failure to call the witnesses that reported seeing Laci on the 24th will be used in the appeal..I think Mark expects, understands and accepts that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

I am garnering from your nickname that you want to be an attorney?

If so, then is this something you would do? If so, may I ask why?

[Synopsis]

whatever happened to the reports that laci wasn't even walking mckenzie much anymore?

IIRC it was basically proved to be non-reliable based on several family members and friends testifying she was still walking McKenzie.

[Synopsis]

LMAO - So you are telling people that all these witnesses just happened to see a walker they could definitely tell was Laci and that ALL of them erred on their timeline? Do you realize the foolishness of this? That one person can spot a stranger from their car while moving in traffic with great detail, remember that fact for a couple of days until her picture was in the media, but can't make out the correct time on their watch or remember what time it was? And that all of them happen to be early in their error? And that Laci just happened to walk opposite of how she normally walked? And that she just happened to walk twice as far as normal? And she happened to hastily prepare for this walk and jet out the door, after a leisurely morning of two breakfasts, watching TV, and surfing the net? And Karen Servas just happens to also be wrong early AND the cash register just happened to not put the proper time on the receipt? And all of this just happened to occur within a half hour of Scott leaving to go on a phony fishing trip?

For the love!!!


Personally the defense "Laci siting witnesses" that Geragos did NOT put on the stand pale in humor to the ones the prosecutor DID put on the stand as a pre-emptive strike! Unbelievable. Wasn't one pulling a wagon?:lol:

[attorneywan2be]

Thank you for the explanation, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. I wanted to see if your understanding is the same as mine. I was hoping for something in your own words, but the excerpt you posted summarizes my understanding pretty well - do you concur?


I posted it because it summarizes my understanding...and that's exactly why I believe Scott should have been found "Not guilty"

[adnoid]

Personally the defense "Laci siting witnesses" that Geragos did NOT put on the stand pale in humor to the ones the prosecutor DID put on the stand as a pre-emptive strike! Unbelievable. Wasn't one pulling a wagon?:lol:

So how did that work out for them?

[Synopsis]

I keep reading comments that may be directed at me that I am not answering some important question levied at me.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I answer anything anyone asks of me personally. I just cannot stay here all the time and I don't read all the posts. Most of the time it's late at night because I have a busy schedule. I skim a lot, as many people do, because it doesn't further any rational debate.

It's obvious people spend a lot of time "chomping at the bit" just to be RIGHT about something. Or out of hate for Scott Peterson. Thankfully neither of that matters to me.

IMO Scott Peterson was wrongfully convicted. It's that simple. I can debate that and always will. Our system dropped the ball by letting this prosecution prevail. And Mark Geragos didn't pick it up. He was so convinced he had won the case based on the absolute absence of evidence by all these so called witnesses. Grogan's list of 41 IIR the number correctly should have spelled it out as to how and why he was convicted. And there was nothing in list that evidenced how, when, where, and why he killed Laci.

He had been warned by several that Rick Distaso was known to win cases by simply putting on witness after witness with absolutely nothing of proof to say, that he finally wore juries down and they threw him the bone. Even by the law professor who instructed BOTH in law school. But he didn't heed the warning.

So in case anyone feels I am avoiding a HARD question that ridiculous. I probably didn't see it or skimmed it. There's also a possibility I couldn't read it very well based on the color of the print.:D

[Lavindar]

Mansfield testified that Scott told him that Laci normally walked a mile loop that took her 45 minutes..anyhow, I would not say that either Scott lied or the witnesses were mistaken..it's quite possible they were both right, I mean what if Laci decided to take a different route that day for some unknown reason to us? ..IMO, Scott didn't have a motive to lie about Laci's route..and I have a hard time believing that all the witnesses were mistaken..if one of them was right, that is what it takes..

I remember I had a detailed map that showed the park, the tennis court ,and the location of Laci's sightings..I can't find it..if anyone has that map please post it...thanks

As to the appeal, I'm not saying that their info would be used as evidence Laci was alive..the police reports are evidence in this case...right? IMO, they can use that info to show that Mark failed to use vital evidence that would have helped his client..

David Harris: He said it was into the park, it was up towards the tennis court, it was kind of about a mile loop that she would take?
Doug Mansfield: That's what he told me.

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

Mark Geragos: There is a path that leads into the park, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He said that she would generally go down there, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Down the path.
Mark Geragos: Half the time he said he would walk with her?
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: She would walk towards the tennis courts which are over by the parking lot, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: So if you were walking in that direction, clearly a car or vehicle would have access, or could get access to, by where the tennis courts are, because there is a parking lot?
Doug Mansfield: Because there is a parking lot.
Mark Geragos: She would walk over there, and that that generally took her about 45 minutes?
Doug Mansfield: Yes.

Why are your ignoring what I said about her "walking time" Scott said it took her 45 minutes to walk a mile loop in the park, yet she was capable of walking a mile in almost one fourth of that time on the morning she disappeared. Common sense says that she could not have done that.
But of course, a woman who took 45 minutes to walk a mile loop could easily walk a mile in 12 minutes, That makes great sense.
A very PREGNANT woman at that - a woman who had to sit with her feet elevated the day before. I woman whose doctor told her to not walk the dog in teh morning if her feet were swelling. There's always the chance that Laci IGNORED her doctor, but I find it odd that she would IGNORE her own body like that.

[Synopsis]

So how did that work out for them?

How did what work out for who?

[Synopsis]

I posted it because it summarizes my understanding...and that's exactly why I believe Scott should have been found "Not guilty"

It's difficult to get it right AW2B, when long posts of trial testimony is boring to some, yet my summary of time spent at the warehouse was perceived as MIS-INFORMATION! That's silly and speaks for itself.

[frydaddy]

Personally the defense "Laci siting witnesses" that Geragos did NOT put on the stand pale in humor to the ones the prosecutor DID put on the stand as a pre-emptive strike! Unbelievable. Wasn't one pulling a wagon?:lol:

As is usually the case, deflecting to something or someone else. And making fun of typos or spelling errors. Poor form!

As for the seven witnesses, if you have something to add to the absurdity of Dalton's theory, feel free. Otherwise, ignore the negatives as many do, I'm sure if you pretend they aren't there, Scott will somehow benefit!

[Lavindar]

Personally the defense "Laci siting witnesses" that Geragos did NOT put on the stand pale in humor to the ones the prosecutor DID put on the stand as a pre-emptive strike! Unbelievable. Wasn't one pulling a wagon?:lol:

Considering that these
witnesses were NOT witnesses but people who were walking their dogs that morning shows that Laci was NOT the only dog walker out there. A witness is someone who sees something. These people were in the same area and did not see anything. You call that a pre-emptive strike? I think you might be a tad prejudiced. IF you listened to the defense, Laci was the only person who walked her dog in that neighborhood AND the only person that the witnesses could have seen. The proseuction showed that many women and some even PREGNANT (OMG) walked their dogs in that neighborhood.

The defense also tried to portray Laci as a Superwoman who ignored medical advice given her - and there's no one but Geragos claiming htat.

[Miss Bootsie]

I keep reading comments that may be directed at me that I am not answering some important question levied at me.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I answer anything anyone asks of me personally. I just cannot stay here all the time and I don't read all the posts. Most of the time it's late at night because I have a busy schedule. I skim a lot, as many people do, because it doesn't further any rational debate.

It's obvious people spend a lot of time "chomping at the bit" just to be RIGHT about something. Or out of hate for Scott Peterson. Thankfully neither of that matters to me.

IMO Scott Peterson was wrongfully convicted. It's that simple. I can debate that and always will. Our system dropped the ball by letting this prosecution prevail. And Mark Geragos didn't pick it up. He was so convinced he had won the case based on the absolute absence of evidence by all these so called witnesses. Grogan's list of 41 IIR the number correctly should have spelled it out as to how and why he was convicted. And there was nothing in list that evidenced how, when, where, and why he killed Laci.

He had been warned by several that Rick Distaso was known to win cases by simply putting on witness after witness with absolutely nothing of proof to say, that he finally wore juries down and they threw him the bone. Even by the law professor who instructed BOTH in law school. But he didn't heed the warning.

So in case anyone feels I am avoiding a HARD question that ridiculous. I probably didn't see it or skimmed it. There's also a possibility I couldn't read it very well based on the color of the print.:D

Well,I directed a question to you twice, in plain old black font, and never received a response.

Let me try again.

Where do you think the abductors stored the body?

[adnoid]

How did what work out for who?

The Prosecution and the Defense. I'll simplify:

How did "the defense "Laci siting witnesses" that Geragos did NOT put on the stand" work out for the defense, and how did "the ones the prosecutor DID put on the stand as a pre-emptive strike!" work out for the prosecution? Based, say, on results?

[Lavindar]

Personally the defense "Laci siting witnesses" that Geragos did NOT put on the stand pale in humor to the ones the prosecutor DID put on the stand as a pre-emptive strike! Unbelievable. Wasn't one pulling a wagon?:lol:

I believe that Martin Dempewolfe testified that his wife was walking their dog that morning and that SOMETIMES she took her toddler in the wagon with her.
Rick Distaso: On the morning of December 24th, 2002, was your wife pregnant?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes.

Rick Distaso: And how many months along was she?

Martin Dempewolf: On the 11th? Did you say -- I'm sorry.

Rick Distaso: On the 24th of December of 2002.

Martin Dempewolf: She was probably just shy of nine months.

Rick Distaso: Okay. And the baby was actually born on the 11th; is that right?

Martin Dempewolf: That's correct.

Rick Distaso: And this picture -- we had already talked, this picture was taken basically as you were getting --

Mark Geragos: Objection. Leading.

Rick Distaso: -- ready to go to the hospital?

Mark Geragos: Objection. Leading.

Rick Distaso: Foundation.

Judge Delucchi: It is leading, Mr. Distaso.

Rick Distaso: When was the picture taken?

Martin Dempewolf: The picture was taken January 11th, 2000 and 3, at my home.

Rick Distaso: Okay. And when was the baby born?

Martin Dempewolf: The baby was born January 11th, 2003, at the hospital.

Rick Distaso: And do you -- do you live in the La Loma area?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes.

Rick Distaso: Down by the Dry Creek Regional Park?

Martin Dempewolf: We live in the neighborhood that is next to the park, yes.

Rick Distaso: Okay. And did your wife go for a walk in the park that morning?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes, she did.

Rick Distaso: And did she go by herself?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes. With my dog.

Rick Distaso: Okay. And what I should have done is attach this picture of -- of your dog. I'll just mark it as an exhibit?

Judge Delucchi: We'll make it 223

Rick Distaso: That would work, Judge. Let me just staple it to it.

Judge Delucchi: What's the name of the dog?

Martin Dempewolf: Jake.

Judge Delucchi: Jake. This will be a photograph of Jake.

Rick Distaso: And what time did your wife go walking in the park?

Martin Dempewolf: She left our home between 9:15 and 9:30.

Rick Distaso: And how long does it usually take her to -- to complete the walks that she does?

Martin Dempewolf: Between 45 minutes and an hour.

Rick Distaso: And do you remember what she was wearing as you sit here today? ?

Martin Dempewolf: Some sweats and a jacket.

Rick Distaso: The -- let me show a picture of your dog, Jake, that she took with her. This is 223 A. And is that a picture of your dog, Jake?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes.

Rick Distaso: And your daughter's sitting on him, right?

Martin Dempewolf: That's correct.

Rick Distaso: What -- what kind of dog is it?

Martin Dempewolf: That's a chocolate lab.

Rick Distaso: Okay. And are you familiar with the route that your wife would normally walk?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes.

Mark Geragos: Objection. Hearsay.

Judge Delucchi: Overruled.

Rick Distaso: And had you walked that route with her in the past?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes. We usually walk it on the weekends together.

Rick Distaso: Let me show you --

Mark Geragos: There's no foundation. This wasn't a weekend day.

Judge Delucchi: Overruled.

Rick Distaso: Let me show you 223, the second page of it. It's a map. It's got a highlighted portion. Does -- does that highlighted portion show the route that your wife would normally take in the park?

Judge Delucchi: Or that him and his wife would normally take.

Rick Distaso: That you and your wife would normally take?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes, that's correct.

Rick Distaso: Okay. Let me just show that briefly.

Mark Geragos: Same objection.

Judge Delucchi: Overruled.

Mark Geragos: Okay.

Rick Distaso: And it looks like just from the outline that we have, your wife would go down into the park --

Judge Delucchi: Wait. Now, see, that's a leading question.

Rick Distaso: Yeah. Okay.

Rick Distaso: Can you just -- you know, it's going to be actually easier if I just give you the map and have just you explain to the jury, they're familiar enough with the park now. Can you just explain to the jury --

Judge Delucchi: Use the pointer and that map.

Rick Distaso: Well, that one's got -- the streets aren't labeled,

Judge Delucchi: I'll just have him explain it to them. It's all right.

Rick Distaso: Can you explain to the jury the route you and your wife would normally take when you go on walks?

Martin Dempewolf: We would leave our home on Whippoorwill Court, fish down through the subdivision, enter the park on East La Loma, walk down through the park, down to where there's a transfer station in the park, walk up that paved path, because it was -- it is easiest for a pregnant woman to get up, with a stroller or just walking in general. Walk -- continue walking Edgebrook back towards our home, down to Covena, to Encina, back to our home.

Rick Distaso: No further questions.


SHE WAS PREGNANT, SHE WAS WALKING HER DOG THAT MORNING, and HER ROUTE TOOK HER NEAR WHERE "LACI" WAS SEEN BY WITNESSES.

You call this a pre-emptive strike? I call it good lawyering.

[adnoid]

...You call this a pre-emptive strike? I call it good lawyering.

I call it both. And it worked.

[ekg]

That Jacobsen said that Scott got on his work computer at 10:08

LINK where I said ANYTHING about Jacobson and the 10:08 time....:flamemad:



I POSTED THE TESTIMONY. i THINK YOU AN FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS EVIDENCE AND WHAT WERE LIES BY A DEFENSE ATTORNEY


Rick Distaso: All right. When you watched the show originally on the 24th, I mean of the -- when you watched the show of the 24th, okay, you originally watched it on the 17th, correct?
1284) Allen Brocchini: Of 2003.
1285) Rick Distaso: Did you hear any mention of meringue?
1286) Allen Brocchini: No.
1287) Rick Distaso: So what happened?
1288) Allen Brocchini: I missed the mention of meringue while I was watching the show

snip

1291) Rick Distaso: Okay. So you documented in your reports that you had not heard a mention of meringue?
1292) Allen Brocchini: That's right.
1293) Rick Distaso: And did you also document that you heard a mention of meringue on the show on the 23rd?
1294) Allen Brocchini: Yes, I did.
1295) Rick Distaso: And you have since learned that that was a mistake?
1296) Allen Brocchini: That was a mistake.


since I'm forbidden from posting a statement from the opening, I'll have to rely on something else to prove RD said there was no mention of Meringue

here's a snippet from TIME.COM

Peterson had said that on the morning the prosecution says he killed Laci, she was watching Stewart talk about meringue. The Modesto, Calif., police department claimed no meringue was mentioned on Stewart's show that morning. But Peterson attorney Mark Geragos, in his opening statement, played the tape and showed otherwise.

That was just the first of many early embarrassments for the authorities. Geragos has displayed a talent for getting prosecution witnesses to point out inaccuracies in police reports. While prosecutors were trying to show that Laci was too tired to walk the family dog, as Peterson claims she was going to do the last time he saw her, they also inexplicably pointed out that she was able to go to a salon and a spa and buy about $100 worth of groceries that day. "It's a bit confusing what the prosecution is doing at this point," says former San Francisco district attorney Jim Hammer.



and here's another from COURTTV.COM



Peterson said his wife was watching the show that morning, but police told prosecutors that the meringue episode actually occurred Dec. 23. Distaso used the apparent contradiction in his opening statement, only to be embarrassed a day a later when defense attorney Mark Geragos played a portion of the Christmas Eve show in which Stewart clearly talks about meringue.

"I missed the mention of meringue while I was watching the show," said Brocchini.


WHERE DID I LIE ? :flamemad:

and btw,I don't see a lie by a DEFENSE ATTORNEY at all...



.

[adnoid]

I posted it because it summarizes my understanding...and that's exactly why I believe Scott should have been found "Not guilty"

While I disagree with your conclusion at least we are both understanding the process the same way.

So...I keep saying the word "reasonable" in there. Who gets to decide what explanations are reasonable and which are not?

[Lavindar]

It's difficult to get it right AW2B, when long posts of trial testimony is boring to some, yet my summary of time spent at the warehouse was perceived as MIS-INFORMATION! That's silly and speaks for itself.

One small problem - you said that Scott was at his warehouse logged onto his computer at 10:08. At 10:08, cell phone tower records place him in the vicinity of his HOME on Covena, not at the warehouse on the computer.

He did not get on his computer until 10:26. Your MIS-INFORMATION gave him an additional 18 minutes of time accounting for in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Admit, you used faulty information on your synopsis and information that was proven in court records. You cannot win him an appeal on lies and MIS-INFORMATION.

[ekg]

i'm serioiusly doubtful that the use of the word meringue one time at 9:48 am during a one hour show can be considered the same as there being a segment on meringue...

cyn


Scott didn't say he watched a whole segment...


Cross exam Brocchini.


81 pages $111.00

JUNE 23, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE




194. Q. Okay. And then you kind of mumbled something or said um hum, and then he responds: "Eats right when she wakes up, otherwise she gets sick, 'cause she's pregnant. Ah, I laid around in bed longer, I got up at I don't know, 8 o'clock probably or so. Ah, showered ah we were watching her favorite show, Martha Stewart. Watched a little bit of that." Is that your memory of what he told you?

195. A. Yes.

196. Q. And you specifically said: "You didn't watch the whole thing though?"

197. A. No, I asked him -- that's a question.

198. Q. Well, but you had already talked to him before that and he had told you that he had not watched the whole show, correct?

199. A. I don't recall.

200. Q. Well, when you asked him the question, "You didn't watch the whole thing though?" where did you get that information?

201. A. From what he just had told me. He got up, watched a little bit of Martha Stewart.

202. Q. All right.

203. A. Or watched some of her favorite show.

204. Q. And you specifically asked him: "You remember what part you saw?" is that correct?

205. A. I asked him that.

206. Q. And he said: "I don't know, I don't know what they had on, some cooking deal, I don't know, cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue." Correct?

207. A. Yes.


and regardless of how much he watched...... the show did talk about meringue and cookies just like Scott said it did....

[adnoid]

...and regardless of how much he watched...... the show did talk about meringue and cookies just like Scott said it did....

It sure did - and placed him at home at a time that worked well for the prosecution.

[Lavindar]

LINK where I said ANYTHING about Jacobson and the 10:08 time....:flamemad:


Rick Distaso: All right. When you watched the show originally on the 24th, I mean of the -- when you watched the show of the 24th, okay, you originally watched it on the 17th, correct?
1284) Allen Brocchini: Of 2003.
1285) Rick Distaso: Did you hear any mention of meringue?
1286) Allen Brocchini: No.
1287) Rick Distaso: So what happened?
1288) Allen Brocchini: I missed the mention of meringue while I was watching the show

snip

1291) Rick Distaso: Okay. So you documented in your reports that you had not heard a mention of meringue?
1292) Allen Brocchini: That's right.
1293) Rick Distaso: And did you also document that you heard a mention of meringue on the show on the 23rd?
1294) Allen Brocchini: Yes, I did.
1295) Rick Distaso: And you have since learned that that was a mistake?
1296) Allen Brocchini: That was a mistake.


since I'm forbidden from posting a statement from the opening, I'll have to rely on something else to prove RD said there was no mention of Meringue

here's a snippet from TIME.COM





and here's another from COURTTV.COM





WHERE DID I LIE ? :flamemad:

and btw,I don't see a lie by a DEFENSE ATTORNEY at all...



.

EKG, I owe you an apology. The post where it stated that Jacobsen testified that Scott was on his computer at 10:L08 was post 746 by Synopsis. SHe uses Geragos's opening statement for the time factor and testimony showed the times to be wrong.

Oh, Geragos was right. Martha Stewart Living DID mention meringue ONE time on the 24th and Brocchini admitted that he missed it. That mention of meringue occured at 9:48 am PROVING that Scott was still at home to hear that.

BTW, meringue IS mentioned on the 23rd Martha Stewart EIGHT times, per testimony.

I am sorry for confusing you with another poster. My computer is slow and it takes a long time for me to go back and find something. :o

[ekg]

Well, since we're going to address things on the board as you pointed out, I was NOT on "hiatus", I was improperly banned due to the actions of biased forum "leaders" and their fellow traveler(s). I have received a public apology from FW, which I accepted. But if more apologies are going to be handed out, there are a couple folks in line before you. Including me.

I was being polite by saying hiatus..

whether you were improperly banned or not only you and FW know since the reason was never mentioned on the board... one thing I do know is you were never called an uninformed liar who needs to learn the law
in an OPEN FORUM!

[Lavindar]

Scott didn't say he watched a whole segment...


Cross exam Brocchini.




and regardless of how much he watched...... the show did talk about meringue and cookies just like Scott said it did....
Only ONE time tho. Scott also told the police that laci was wearing clothes that her body was not found in. Clothes that she WAS wearing the day before when Martha Stewart mentioned meringue EIGHT times.

WAit, I forgot, those pesky burglars must have kidnapped her, gone back to her house, left over $100,000 worth of jewelry in plain sight just to get pants that she had worn earlier so that she would not be found in pants that Scott said she was wearing. Too bad they forgot to get her top. Those pesky burglars are SOOOO smart.

[Lavindar]

I don't see a lie by a DEFENSE ATTORNEY at all...



Try reading Garegos's opening statement. It's a work of fiction, not a road map. Try reading Dalton's book - it's a whole pack of them.

[ekg]

EKG, I owe you an apology. The post where it stated that Jacobsen testified that Scott was on his computer at 10:L08 was post 746 by Synopsis. SHe uses Geragos's opening statement for the time factor and testimony showed the times to be wrong.

Oh, Geragos was right. Martha Stewart Living DID mention meringue ONE time on the 24th and Brocchini admitted that he missed it. That mention of meringue occured at 9:48 am PROVING that Scott was still at home to hear that.

BTW, meringue IS mentioned on the 23rd Martha Stewart EIGHT times, per testimony.

I am sorry for confusing you with another poster. My computer is slow and it takes a long time for me to go back and find something. :o


Thank you for admitting you were wrong.. it's hard to do so I appreciate that you can admit it...:)

I do not lie

my take on the information may differ from others, but I do not post misinformation.

If I cannot back up MOO with testimony or other facts I will (and have) say so.

I don't know you and you don't know me....so the only thing we have on this board to prove ourselves is our word, which is why I do not take to being called a liar.

Thank you again for the apology.... :)

[adnoid]

I was being polite by saying hiatus..

whether you were improperly banned or not only you and FW know since the reason was never mentioned on the board... one thing I do know is you were never called an uninformed liar who needs to learn the law
in an OPEN FORUM!

Polite or not, it's simply not the truth. Lies were told about me to someone who believed them, and I have never received an apology from the ones that spread the lies. I don't expect one, since it would require more character than those people will ever posess. To imply I took some sort of voluntary leave is a gross distortion of the truth.

And I never called you an uninformed liar, so why was that brought up?

[ekg]

I don't see a lie by a DEFENSE ATTORNEY at all...



Try reading Garegos's opening statement. It's a work of fiction, not a road map. Try reading Dalton's book - it's a whole pack of them.

or I could read RD closing where he says Amy testified about Laci bringing the curling iron to the shop....

and no thanks on Daltons book..... I don't care if he's pro-scott or anti-scott.. I don't take anyone 'book' as anything but 'fluff'... besides, isn't he the one that said Amy went to eat pizza with L/S that night?

[attorneywan2be]

While I disagree with your conclusion at least we are both understanding the process the same way.

So...I keep saying the word "reasonable" in there. Who gets to decide what explanations are reasonable and which are not?

I think the main issue is that a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact...for example, IMO, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott killed Laci...they didn't prove BARD that a crime occurred at 523 Covena ave..they didn't prove BARD that he transported Laci's body to the bay..they didn't prove BARD that he made more than one anchor...they didn't prove BARD that the bodies WASHED ASHORE.. they proved BARD that the bodies were FOUND in the bay area, therefore that fact alone could not be the basis upon which an inference can be drawn that Scott dumped the body on Dec 24th...they didn't prove BARD that Conner's gestational age on the day his body was found matched his gestational age on the day Laci disappeared...they didn't not prove BARD that Scott searched the internet to find a place to dump a body..etc..

[ekg]

Polite or not, it's simply not the truth. Lies were told about me to someone who believed them, and I have never received an apology from the ones that spread the lies. I don't expect one, since it would require more character than those people will ever posess. To imply I took some sort of voluntary leave is a gross distortion of the truth.

And I never called you an uninformed liar, so why was that brought up?

I never said you were the one to call me that...

it's not my place to announce to anyone who might not know, that you were banned... which is why I chose 'hiatus', I figured it was more polite that way.

everything I've said about you I either said on the board
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8882666&postcount=7

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8869572&postcount=2347

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8869638&postcount=2363


or in the one neg I gave you way back when, which I also signed my name to even tho at the time you could do that anonymously .... and IMO you were being rude and mocking...

I have since asked what the rules are on sarcasm/mocking since you are still allowed to use them willy-nilly.. but when I feel you've gone too far I will tell you either in a PM or in the open if that is your wish..

I'm not starting anything here with you adnoid, I just don't want you to be under the impression that I would say something behind your back that I wouldn't also say in an open forum...:seeya:

[Lavindar]

I think the main issue is that a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact...for example, IMO, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott killed Laci...they didn't prove BARD that a crime occurred at 523 Covena ave..they didn't prove BARD that he transported Laci's body to the bay..they didn't prove BARD that he made more than one anchor...they didn't prove BARD that the bodies WASHED ASHORE.. they proved BARD that the bodies were FOUND in the bay area, therefore that fact alone could not be the basis upon which an inference can be drawn that Scott dumped the body on Dec 24th...they didn't prove BARD that Conner's gestational age on the day his body was found matched his gestational age on the day Laci disappeared...they didn't not prove BARD that Scott searched the internet to find a place to dump a body..etc.. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you are saying that none of the experts who testified proved anything?

Facts are that a qualified jury found him guilty BARD. Your beliefs will not change that. They were there; they saw all the exhibits and heard all the testimony. We, however, were not. All of the circumstantial evidence could have only pointed to Scott for the jury to reach the conclusion they did.

Considering the small number of people freed from CA prisons in the past 30+ years, I have to saw that juries seem to get it right more often than not.

[Otter]

I think the main issue is that a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact...for example, IMO, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott killed Laci...they didn't prove BARD that a crime occurred at 523 Covena ave..they didn't prove BARD that he transported Laci's body to the bay..they didn't prove BARD that he made more than one anchor...they didn't prove BARD that the bodies WASHED ASHORE.. they proved BARD that the bodies were FOUND in the bay area, therefore that fact alone could not be the basis upon which an inference can be drawn that Scott dumped the body on Dec 24th...they didn't prove BARD that Conner's gestational age on the day his body was found matched his gestational age on the day Laci disappeared...they didn't not prove BARD that Scott searched the internet to find a place to dump a body..etc..

Twelve citizens disagreed WYO. Since IYO, the prosecution was so woefully inadequate, why didn't Judge D simply grant the defense motion to dismiss after the pro's CIC? Or was he intimidated by "them" too?

[Otter]

I have since asked what the rules are on sarcasm/mocking since you are still allowed to use them willy-nilly.. but when I feel you've gone too far I will tell you either in a PM or in the open if that is your wish..



Adnoid is never willy-nilly. We're still debating if he's fulgar though. :chicken:

[ekg]

Twelve citizens disagreed WYO. Since IYO, the prosecution was so woefully inadequate, why didn't Judge D simply grant the defense motion to dismiss after the pro's CIC? Or was he intimidated by "them" too?

can you imagine if that would have happened? HA!

I think if MG would have just rested w/o out calling anyone it would have been better than the cheap-crap of a defense he tried..... he should have just stood up and knocked home that the DA didn't prove the when,where,how,why and only had the who b/c they didn't have anyone else...

or he should have gone full-tilt and put on a complete defense...Money or no money.. whether he proved it on cross of the DA's witnesses or not.. he should have hammered it home with repetition..he left the jury 'wanting' by just calling those dozen or so witnesses..

[ekg]

Adnoid is never willy-nilly. We're still debating if he's fulgar though. :chicken:




I don't know what 'fulgar' is so.....:confused:

[deputydi]

<snip>did DD ask that AW2B to summarize long TS quotes b/c ppl have already read them, and it made it less time consuming? <snip>
Honest, folks -- I never intended my request to be that big a deal. AW2B often posts long quotes and often adds either no comment or a sentence or two. I suggested that she post a synopsis or one short quote with a link to its entirety. I skim over a lot of her posts and admit sometimes I miss her point entirely.

Although I disagree with her most of the time, she has proven herself to be extremely knowledgeable about this case.

Quote away everyone -- I'll continue to skim. Promise me you'll be kind if I seem to miss your point and go off on some unrelated tangent. :o

[ekg]

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you are saying that none of the experts who testified proved anything?

Facts are that a qualified jury found him guilty BARD. Your beliefs will not change that. They were there; they saw all the exhibits and heard all the testimony. We, however, were not. All of the circumstantial evidence could have only pointed to Scott for the jury to reach the conclusion they did.

Considering the small number of people freed from CA prisons in the past 30+ years, I have to saw that juries seem to get it right more often than not.



what expert proved how Scott killed Laci?

what expert proved there was a crime at the house? and what crime would that be?

what expert proved that Scott transported her body in the truck?

What expert proved Laci's trajectory?

etc..

I think that is what AW2B is talking about...... none of those things were proved beyond anything other than speculative puzzle pieces.they weren't proven by 'fact' just a 'wink-wink we know what happened'..:shrug:

[ekg]

It sure did - and placed him at home at a time that worked well for the prosecution.


it also proved the affidavit for the wiretaps was blatantly false..... so how are they still admissible? and can they be an appeals issue just for that alone?

[ekg]

not to mention that he was driving in major holiday traffic that day.

cyn

right.. with a dead body in the unregistered/uninsured boat that's attached to the back of his truck....

such a risk to drive in major holiday traffic, on a road that is 'is patrolled by plane and a speed trap', with an illegal vehicle and a dead body for 90 miles isn't it?


I just don't buy it..



but thanks Lavindar for the "patrolled by plane and a speed trap" info tho..... that just makes his 90 mile trip with a body all the more unbelievable..

[deputydi]

what expert proved how Scott killed Laci?

what expert proved there was a crime at the house? and what crime would that be?

what expert proved that Scott transported her body in the truck?

What expert proved Laci's trajectory?

etc..

I think that is what AW2B is talking about...... none of those things were proved beyond anything other than speculative puzzle pieces.they weren't proven by 'fact' just a 'wink-wink we know what happened'..:shrug:
You are still assuming that these are questions the pros had to prove to get a conviction. For the millionth time -- they are not.

You want all these questions answered to convince you of his guilt. I'd like to have them answered to satisfy my curiosity. Fact is, you are requiring more from the pros than is required by the law.

Numbers 1, 2 and 3 can only be answered conclusively by Scott and he isn't talking. No one else knows exactly how he accomplished every detail of the murders. Number 4 I believe is not provable either. You would have to know the exact point of origin, then have the exact same water and weather conditions for the four months she was in the bay to "prove" the trajectory. That is impossible.

[adnoid]

I think the main issue is that a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact...<snipped>

I snipped the rest not because I don't want to discuss it, but because I want to understand and want to go one step at a time.

I agree that "a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact". In a courtroom setting, which is where this matters, who decides if a certain fact has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

[ekg]

OK, how about we try it this way:

Despite the fact that MG never explicitly said some other person or group COULD have committed the crimes Scott was on trial for, it would have been proper for the jury to INFER from the evidence presented and MG's arguments that one of those people/groups could have been responsible and therefore Scott was not. In other words, the jury is allowed to make such an inference using their own judgement - it is not improper.

Yes or No?


IMO, no....

the jury could infer that LE didn't check everything out and since they didn't check everything out Scott very well could have been innocent..... or at the very least not guilty BARD.

[JustMyOpinion]

what expert proved how Scott killed Laci?

what expert proved there was a crime at the house? and what crime would that be?

what expert proved that Scott transported her body in the truck?

What expert proved Laci's trajectory?

etc..

I think that is what AW2B is talking about...... none of those things were proved beyond anything other than speculative puzzle pieces.they weren't proven by 'fact' just a 'wink-wink we know what happened'..:shrug:

No, the circumstantial evidence brought by the State wasn't "wink, wink". It was deemed admissable by the judge, jurors were instructed they could utilize circumstantial evidence to infer a fact not in direct evidence. It is apparent to me that you don't respect or like circumstantial evidence... therefore you deem it speculative. Jurors didn't have that luxury...they were sworn to follow the law............IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you are saying that none of the experts who testified proved anything?

Facts are that a qualified jury found him guilty BARD. Your beliefs will not change that. They were there; they saw all the exhibits and heard all the testimony. We, however, were not. All of the circumstantial evidence could have only pointed to Scott for the jury to reach the conclusion they did.

Considering the small number of people freed from CA prisons in the past 30+ years, I have to saw that juries seem to get it right more often than not.

1- IMO, Dr. Cheng didn't prove that the bodies washed ashore..he could not explain Laci's location in light of the tidal/currents conditions..the prosecution's theory is that Conner supposedly was in Laci's uterus until the storm..Conner exited and both bodies traveled to shore..however, Dr. Cheng could not prove that the bodies traveled to shore from the same point of origin..

2-Qualified juries had reached verdicts appellate court reversed..so they do make mistakes..IMO, the fact that small number of people were freed and the fact that juries seem to get it right more often than not argument SHOULD NOT be used to conclude that the jury reached the correct verdict in this case..in addition, this was a unique case due to the media circus that surrounded it...the overall public/media hostility against Scott was unprecedented except for few cases..

[Lavindar]

Twelve citizens disagreed WYO. Since IYO, the prosecution was so woefully inadequate, why didn't Judge D simply grant the defense motion to dismiss after the pro's CIC? Or was he intimidated by "them" too? I hope "them" is not Rick Distaso. He's a tiny little guy, not real threatening at all. Soft-spoken, too

[Lavindar]

1- IMO, Dr. Cheng didn't prove that the bodies washed ashore..he could not explain Laci's location in light of the tidal/currents conditions..the prosecution's theory is that Conner supposedly was in Laci's uterus until the storm..Conner exited and both bodies traveled to shore..however, Dr. Cheng could not prove that the bodies traveled to shore from the same point of origin..

2-Qualified juries had reached verdicts appellate court reversed..so they do make mistakes..IMO, the fact that small number of people were freed and the fact that juries seem to get it right more often than not argument SHOULD NOT be used to conclude that the jury reached the correct verdict in this case..in addition, this was a unique case due to the media circus that surrounded it...the overall public/media hostility against Scott was unprecedented except for few cases..

I believe that Dr. Brian Peterson, A QUALIFIED EXPERT testified to that.

[attorneywan2be]

I snipped the rest not because I don't want to discuss it, but because I want to understand and want to go one step at a time.

I agree that "a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact". In a courtroom setting, which is where this matters, who decides if a certain fact has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

In a court setting?.. I think it's obvious the jury decides..so I'm wondering why you asked that question..anyhow, we are here debating the case..so IMO, they made a mistake when they decided that Scott was guilty....we have the entire TS of the trial...and he we have most of the exhibits the jury saw..IMO, we have enough info to form an informed opinion..!

[Lavindar]

1- IMO, Dr. Cheng didn't prove that the bodies washed ashore..he could not explain Laci's location in light of the tidal/currents conditions..the prosecution's theory is that Conner supposedly was in Laci's uterus until the storm..Conner exited and both bodies traveled to shore..however, Dr. Cheng could not prove that the bodies traveled to shore from the same point of origin..

2-Qualified juries had reached verdicts appellate court reversed..so they do make mistakes..IMO, the fact that small number of people were freed and the fact that juries seem to get it right more often than not argument SHOULD NOT be used to conclude that the jury reached the correct verdict in this case..in addition, this was a unique case due to the media circus that surrounded it...the overall public/media hostility against Scott was unprecedented except for few cases..

I couldn't agree with that more and the defense sure used it to their own advantage. People who believe in Scott's innocence continually quote the "witnesses" who were in the media - not testimony in the trial. That will not get a reversal on the first appeal step. It's a judicial review, nothing more.

Mark Geragos or his "spokespeople" (Horowitz, Cardoza, Cole, and his whispering companion, Aphrodite Jones) all did a lot to influence the media. Even Geraldo said he "thought" Scott was guilty, but they wouldn't be able to prove it in court. I think all those, including the gag-order violating interviews with Barbara Walters by the Peterson family were all geared to influence people for the defense.

Those of us in Modesto were forced to listen to Geragos and his cohort, Dalton, hold press conferences daily on the courthouse steps proclaiming the innocence of this man - the same man that Geragos, himself, said was most likely guilty (the check from the Petersons undoubtedly had a great influence on his change of mind.)

I remember sitting in front of the TV and thinking "he's gonna get away with it" just from listening to the media. OJ's trial did a lot to galvanize people against the high profile defense teams, like Cochran. People were just grateful that the justice system got this one right.

[Lavindar]

what expert proved how Scott killed Laci?

what expert proved there was a crime at the house? and what crime would that be?

what expert proved that Scott transported her body in the truck?

What expert proved Laci's trajectory?

etc..

I think that is what AW2B is talking about...... none of those things were proved beyond anything other than speculative puzzle pieces.they weren't proven by 'fact' just a 'wink-wink we know what happened'..:shrug:

Laci was at her home and alive about 8:30 on the 23rd. She was not seen or heard from by anyone other than Scott after that. She then washes ashore on the shores of the San Francisco Bay 4 months later, coincidentally a few miles from her husband's alibi with testimony by experts that her body had been in a marine environment for 3-6 months. Coincidentally a 33-38 week FETUS washes up in the same area within a day and the condition of his body is consistent with having been in a protected environment until recently and also is macerated, a term used when discussing the condition of still born fetuses who have died in utero.

Awfully coincidental wouldn't you say? I have heard no REASONABLE argument that points in any other direction.

[Heyes]

whatever happened to the reports that laci wasn't even walking mckenzie much anymore?

Here's a theory I haven't heard before, How about scott had put the dog on a leash and tied him up in the back yard because the dog was causing scott problems trying to remove Laci from the house to place in the truck. After this was accomplished scott took off not closing the gate completely. The dog got loose and was found walking out front by the neighbor. Perhaps the whole walking the dog story was dreamed up by scott when he returned and realized what had happened????? NO? heck I just don't trust any of his stories.

[adnoid]

In a court setting?.. I think it's obvious the jury decides..so I'm wondering why you asked that question..anyhow, we are here debating the case..so IMO, they made a mistake when they decided that Scott was guilty....we have the entire TS of the trial...and he we have most of the exhibits the jury saw..IMO, we have enough info to form an informed opinion..!

Again, I'm trying to go through one point at a time. I'm kind of slow, so it helps me to focus that way.

So, while your position is that while you would have come to a different conclusion than the actual jury did had you been on the jury, the actual jury did not do anything per se improper or illegal, they just (in your opinion) got it wrong - do I understand your position and express it correctly?

I ask because I have seen others that, like you, believe Scott is innocent but feel that that jury was in violation of the law for coming to that conclusion and will be subject to prosecution and imprisonment for reaching the verdicts they did. Can I assume this is not your position?

[deputydi]

<snip>2-Qualified juries had reached verdicts appellate court reversed..so they do make mistakes..IMO, the fact that small number of people were freed and the fact that juries seem to get it right more often than not argument SHOULD NOT be used to conclude that the jury reached the correct verdict in this case..in addition, this was a unique case due to the media circus that surrounded it...the overall public/media hostility against Scott was unprecedented except for few cases..
The appeal is NOT about whether the jury reached the right decision or whether they made a mistake. The first appeal will be based on the Trial Record -- period. I'm not going to lecture you on this because you already know it and I don't understand why you continue to ignore this basic fact.

As was mentioned earlier, the judge could have granted MGs motion for dismissal (which is customary in almost every trial) and he didn't. Someone else mentioned that it would have caused a public furor and it most likely would have but what does he care? This would have been the appropriate time to say there wasn't enough evidence to support the jury's verdict. When this same jury recommended Death, he had the authority to override it and sentence Scott to LWOP. The judge didn't take advantage of any of his options.

J Delucci is RETIRED and doesn't have to worry about getting reelected, retained or whatever they call it in CA. Public opinion is not something that could possibly matter one way or the other to him. He did what was right simply because it was the right thing to do.

[attorneywan2be]

it also proved the affidavit for the wiretaps was blatantly false..... so how are they still admissible? and can they be an appeals issue just for that alone?

It's a good question!

IMO, the fact that the prosecution didn't have audios to all Scott's calls should have compelled judge Delucchi to not allow the wiretaps into evidence...the jury heard a partial picture of what he said on his phone calls...for example, telling the jury Scott lied about calling Longview police was totally unfair and misleading..why? they didn't have the audio to a call that had the same call data as a call he made to Longview for which they had the audio..however, the jury didn't get to hear the audio of the other call..so IMO, the judge erred by allowing an incomplete picture of Scott's calls..

[attorneywan2be]

I believe that Dr. Brian Peterson, A QUALIFIED EXPERT testified to that.

The point is he didn't prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th and he was in her uterus since until a day or so before he was found..on one hand he testified that he estimated Conner's gestational age to be 9 months (280 days) and that he was a full term baby...according to the prosecution Conner was 33 weeks ( 231 days) when Laci disappeared..!

[Lavindar]

it also proved the affidavit for the wiretaps was blatantly false..... so how are they still admissible? and can they be an appeals issue just for that alone?
We do NOT know if the meringue was the ONLY reason given for the affadavit . UNtil we know, it's only a guess. Since the taps were primarily for conversations with Amber, I wonder if she was the main reason for the taps. Judge Ladine was a well respected judge here and it would make no sense for him to grant a wiretap for something that small. Until that information is unsealed, all is simply guessing.

[JustMyOpinion]

The point is he didn't prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th and he was in her uterus since until a day or so before he was found..on one hand he testified that he estimated Conner's gestational age to be 9 months (280 days) and that he was a full term baby...according to the prosecution Conner was 33 weeks ( 231 days) when Laci disappeared..!

The ME does not specialize in forensic anthropology or fetal medicine, which is why he called in Galloway, ( who also testified at trial). The State also called Laci's obstetrician, and Dr DeVore. I found each of these witnesses ( ME, Forensic Anthropologist, Laci's Obstetrician, Fetal Medicine expert) credible, and defense didn't bring a forensic anthropologist, a forensic pathologist, and their one medical (infertility) expert fell apart on the stand, IMO, and seemed to have no actual objective data to support the conclusion he had drawn..IMO.
When considering all of the expert medical testimony regarding state of the remains, Laci's pregnancy, her EDC, the ultrasounds, measurements of actual bones, etc.. I concluded Conner died in utero, on Dec 23 or Dec 24. JMO

[Lavindar]

can you imagine if that would have happened? HA!

I think if MG would have just rested w/o out calling anyone it would have been better than the cheap-crap of a defense he tried..... he should have just stood up and knocked home that the DA didn't prove the when,where,how,why and only had the who b/c they didn't have anyone else...

or he should have gone full-tilt and put on a complete defense...Money or no money.. whether he proved it on cross of the DA's witnesses or not.. he should have hammered it home with repetition..he left the jury 'wanting' by just calling those dozen or so witnesses..


I couldn't agree with your assessment of Mark Geragos. If he'd spent as much time working the case as he did on the cell phone, he might have brought about a different conclusion. Still, for this to rise to the level of "ineffective counsel" is debatable. He DID cross examine witnesses. He did hire experts. Too bad he picked a doctor who was not of the correct specialty.

[Lavindar]

The ME does not specialize in forensic anthropology or fetal medicine, which is why he called in Galloway, ( who also testified at trial). The State also called Laci's obstetrician, and Dr DeVore. I found each of these witnesses ( ME, Forensic Anthropologist, Laci's Obstetrician, Fetal Medicine expert) credible, and defense didn't bring a forensic anthropologist, a forensic pathologist, and their one medical (infertility) expert fell apart on the stand, IMO, and seemed to have no actual objective data to support the conclusion he had drawn..IMO.
When considering all of the expert medical testimony regarding state of the remains, Laci's pregnancy, her EDC, the ultrasounds, measurements of actual bones, etc.. I concluded Conner died in utero, on Dec 23 or Dec 24. JMO


Dr. Peterson NEVER referred to Conner in the autopsy as anything other than a FETUS. That term alone means that he was not born, altho he was viable.

[JustMyOpinion]

Oh they didn't prove it to you even though you were not on the jury nor in the state of California. The case was proven in the court of law. That is all that matters. You'll just have to buck up and get over it at some point. Aren't there other guilty murderers for you to fight over? Kutter Davis (I think that is his name) he's a good candidate don't you think?

Hello Mark
I think the OP has a perfect right to express opinions about the topic, and doesn't deserve harassment. I enjoy this forum, and there would be no debate or discussion if every member held the same view..IMO. It appears you are convinced Scott is guilty, it appears all that matters TO YOU is that the case was proven in a court of law...but this is a forum set up to discuss the entire case. What was the most compelling piece of evidence the State brought, IYO?

[attorneywan2be]

The appeal is NOT about whether the jury reached the right decision or whether they made a mistake. The first appeal will be based on the Trial Record -- period. I'm not going to lecture you on this because you already know it and I don't understand why you continue to ignore this basic fact.

Snip



What?

As far as I know, some of the appeal issues that are based on the TRIAL RECORD are precisely about whether or not the jury reached the right verdict..for example, "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" that is an appeal issue that is based on the TRIAL RECORD and the appellate court would have to determine whether or not the evidence presented to the jury justifies the verdict..

[Lavindar]

What?

As far as I know, some of the appeal issues that are based on the TRIAL RECORD are precisely about whether or not the jury reached the right verdict..for example, "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" that is an appeal issue that is based on the TRIAL RECORD and the appellate court would have to determine whether or not the evidence presented to the jury justifies the verdict..

Can you give me some examples where the appeals courts IN CALIFORNIA have totally and completely overturned a jury's decision?

[JustMyOpinion]

What about the harassment of the jury, the police, the judge & the Rocha family? It is a legit question to ask what give that poster the right to say what the Judge should have done?



I wish threats jurors received in the mail could be fully investigated, and there was a law with serious penalty in place for any citizen who is proven to have threatened a juror!
I think Judge Delucchi's reputation and long experience speaks for itself, I think he did an excellent job presiding over this case.JMO ( but I do think it's vital that citizens in a free society can question or criticize a judge's performence or rulings) JMO

[Synopsis]

As is usually the case, deflecting to something or someone else. And making fun of typos or spelling errors. Poor form!

As for the seven witnesses, if you have something to add to the absurdity of Dalton's theory, feel free. Otherwise, ignore the negatives as many do, I'm sure if you pretend they aren't there, Scott will somehow benefit!

Thank you for the tip that will benefit Scott. He does need all he can get.

[deputydi]

What?
As far as I know, some of the appeal issues that are based on the TRIAL RECORD are precisely about whether or not the jury reached the right verdict..for example, "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" that is an appeal issue that is based on the TRIAL RECORD and the appellate court would have to determine whether or not the evidence presented to the jury justifies the verdict..
Technically, it's not about the jury's verdict so much as whether the State met its burden. I'm not interested in splitting hairs with you but, remember: Scott no longer has the presumption of innocence -- he lost that with his conviction. The tables are turned now and the appellate issues that are raised must be looked at in a light most favorable to the PROSECUTION.

[Synopsis]

SNIPPED FOR SPACE

i want to address the yahoo shopping site again if no one minds.

we all know that when we're searching the web (if we don't have pop ups blocked) that we'll get those little shopping windows based on what we're looking at.

i'm still convinced that weather vane showed up as a pop up based on isp's searching weather reports.

jmo

cyn
That sounds plausible to me. I don't know for sure if computer forensics can determine if you actually surfed to a site or if it was involuntary.

[TopGunner]

What?

As far as I know, some of the appeal issues that are based on the TRIAL RECORD are precisely about whether or not the jury reached the right verdict..for example, "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" that is an appeal issue that is based on the TRIAL RECORD and the appellate court would have to determine whether or not the evidence presented to the jury justifies the verdict..



AW2B - I don't know the full legal qualifications for a CA appeal, but what you said above sounds like "oh, I don't like THAT verdict, so I'll just have another go at it". I mean, I personally feel there was overwhelming evidence to convict ISP for TWO counts of first degree murder. Take away half the evidence and testimony presented, and I would still feel that way.

However, IMO, I don't see where my opinion or yours would be grounds or not grounds for an appeal. He went through the legal process, he had a better defense that 90% of those on trial, the judge was extremely lenient with the defense and MG's fabricated drama........

I don't see it, it doesn't make any sense at all that he'd be given another shot due to lack of evidence. The case was saturated with evidence. I've never heard of such a thing, and makes the entire system seem fragile at best if that were the case.

Do you have a link to explain this?

[Lavindar]

What?

As far as I know, some of the appeal issues that are based on the TRIAL RECORD are precisely about whether or not the jury reached the right verdict..for example, "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" that is an appeal issue that is based on the TRIAL RECORD and the appellate court would have to determine whether or not the evidence presented to the jury justifies the verdict..

I believe the judge also had to confirm the decision.

[Synopsis]

One small problem - you said that Scott was at his warehouse logged onto his computer at 10:08. At 10:08, cell phone tower records place him in the vicinity of his HOME on Covena, not at the warehouse on the computer.
I should have said "shortly after 10:08" as the TS read.
He did not get on his computer until 10:26. Your MIS-INFORMATION gave him an additional 18 minutes of time accounting for in the wrong place at the wrong time.
No, you said I had the wrong people saying the wrong time - "that Jacobson NEVER testified about the work computer only the cell phones - that was what you called MIS-INFORMATION"

Admit, you used faulty information on your synopsis and information that was proven in court records. You cannot win him an appeal on lies and MIS-INFORMATION.

Well I certainly wouln't be using your faulty information that Jacobson never testified about the work computer! And I certainly would not be summarizing if I was trying to win an appeal. The facts are readily available.

I'm sorry you cannot understand the point of the post which was primarily that Scott was driving around, fiddling around, pulling a dead body around for a period of time.

Your MIS-INFORMATION gave him an additional 18 minutes of time accounting for in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In missing the point and in your haste, you have actually made the point even better if you think the times add 18 minutes. You have added MORE time to the act of driving around with a dead body in tow. And makes it MORE of a stretch in believeability;)
Yes he was definitely at the wrong place at the wrong time for TOO LONG a time - if he had a dead body in tow

[Otter]

AW2B - I don't know the full legal qualifications for a CA appeal, but what you said above sounds like "oh, I don't like THAT verdict, so I'll just have another go at it". I mean, I personally feel there was overwhelming evidence to convict ISP for TWO counts of first degree murder. Take away half the evidence and testimony presented, and I would still feel that way.

However, IMO, I don't see where my opinion or yours would be grounds or not grounds for an appeal. He went through the legal process, he had a better defense that 90% of those on trial, the judge was extremely lenient with the defense and MG's fabricated drama........

I don't see it, it doesn't make any sense at all that he'd be given another shot due to lack of evidence. The case was saturated with evidence. I've never heard of such a thing, and makes the entire system seem fragile at best if that were the case.

Do you have a link to explain this?

I remember discussing this some months ago, maybe not here though. Anyway, I did research all the way up to the SCUSA and courts are loathe to overturn a jury's verdict based on evidence. That's not the case when there was prosecutorial or police misconduct that tainted evidence presented or evidence that was withheld. Good, that should never happen and if it does those responsible should be prosecuted. That being said, CE IMO, isn't planted or fabricated -- its just "there". Much of the CE came from SP himself. SP's defense did nothing to refute the CE. Lack of DE is not IMO a grounds for anything. The fact that no firm cause of death was established is not GFA. She could have strangled or she could have been hit on head with a blunt object. Her condition precluded that determination.

I'm sorry I didn't keep all my links. Didn't think I'd ever need them again. :punch:

[Lavindar]

I should have said "shortly after 10:08" as the TS read.

No, you said I had the wrong people saying the wrong time - "that Jacobson NEVER testified about the work computer only the cell phones - that was what you called MIS-INFORMATION"



Well I certainly wouln't be using your faulty information that Jacobson never testified about the work computer! And I certainly would not be summarizing if I was trying to win an appeal. The facts are readily available.

I'm sorry you cannot understand the point of the post which was primarily that Scott was driving around, fiddling around, pulling a dead body around for a period of time.



In missing the point and in your haste, you have actually made the point even better if you think the times add 18 minutes. You have added MORE time to the act of driving around with a dead body in tow. And makes it MORE of a stretch in believeability;)
Yes he was definitely at the wrong place at the wrong time for TOO LONG a time - if he had a dead body in tow

I'm sorry you misunderstood my point. My point was that Jacobsen never testified to anything about the work computer. If Scott was in the vicinity of his house at 10"08 - he then had time to drive to the warehouse, put the body in the boat and then log onto the computer. I will have my friend in Modesto do a test run when the heat recedes there.

[frydaddy]

Well,I directed a question to you twice, in plain old black font, and never received a response.

Let me try again.

Where do you think the abductors stored the body?

Was this blown off for a third time? Shocking! :D

[Dora]

or I could read RD closing where he says Amy testified about Laci bringing the curling iron to the shop....

and no thanks on Daltons book..... I don't care if he's pro-scott or anti-scott.. I don't take anyone 'book' as anything but 'fluff'... besides, isn't he the one that said Amy went to eat pizza with L/S that night?

Or RD's opening when he said that Cheng would tell the jury "the way things wash up with the tide, as the tide's receding, heavy items are deposited first."

[Lavindar]

Here's a theory I haven't heard before, How about scott had put the dog on a leash and tied him up in the back yard because the dog was causing scott problems trying to remove Laci from the house to place in the truck. After this was accomplished scott took off not closing the gate completely. The dog got loose and was found walking out front by the neighbor. Perhaps the whole walking the dog story was dreamed up by scott when he returned and realized what had happened????? NO? heck I just don't trust any of his stories.

Gee you don't trust the poor maligned guy? I don't even think he tied the dog to a tree. I think he put the leash on, deliberately left the gate open and left. He could have cared less about the dog. I guess I am the only one who thinks it's odd that he relied on someone else to call the police. He comes home to a dark house, his wife's car is in the driveway, there is no smell of baking in the house, no note from his wife, she had not answered her phone, she had not listened to the phone messages yet he calmly washes his clothes, eats, and showers, THEN starts looking for her, by calling her mother and letting them call the police. First thing he should have done is call the hospitals as it was obvious she didn't go anywhere on her own - her purse is in the closet, complete with keys and pepper spray. Frankly, the killer for me was when her PURSE was hanging in her closet. The house was unlocked, no sign of a struggle, no sign of a robbery. Her top from the night before is in the hamper and mysteriously gets moved into the back of an underwear drawer by the time of the second search.

This whole case reeked from the beginning

[Lavindar]

Or RD's opening when he said that Cheng would tell the jury "the way things wash up with the tide, as the tide's receding, heavy items are deposited first."

Personally I like Scott's talking about Laci sitting there curling her hair that morning in the "fun flip" that Geragos described. That makes her the only woman I know who curls her hair to mop her floor.

And that whole crap about the cat running in to drink the dirty water in the mop bucket. Cat's won't drink that.

Another good one is Scott putting the mop and buckets outside. That's fine. But he put them outside the FRONT door and they were expecting company the next day. He knew Laci couldn't complain about it.

I'm still trying to figure out what Laci was doing that morning. According to Scott, she was mopping the floor, watching Martha Stewart, curling her hair, getting ready to walk the dog. She was going to "bake" later that day, too.

Scott's inconsistencies made the light shine on him and him alone. Everyone else had a alibi that was confirmed by outside sources. He couldn't even find the two guys who he said laughed at hinm when he was LEAVING the marina.

[Otter]

Personally I like Scott's talking about Laci sitting there curling her hair that morning in the "fun flip" that Geragos described. That makes her the only woman I know who curls her hair to mop her floor.

And that whole crap about the cat running in to drink the dirty water in the mop bucket. Cat's won't drink that.

Another good one is Scott putting the mop and buckets outside. That's fine. But he put them outside the FRONT door and they were expecting company the next day. He knew Laci couldn't complain about it.

I'm still trying to figure out what Laci was doing that morning. According to Scott, she was mopping the floor, watching Martha Stewart, curling her hair, getting ready to walk the dog. She was going to "bake" later that day, too.

Scott's inconsistencies made the light shine on him and him alone. Everyone else had a alibi that was confirmed by outside sources. He couldn't even find the two guys who he said laughed at hinm when he was LEAVING the marina.


Don't forget being on the computer and looking up sites with sunflower umbrellas, setting the table for Christmas brunch and going to the store.

The brunch table that she allegedly set doesn't show a lot of Martha Stewart influence. (http://www.findlaci2003.us/evidence-table-set.jpg) I wonder why?

ITA Lavindar. Nothing is "right" as you so succinctly said!

[Miss Bootsie]

I should have said "shortly after 10:08" as the TS read.

No, you said I had the wrong people saying the wrong time - "that Jacobson NEVER testified about the work computer only the cell phones - that was what you called MIS-INFORMATION"



Well I certainly wouln't be using your faulty information that Jacobson never testified about the work computer! And I certainly would not be summarizing if I was trying to win an appeal. The facts are readily available.

I'm sorry you cannot understand the point of the post which was primarily that Scott was driving around, fiddling around, pulling a dead body around for a period of time.



In missing the point and in your haste, you have actually made the point even better if you think the times add 18 minutes. You have added MORE time to the act of driving around with a dead body in tow. And makes it MORE of a stretch in believeability;)
Yes he was definitely at the wrong place at the wrong time for TOO LONG a time - if he had a dead body in tow

But, it's not a stretch of your imagination to believe Laci's abductors stored the body/bodies for 4-months?
It's not a stretch of your imagination to believe the abductors transported fragile severely decomposed bodies to the Bay - placing the bodies on separate shores.

But, it is a stretch of your imagination to believe Scott Peterson was fiddling around(as you called it), for a short time while having a dead body in his possession.

You have one standard for the abductors and quite another for SP.

[PsychNurse;~)]

I think the main issue is that a fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before we can draw an inference from that fact...for example, IMO, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott killed Laci...they didn't prove BARD that a crime occurred at 523 Covena ave..they didn't prove BARD that he transported Laci's body to the bay..they didn't prove BARD that he made more than one anchor...they didn't prove BARD that the bodies WASHED ASHORE.. they proved BARD that the bodies were FOUND in the bay area, therefore that fact alone could not be the basis upon which an inference can be drawn that Scott dumped the body on Dec 24th...they didn't prove BARD that Conner's gestational age on the day his body was found matched his gestational age on the day Laci disappeared...they didn't not prove BARD that Scott searched the internet to find a place to dump a body..etc..

not proved bard to you, but well beyond a reasonable doubt to most others.

even if isp were to win an appeal (and again i'd love to see that just so that we can fully renew the isp boards, lol), i simply don't see it ending with a different verdict. imo the very best isp can hope for is lwop vs the dp.

there's just too much that goes against isp being innocent.

the affair itself isn't the big deal. it's his telling people he's single, telling amber he'd lost his wife and this would be his first holidays without her, he'd be free to spend more time with her after the new year, and then the VERY NEXT DAY beginning his search for a boat to buy. he'd never owned a boat in all the years he and laci were together, yet the day after his statement to amber he's looking to buy one. hmmmmm. and this same boat is never seen by anyone else. it's never mentioned to anyone else. this same boat is never registered with the state to show up as being owned by isp and it's never insured.

he takes this boat out on december 24th, driving nearly 90 miles each way in major holiday traffic to the berkeley marina, over 4 hours driving time, in order to spend less than 1 hour on the water. when initially asked what he'd been fishing for he had no answer. that's not a difficult question! either you're fishing for sturgeon/bass or you're trolling or you're just there to get the boat in the water! it doesn't matter what he might have said later after he had time to think about it.

it's on this very same day that laci goes missing. he displays no concern over her not answering his calls that day or returning his calls. his pregnant wife who's supposed to be home cooking/baking that day and preparing for the holidays isn't answering or returning calls! the only call he appears to not answer/return that day is from laci's sister inquiring why he'd not picked up the grandfather's gift basket.

upon arriving home and knowing laci's plans were to prepare for christmas by cooking and baking, that he'd been unable to reach her that day, he's not concerned to find the house the same as it was that morning. no signs of cooking. no baking done. no yummy scents of the gingerbread, etc. no note from laci. no concern--even though "jabber jaws" hadn't called him once that day, hadn't answered or returned his calls. well, ok, no 'concern' until after he'd washed his clothes from that day, eaten some cold pizza, and taken a shower. THEN he was concerned.

items from the boat are found scattered in different places. a tarp in one shed in the yard placed under a leaking leaf blower. you've got fertilizer dripping on tarp. you've got another placed in a separate shed in the yard! then (iirc) weren't there some items found in the warehouse?

when asked about the missing bag of cement from home depot (?) purchased shortly before his 'fishing' trip, isp claims he took it home and threw it away. why would he do that when there were dumpsters at the warehouse complex? and lo and behold there was no cement residue found in his trash can(s) when checked. it's only later he claims he sprinkled it over his driveway in the hope that would repair the cracks is his driveway.

innumerable calls with amber (iirc over 200 hours total) including the infamous 'i'm in paris' call placed during laci's prayer vigil in which he uses the background noise of hundreds of people gathering for his wife and son to bolster his paris fantasy.

while he claims to amber and diane sawyer that laci knew about his affiar with amber, he never tells the mpd and even tries to deny the actual picture of him and amber together.

he still had friends and family standing behind him, yet why all the calls to amber and not actual friends or family if he was merely talking with amber for support or reaching out for 'human contact' that wasn't judgemental? doesn't make sense to me.

four months later, after a storm, the remains of laci and conner are found washed ashore near where isp admits to being the day laci disappeared. isp heads south and is ultimately found heading south from san diego with his car packed with serious camping gear, his brother's driver's license, driving a car he bought using his mom's name, with a totally altered appearance to appear more like his brother.

as we all know there was plenty more ce presented, but these were some of the biggest for me.

and let's not forget, mark geragos himself said that the bodies of laci and conner washing ashore near where isp placed himself the day laci disappeared made for a "damning circumstantial case".

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

Scott didn't say he watched a whole segment...


Cross exam Brocchini.




and regardless of how much he watched...... the show did talk about meringue and cookies just like Scott said it did....

i just find it hard to fault brocchini (sp) for missing the use of the word meringue one single time in an hour-long show, especially coming 15 to 20 minutes after isp claimed he'd left the house that morning.

sorry for not taking the time to re-check, but when did isp mention cookies with the meringue? is this claimed by anyone other than geragos?

tia!

cyn

[Lavindar]

not proved bard to you, but well beyond a reasonable doubt to most others.

even if isp were to win an appeal (and again i'd love to see that just so that we can fully renew the isp boards, lol), i simply don't see it ending with a different verdict. imo the very best isp can hope for is lwop vs the dp.

there's just too much that goes against isp being innocent.

the affair itself isn't the big deal. it's his telling people he's single, telling amber he'd lost his wife and this would be his first holidays without her, he'd be free to spend more time with her after the new year, and then the VERY NEXT DAY beginning his search for a boat to buy. he'd never owned a boat in all the years he and laci were together, yet the day after his statement to amber he's looking to buy one. hmmmmm. and this same boat is never seen by anyone else. it's never mentioned to anyone else. this same boat is never registered with the state to show up as being owned by isp and it's never insured.

he takes this boat out on december 24th, driving nearly 90 miles each way in major holiday traffic to the berkeley marina, over 4 hours driving time, in order to spend less than 1 hour on the water. when initially asked what he'd been fishing for he had no answer. that's not a difficult question! either you're fishing for sturgeon/bass or you're trolling or you're just there to get the boat in the water! it doesn't matter what he might have said later after he had time to think about it.

it's on this very same day that laci goes missing. he displays no concern over her not answering his calls that day or returning his calls. his pregnant wife who's supposed to be home cooking/baking that day and preparing for the holidays isn't answering or returning calls! the only call he appears to not answer/return that day is from laci's sister inquiring why he'd not picked up the grandfather's gift basket.

upon arriving home and knowing laci's plans were to prepare for christmas by cooking and baking, that he'd been unable to reach her that day, he's not concerned to find the house the same as it was that morning. no signs of cooking. no baking done. no yummy scents of the gingerbread, etc. no note from laci. no concern--even though "jabber jaws" hadn't called him once that day, hadn't answered or returned his calls. well, ok, no 'concern' until after he'd washed his clothes from that day, eaten some cold pizza, and taken a shower. THEN he was concerned.

items from the boat are found scattered in different places. a tarp in one shed in the yard placed under a leaking leaf blower. you've got fertilizer dripping on tarp. you've got another placed in a separate shed in the yard! then (iirc) weren't there some items found in the warehouse?

when asked about the missing bag of cement from home depot (?) purchased shortly before his 'fishing' trip, isp claims he took it home and threw it away. why would he do that when there were dumpsters at the warehouse complex? and lo and behold there was no cement residue found in his trash can(s) when checked. it's only later he claims he sprinkled it over his driveway in the hope that would repair the cracks is his driveway.

innumerable calls with amber (iirc over 200 hours total) including the infamous 'i'm in paris' call placed during laci's prayer vigil in which he uses the background noise of hundreds of people gathering for his wife and son to bolster his paris fantasy.

while he claims to amber and diane sawyer that laci knew about his affiar with amber, he never tells the mpd and even tries to deny the actual picture of him and amber together.

he still had friends and family standing behind him, yet why all the calls to amber and not actual friends or family if he was merely talking with amber for support or reaching out for 'human contact' that wasn't judgemental? doesn't make sense to me.

four months later, after a storm, the remains of laci and conner are found washed ashore near where isp admits to being the day laci disappeared. isp heads south and is ultimately found heading south from san diego with his car packed with serious camping gear, his brother's driver's license, driving a car he bought using his mom's name, with a totally altered appearance to appear more like his brother.

as we all know there was plenty more ce presented, but these were some of the biggest for me.

and let's not forget, mark geragos himself said that the bodies of laci and conner washing ashore near where isp placed himself the day laci disappeared made for a "damning circumstantial case".

cyn

Illegal to toss concrete mix in residential garbage container Requires special handling.

And a phony Florida Driver's license number.

[Otter]

i just find it hard to fault brocchini (sp) for missing the use of the word meringue one single time in an hour-long show, especially coming 15 to 20 minutes after isp claimed he'd left the house that morning.

sorry for not taking the time to re-check, but when did isp mention cookies with the meringue? is this claimed by anyone other than geragos?

tia!

cyn

Just a thought, but reading all this cross from Geragos and what you just posted, the best witness SP had was Geragos. He did his best to raise reasonable doubt, against procedure and got away with it.

If he could ever check his ego, he'd probably be a terrific lawyer, IMO. Ugh, can't believe I said that.

[Lavindar]

i just find it hard to fault brocchini (sp) for missing the use of the word meringue one single time in an hour-long show, especially coming 15 to 20 minutes after isp claimed he'd left the house that morning.

sorry for not taking the time to re-check, but when did isp mention cookies with the meringue? is this claimed by anyone other than geragos?

tia!

cyn I can't find where it is mentioned. Odd that Scott happened to be there for that exact MENTION of meringue - one time in an hour long show.

Meringue was mentioned 8 times on the 23rd.

[Lavindar]

I should have said "shortly after 10:08" as the TS read.

No, you said I had the wrong people saying the wrong time - "that Jacobson NEVER testified about the work computer only the cell phones - that was what you called MIS-INFORMATION"



Well I certainly wouln't be using your faulty information that Jacobson never testified about the work computer! And I certainly would not be summarizing if I was trying to win an appeal. The facts are readily available.

I'm sorry you cannot understand the point of the post which was primarily that Scott was driving around, fiddling around, pulling a dead body around for a period of time.



In missing the point and in your haste, you have actually made the point even better if you think the times add 18 minutes. You have added MORE time to the act of driving around with a dead body in tow. And makes it MORE of a stretch in believeability;)
Yes he was definitely at the wrong place at the wrong time for TOO LONG a time - if he had a dead body in tow
I have also debunked also the witness sitings of laci with that time frame. Thank you Mr. Geragos for shooting yourself in the foot with the meringue

[Wearing A Halo]

I couldn't agree with that more and the defense sure used it to their own advantage. People who believe in Scott's innocence continually quote the "witnesses" who were in the media - not testimony in the trial. That will not get a reversal on the first appeal step. It's a judicial review, nothing more.

Mark Geragos or his "spokespeople" (Horowitz, Cardoza, Cole, and his whispering companion, Aphrodite Jones) all did a lot to influence the media. Even Geraldo said he "thought" Scott was guilty, but they wouldn't be able to prove it in court. I think all those, including the gag-order violating interviews with Barbara Walters by the Peterson family were all geared to influence people for the defense.

Those of us in Modesto were forced to listen to Geragos and his cohort, Dalton, hold press conferences daily on the courthouse steps proclaiming the innocence of this man - the same man that Geragos, himself, said was most likely guilty (the check from the Petersons undoubtedly had a great influence on his change of mind.)

I remember sitting in front of the TV and thinking "he's gonna get away with it" just from listening to the media. OJ's trial did a lot to galvanize people against the high profile defense teams, like Cochran. People were just grateful that the justice system got this one right.

ITA

Marlene Newell was (and still is) influencing the NG camp. She was tight with the Ps and Richard Cole wrote an interesting article (small paragraph or so) that mentions Lee P., her and Ron G. She was also getting her mis-info from the likes of Tom Wilkinson and David Sween (do they even exist?). Rick Turpin was also getting this mis-info and proclaiming to be true. Then came along Neil Morrison who took it up a notch (bam) who tries so hard to influence the NGs-SII/CCADP/F-rat Pack (and of course all over the net).

[Lavindar]

ITA

Marlene Newell was (and still is) influencing the NG camp. She was tight with the Ps and Richard Cole wrote an interesting article (small paragraph or so) that mentions Lee P., her and Ron G. She was also getting her mis-info from the likes of Tom Wilkinson and David Sween (do they even exist?). Rick Turpin was also getting this mis-info and proclaiming to be true. Then came along Neil Morrison who took it up a notch (bam) who tries so hard to influence the NGs-SII/CCADP/F-rat Pack (and of course all over the net).
i'VE been looking for the "noted investigator David Sween since 2002. Only david Sween I can find is a re agent back east. David Sween also flooded the internet saying that laci was shot in the head. Where is his evidence. I think it's one of Marlene's aliases that she uses to publish under.

[Hey Paula]

i'VE been looking for the "noted investigator David Sween since 2002. Only david Sween I can find is a re agent back east. David Sween also flooded the internet saying that laci was shot in the head. Where is his evidence. I think it's one of Marlene's aliases that she uses to publish under.

LOL! An interview with David Sween:

http://www.powow.com/reviews/sween.htm

[Lavindar]

LOL! An interview with David Sween:

http://www.powow.com/reviews/sween.htm

thanks for the laugh Paula. FOr an investigator, he sure hates law enforcement, doesn't he/she? Has no evidence - sounds just like Marlene

[ekg]

No, the circumstantial evidence brought by the State wasn't "wink, wink". It was deemed admissable by the judge, jurors were instructed they could utilize circumstantial evidence to infer a fact not in direct evidence. It is apparent to me that you don't respect or like circumstantial evidence... therefore you deem it speculative. Jurors didn't have that luxury...they were sworn to follow the law............IMO

I've actually said the opposite any number of times.....but that's YOO and you're entitled to..... just as I am entitled to MOO that the CE didn't prove 1st degree murder in this case.

[ekg]

Laci was at her home and alive about 8:30 on the 23rd. She was not seen or heard from by anyone other than Scott after that. She then washes ashore on the shores of the San Francisco Bay 4 months later, coincidentally a few miles from her husband's alibi with testimony by experts that her body had been in a marine environment for 3-6 months. Coincidentally a 33-38 week FETUS washes up in the same area within a day and the condition of his body is consistent with having been in a protected environment until recently and also is macerated, a term used when discussing the condition of still born fetuses who have died in utero.

Awfully coincidental wouldn't you say? I have heard no REASONABLE argument that points in any other direction.

and I can't give you one....... I've said the bodies are one of my biggest hurdles..... but just the bodies alone don't prove he is the one who did it...

[Hey Paula]

I've actually said the opposite any number of times.....but that's YOO and you're entitled to..... just as I am entitled to MOO that the CE didn't prove 1st degree murder in this case.

Hi Ekg!

The fact Scott told Amber he'd lost his wife 2 weeks before Laci disappeared is one of the main reasons why I believe Laci's murder was premeditated. That is simply too much of a coincidence to be coincidence. Of course, after that, Scott set his plans in motion by buying the boat and keeping it secret, then buying 80 lbs of cement and making 5 anchors, the outlines of which were evidence, as well as the mess making them left behind.

IMO

[deputydi]

LOL! An interview with David Sween:

http://www.powow.com/reviews/sween.htm
Thanks. I had forgotten (mercifully) all about David Sween. What a hoot he was.

[Otter]

thanks for the laugh Paula. FOr an investigator, he sure hates law enforcement, doesn't he/she? Has no evidence - sounds just like Marlene

and I can't give you one....... I've said the bodies are one of my biggest hurdles..... but just the bodies alone don't prove he is the one who did it...

Such a dichotomy.

I never connected Sween and Marlene. Thanks for the insight. I'll leave it at that. ;)

[ekg]

It's a good question!

IMO, the fact that the prosecution didn't have audios to all Scott's calls should have compelled judge Delucchi to not allow the wiretaps into evidence...the jury heard a partial picture of what he said on his phone calls...for example, telling the jury Scott lied about calling Longview police was totally unfair and misleading..why? they didn't have the audio to a call that had the same call data as a call he made to Longview for which they had the audio..however, the jury didn't get to hear the audio of the other call..so IMO, the judge erred by allowing an incomplete picture of Scott's calls..

I can agree with that...

I also see the tapes as purely prejudicial and not at all probative.. they didn't prove a thing other than he was a womanizer, which last time I checked, wasn't against the law..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B - I don't know the full legal qualifications for a CA appeal, but what you said above sounds like "oh, I don't like THAT verdict, so I'll just have another go at it". I mean, I personally feel there was overwhelming evidence to convict ISP for TWO counts of first degree murder. Take away half the evidence and testimony presented, and I would still feel that way.

However, IMO, I don't see where my opinion or yours would be grounds or not grounds for an appeal. He went through the legal process, he had a better defense that 90% of those on trial, the judge was extremely lenient with the defense and MG's fabricated drama........

I don't see it, it doesn't make any sense at all that he'd be given another shot due to lack of evidence. The case was saturated with evidence. I've never heard of such a thing, and makes the entire system seem fragile at best if that were the case.

Do you have a link to explain this?

This is a case in FL that was reversed due to insufficient evidence...they explained why they reversed the murder conviction..

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CASE NO. 96-04983



JOSEPH ANGELO TERRANOVA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.
____________________________

Opinion filed October 29, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; J. Rodgers Padgett, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender,
and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public Defender,
Bartow for Appellant.


The medical examiner testified that the murders occurred between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on April 12, 1995. Emerine was shot twice in the right side of the head from a distance of no more than two feet. Valentino received a grazing wound to the face at close range. She was then fatally shot through the right side of her head.

Four shell casings from a .380 were found in the trailer. There was an unloaded .22 caliber rifle in a corner of the bedroom, as well as a metal ammunition box containing an unloaded .22 caliber automatic handgun. Detectives found a .38 revolver in a set of ladies pajamas in the headboard in a bedroom. In the fall of 1994, Valentino bought a .380 pistol from Daniela Carey. Terranova and Raymond Pilcher, a neighbor when Terranova lived in Arcadia, did some target practicing into a tree. Ballistics tests indicated that bullets retrieved from the tree and from the victims' bodies were fired from the same gun. Terranova told the police that Valentino took several guns with her when she left, including a .25 semiautomatic, a .38 revolver, a chrome .380, a .45, and a .22 caliber rifle. A consensual search of Terranova's residence yielded some .45 caliber ammunition, a .22 rifle, and a BB gun.

On April 13, 1995, Bobby Adkins, a maintenance man at the trailer park, noticed the door of the victims' trailer was peeled up from the bottom corner. Adkins knocked on the door and windows of the trailer. After getting no answer, he called the police, and Officer Michael Peterson of the Tampa Police Department arrived. Officer Peterson, who was 6'2'' and weighed 235 pounds could not fit in the approximately 20" opening of the door. He had Adkins, who weighed 175 pounds, slip through the opening, while he held the door up by the edge, and unlock the door from the inside. Terranova was described as weighing between 200 and 230 pounds, comparable in size to Officer Peterson.

Physical evidence was removed from the scene, but could not be connected to Terranova. For example, in the same bedroom with the bodies, a light switch had what looked to be a bloody print on it. The print proved to be of no value because, once black powder was put on it, the blood sample was destroyed. The police compared the tire prints at the scene with the tread from Terranova's rental car but the tracks did not match. The front door of the trailer was dusted for fingerprints but none of the prints belonged to Terranova.

While many witnesses were presented, the evidence that supported the State's theory that Terranova committed the murders can be summarized as follows: Some weeks prior to the murders, Terranova's wife left him and began living with Emerine. Terranova went to great lengths to determine where they were living and lied to the police by saying he did not know where the victims lived. On at least two occasions prior to the murders, Terranova made statements that could be taken as threats against the decedents. On the day before the murders, Terranova went to the bank with his wife, and they got into a heated argument. The bullets that were removed from the bodies of the victims matched bullets that were shot from a .38 caliber gun that Terranova owned at some point. A portion of the alibi testimony offered by Terranova's mother and her boyfriend was contradicted by other witnesses. Although this evidence suggests Terranova had a motive and possibly an opportunity to kill the victims, it falls far short of the kind of evidence needed to support first-degree murder.

Our courts have long held that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989), and M.P.W. v. State, 702 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). While the question of whether the circumstantial evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable inference is generally a question of fact for the jury, the jury's determination must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Long v. State, 689 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1997). Evidence that creates nothing more than a strong suspicion that a defendant committed the crime is not sufficient to support a conviction. See Scott v. State, 581 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1991). Terranova's hypothesis of innocence was simply he did not commit these murders. The evidence offered by the State is insufficient to point to only Terranova as the perpetrator of these crimes.

In this case, not only is Terranova's alibi testimony concerning his whereabouts at 10:00 p.m. unimpeached, but the physical evidence contradicts the State's case. The physical evidence recovered at the scene failed to implicate Terranova - none of the fingerprints recovered matched Terranova's, nor did the tire tracks match Terranova's rental car. Moreover, Terranova had an alibi - a witness placed Terranova in the town of Port Charlotte at approximately the time the murders were being committed. Additionally, the evidence shows that the door to the victims' trailer was bent in such a fashion that the officer who first arrived on the scene, who weighs 235 pounds and stands 6 feet 2 inches, could not enter the trailer. Since the door was locked from the inside, the only manner of egress was the bent aluminum door. Terranova's large frame (between 200-230 lbs) would prevent him from exiting the murder scene in this fashion. The State also failed to rebut Terranova's testimony that Valentino took the murder weapon with her when they separated.

Because the evidence fails to rebut Terranova's reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the trial court erred in failing to grant Terranova a judgment of acquittal. See Smolka v. State, 662 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Dudley v. State, 511 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

We therefore reverse and direct that Terranova be discharged




http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fl&vol=96-04983&invol=1

[attorneywan2be]

I can agree with that...

I also see the tapes as purely prejudicial and not at all probative.. they didn't prove a thing other than he was a womanizer, which last time I checked, wasn't against the law..


Exactly..IMO, none of his statements were incriminating..!

[ekg]

i just find it hard to fault brocchini (sp) for missing the use of the word meringue one single time in an hour-long show, especially coming 15 to 20 minutes after isp claimed he'd left the house that morning.

sorry for not taking the time to re-check, but when did isp mention cookies with the meringue? is this claimed by anyone other than geragos?

tia!

cyn

per brocchini being questioned by MG

81 pages $111.00

JUNE 23, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE







205. A. I asked him that.

206. Q. And he said: "I don't know, I don't know what they had on, some cooking deal, I don't know, cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue." Correct?

207. A. Yes.


per brocchini being questioned by MG


81 pages $111.00

JUNE 23, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE






274. Q. And Martha Stewart baked lemon butter cookies during the first, and then during the second segment there was no mention of meringue during any of this show, correct?

275. A. That's what I wrote.

I can absolutely find fault with Brocchini since it was his job to find out if that one single word was said on that day...... and he missed it, thus failing at that particular job..... and if he missed something that small and inconsequential it opens debate on what other things he may have missed..

[Hey Paula]

per brocchini being questioned by MG


per brocchini being questioned by MG

I can absolutely find fault with Brocchini since it was his job to find out if that one single word was said on that day...... and he missed it, thus failing at that particular job..... and if he missed something that small and inconsequential it opens debate on what other things he may have missed..

I wouldn't be surprised if Brocchini knew the word meringue was indeed mentioned. During the trial I labeled it "the meringue harangue", as the time the word was mentioned belied Scott's account of him leaving the house at 9:30AM. The "meringue harangue" narrowed the window of opportunity for Laci to have been abducted by strangers.

IMO

[ekg]

I can't find where it is mentioned. Odd that Scott happened to be there for that exact MENTION of meringue - one time in an hour long show.

Meringue was mentioned 8 times on the 23rd.


you can't find what that wasn't mentioned? cookies? well I hope I cleared that up for you..

as for it being 'odd' ...I think it's extremely telling .... if he was setting up an alibi for Laci to be alive he would have watched the episode in a little better and come up with more than.. "I don't know, I don't know what they had on, some cooking deal, I don't know, cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue."


and what are the chances that after talking about meringue eights times the day before, she was going to talk about it again the next day.... and it's even more telling that he was there for that single mention... I find it a compelling reason in my SODDI stance.. b/c he couldn't come up with a better description and the description he told LE was exactly what he said...