Scott Peterson's appeal

[Lavindar]

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

Isn't it interesting that a policeman was put on guard at the warehouse the night of the 24th and no one was allowed in to clean it up. Scott told Brent he was going to the warehouse, but he didn't get in.

[ekg]

ITA

Marlene Newell was (and still is) influencing the NG camp. snipped.

since I was at CTV after she was banned and while you couldn't even mention her name, I can honestly say I've never knowingly posted with her.... so she hasn't influence me one single bit TYVM...

[Lavindar]

since I was at CTV after she was banned and while you couldn't even mention her name, I can honestly say I've never knowingly posted with her.... so she hasn't influence me one single bit TYVM... You are most fortunate then.

[ekg]

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

Hi HP....

except Scott was not the 1st guy to ever pretend they were divorced or widowed when getting busted by their lover... or their lovers bff....

in fact Scott wasn't the 1st one to tell Amber his wife was 'gone'.... Scott never said she was dead, but the other guy made a big production about it didn't he?

no, telling a lie about you wife to your lover just doesn't mean anything other than bad timing IMO...

I disagree with the secrecy of the boat and the 5 anchors also...:D

[ekg]

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. ;)

I admit I'm a little slow..... so I'll just ask, what are you implying Otter?

[Hey Paula]

Isn't it interesting that a policeman was put on guard at the warehouse the night of the 24th and no one was allowed in to clean it up. Scott told Brent he was going to the warehouse, but he didn't get in.

I've always believed Det Brocchini knew Scott had lied about the power failure and intentionally left his notebook and keys behind to see if Scott would inadvertently flip the switch on. I don't believe, for an instant, that he believed Scott. That's why they post LE outside immediately before Scott had a chance to tidy up.

IMO

[Otter]

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.



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 ~snipped~

I ran out of colors to highlight some of the differences. From what you posted Terranova should have been reversed. The prosecution, from what I gathered relied on CE when there was DE. That wasn't presented from what I can glean.

What does this have to do with SP? As you have said there is no "hard" evidence. In other words, if there was DE that would counter the CE as in this cited case from Florida, yeah, there's an issue. There isn't. The whole thing is apples and aardvarks. Not even close. The prosecutors in Florida should face sanctions at the minimum. But the court also found that he wasn't the "sole perpertrator".

This guy also apparently had a solid alibi. SP's alibi put him into SQ's DR. Please note the bolded part of the opinion. Good short summary of what courts think of juries of CE. :)

[ekg]

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

so you think he intentional withheld the meringue mention and then lied to Jacobson so Jacobson could swear out an affidavit that it wasn't mentioned and get the wiretap?

regardless of whether that was the only reason for the taps or not, it was a reason...

it's interesting that you wouldn't be surprised that AB was that deceitful....it makes me ask if you think he could have been that deceitful in anything else he did..

[Otter]

I admit I'm a little slow..... so I'll just ask, what are you implying Otter?

Absolutely nothing ekg. Why would you even ask such a thing? I've drawn my own conclusions. On lots of different things. :patriot:

[ekg]

You are most fortunate then.

so I gather... lol

but wasn't there a G that was just as militant.. like the 'anti-marlene' that was also banned and a 'forbidden name' at ctv ?

[ekg]

I've always believed Det Brocchini knew Scott had lied about the power failure and intentionally left his notebook and keys behind to see if Scott would inadvertently flip the switch on. I don't believe, for an instant, that he believed Scott. That's why they post LE outside immediately before Scott had a chance to tidy up.

IMO


so IYO, AB knew he had his man that 1st night?

[attorneywan2be]

since I was at CTV after she was banned and while you couldn't even mention her name, I can honestly say I've never knowingly posted with her.... so she hasn't influence me one single bit TYVM...

I don't understand why some think that Marlene Newall influences the NG camp..IMO, we are all independent thinkers...I personally disagree with her on a lot of issues..I think we basically agree on one thing that Scott was wrongfully convicted...I personally believe that he is FACTUALLY innocent..

[Hey Paula]

Hi HP....

except Scott was not the 1st guy to ever pretend they were divorced or widowed when getting busted by their lover... or their lovers bff....

in fact Scott wasn't the 1st one to tell Amber his wife was 'gone'.... Scott never said she was dead, but the other guy made a big production about it didn't he?

no, telling a lie about you wife to your lover just doesn't mean anything other than bad timing IMO...

I disagree with the secrecy of the boat and the 5 anchors also...:D

Yep, the other guy gave Amber that line, but the difference is his wife is alive and Laci isn't after Scott said he "lost" her and even correctly predicted that Christmas would be his first holiday without her! :D Again, too much of a coincidence to be coincidence.

Even though you disagree, I still luv ya, LOL!

[ekg]

Absolutely nothing ekg. Why would you even ask such a thing? I've drawn my own conclusions. On lots of different things. :patriot:


just asking..... I wasn't sure with you quoting and mentioning Marlene and Sween(?) while quoting me at the same time.. seemed like you're trying to say something without actually saying it....

[Hey Paula]

so you think he intentional withheld the meringue mention and then lied to Jacobson so Jacobson could swear out an affidavit that it wasn't mentioned and get the wiretap?

regardless of whether that was the only reason for the taps or not, it was a reason...

it's interesting that you wouldn't be surprised that AB was that deceitful....it makes me ask if you think he could have been that deceitful in anything else he did..

Ah com'mon Ekg! You know it's a LE tactic to "lie" to get to the truth. LOL, they're dealing with criminals, not saints.

IMO

[ekg]

Yep, the other guy gave Amber that line, but the difference is his wife is alive and Laci isn't after Scott said he "lost" her and even correctly predicted that Christmas would be his first holiday without her! :D Again, too much of a coincidence to be coincidence.

Even though you disagree, I still luv ya, LOL!

aahhhh but she's only alive b/c she left right? he was the guy who beat the poop outta her wasn't he?

yes, it's a coincidence.. but IMO, nothing more than that....


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c146/whojournal/conversation_hearts.jpg

:D

[attorneywan2be]

~snipped~

I ran out of colors to highlight some of the differences. From what you posted Terranova should have been reversed. The prosecution, from what I gathered relied on CE when there was DE. That wasn't presented from what I can glean.

What does this have to do with SP? As you have said there is no "hard" evidence. In other words, if there was DE that would counter the CE as in this cited case from Florida, yeah, there's an issue. There isn't. The whole thing is apples and aardvarks. Not even close. The prosecutors in Florida should face sanctions at the minimum. But the court also found that he wasn't the "sole perpertrator".

This guy also apparently had a solid alibi. SP's alibi put him into SQ's DR. Please note the bolded part of the opinion. Good short summary of what courts think of juries of CE. :)


Where did I say that this case is identical to Scott's??...I provided an example of A murder conviction that was reversed based on insufficient evidence...I think it was TopGunner who asked me for a link that would explain "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" type of appeal...in other words, an example that demonstrates that the appellate court determined that the jury reached a verdict that was not supported by the evidence..

[PsychNurse;~)]

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:

the fact is that when a murder occurred, how a murder was committed, and where a murder occurred don't have to be proven. period.

the only thing that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that a murder occurred and who committed it.

that was done in this case, imo.

judge delucci is a well respected jurist and not for one moment do i believe he felt 'coerced' by public opinion to uphold a verdict AND sentence he felt unjust.

cyn

[ekg]

Ah com'mon Ekg! You know it's a LE tactic to "lie" to get to the truth. LOL, they're dealing with criminals, not saints.

IMO


yes... but to have someone lie under oath for you? to a judge? that should never be looked upon as ok.... unless it's a case of eminent death or something...

and if it's the case... and it could be proven, I would expect the phone taps to be thrown out on appeal...;)

[PsychNurse;~)]

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?

do you have access to the affidavit showing that the ms show was the only basis for them?

and, again, i sincerely don't see missing the one time mention of the word meringue in an hour long show (spoken 15 to 20 minutes after isp claims he left the house) as being an egregious error.

cyn

[Hey Paula]

so IYO, AB knew he had his man that 1st night?

Scott's behavior, inconsistent statements, temper tantrum, feigned power failure, "fishy" tale about a morning decision beause it was too cold to golf, his account of Laci the 8th month pregnant wonder woman with a jammed packed schedule, etc. undoubtedly got AB's antenna up. A good detective would have surely suspected him. Heck, I would have too!

IMO

[ekg]

the fact is that when a murder occurred, how a murder was committed, and where a murder occurred don't have to be proven. period.

the only thing that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that a murder occurred and who committed it.

that was done in this case, imo.

judge delucci is a well respected jurist and not for one moment do i believe he felt 'coerced' by public opinion to uphold a verdict AND sentence he felt unjust.

cyn

well with one of the lead detectives lying and stuff, and the rest of LE using those 'lying tactics'... it seems JD was coerced a little......




(sorry hp, I had to.... LOL:biggrin: )

good night.... I must get up at the ungodly hour of 3am...:eek:

[Hey Paula]

well with one of the lead detectives lying and stuff, and the rest of LE using those 'lying tactics'... it seems JD was coerced a little......




(sorry hp, I had to.... LOL:biggrin: )

good night.... I must get up at the ungodly hour of 3am...:eek:

LOL!

Goodnite, Ekg! :seeya:

Sweet Dreams!

[PsychNurse;~)]

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..!

:no: omg, that's not quite true and you know it. the initial visual assessment and measurements indicated more of a 'full term' size infant but based on conner's condition (swelling/maceration, etc) dr. peterson knew he couldn't go by that!

his testimony:

Now, with regards to going back to Conner, did you make some type of determination of his age at the time of his death?

A. I did. The measurement that I am accustom to making, that would be typical for a forensic pathologist to do, is simply measuring body length, and that can be either crown-heel length, the measurement from the top of the head to the heel, or crown-rump length. Based on those two measurements, the estimated gestational age for Conner was nine months.

Q. And did you find that to be what you were doing there, the measurement from the crown to the rump, to be accurate under the circumstances that you were looking at?

MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: My opinion was that that was not a particularly accurate measurement, and the reason is that this body was soft and decomposing. As tissues decompose, they tend to expand. And as tissues expand, in a case like this, that can affect the entire body. So my opinion is is that the crown-rump length is something that I could measure, but in terms of trying to come up with an accurate estimate of gestational age, there were more accurate ways to do it, and, in fact, I relied on Dr. Galloway for that measurement.

MR. HARRIS:

Q. Did you have Dr. Galloway perform measurements of Conner Peterson?

A. Well, she did it as part of her professional expertise. I didn't require it, I didn't ask her to do it, but she simply did it.

Q. And what was her estimate?

A. Dr. Galloway's estimate was 33 to 38 weeks gestational age.

[PsychNurse;~)]

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.


speaking of geragos, did anyone else hear the rumor that mg did in fact have the pubic hair tested and it wasn't brought up in the trial because it didn't help his case????


cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi HP....

except Scott was not the 1st guy to ever pretend they were divorced or widowed when getting busted by their lover... or their lovers bff....

in fact Scott wasn't the 1st one to tell Amber his wife was 'gone'.... Scott never said she was dead, but the other guy made a big production about it didn't he?

no, telling a lie about you wife to your lover just doesn't mean anything other than bad timing IMO...

I disagree with the secrecy of the boat and the 5 anchors also...:D

i personally don't think it's so much about claiming his wife was gone--it's the entirety of the situation.

he tells amber he LOST his wife, this will be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'll be FREE to spend more time will her in january.

THE VERY NEXT DAY he begins looking for a boat. he's not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci were married.

he buys the boat. it's never registered by him, nor insured. no one ever sees the boat. he never tells anyone he bought a boat.

the one day he takes the boat out he drives over 4 hours round trip to spend less than 1 hour on the water. it's on this very day he actually loses his wife.

four months later, after a storm, laci and conner's remains wash ashore in the vicinity isp was the day they disappeared.


cyn

[attorneywan2be]

Scott's behavior, inconsistent statements, temper tantrum, feigned power failure, "fishy" tale about a morning decision beause it was too cold to golf, his account of Laci the 8th month pregnant wonder woman with a jammed packed schedule, etc. undoubtedly got AB's antenna up. A good detective would have surely suspected him. Heck, I would have too!

IMO

Hi Paula..

Please elaborate as to the inconsistent statements Scott made to Brocchini that got his antenna up..in addition, some pregnant women go to work until couple of days before the due date..in fact, Fulbright testified that she worked until the day before she delivered..the maid testified that Laci went grocery shopping, carried several shopping bags..and according to testimony, Laci had a very busy schedule on the 23rd:

She went grocery shopping at Trader Joe's
She went to Phillips electric regarding a lamp
She went to Sweet serenity Spa
She went to her doctor's office..
She went to Salon Salon..

[PsychNurse;~)]

Where did I say that this case is identical to Scott's??...I provided an example of A murder conviction that was reversed based on insufficient evidence...I think it was TopGunner who asked me for a link that would explain "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" type of appeal...in other words, an example that demonstrates that the appellate court determined that the jury reached a verdict that was not supported by the evidence..


thanks for an interesting read!

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

:no: omg, that's not quite true and you know it. the initial visual assessment and measurements indicated more of a 'full term' size infant but based on conner's condition (swelling/maceration, etc) dr. peterson knew he couldn't go by that!

his testimony:

Now, with regards to going back to Conner, did you make some type of determination of his age at the time of his death?

A. I did. The measurement that I am accustom to making, that would be typical for a forensic pathologist to do, is simply measuring body length, and that can be either crown-heel length, the measurement from the top of the head to the heel, or crown-rump length. Based on those two measurements, the estimated gestational age for Conner was nine months.

Q. And did you find that to be what you were doing there, the measurement from the crown to the rump, to be accurate under the circumstances that you were looking at?

MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: My opinion was that that was not a particularly accurate measurement, and the reason is that this body was soft and decomposing. As tissues decompose, they tend to expand. And as tissues expand, in a case like this, that can affect the entire body. So my opinion is is that the crown-rump length is something that I could measure, but in terms of trying to come up with an accurate estimate of gestational age, there were more accurate ways to do it, and, in fact, I relied on Dr. Galloway for that measurement.

MR. HARRIS:

Q. Did you have Dr. Galloway perform measurements of Conner Peterson?

A. Well, she did it as part of her professional expertise. I didn't require it, I didn't ask her to do it, but she simply did it.

Q. And what was her estimate?

A. Dr. Galloway's estimate was 33 to 38 weeks gestational age.

We've got the ME saying that Conner was a full term baby...we've got Galloway measuring 11 bones..the average length of those bones put Conner between 35 to 36 weeks..then she applied a margin of error of 2 weeks giving an estimate of 33 to 38 weeks..so IYO this evidence proved BARD that Conner was 33 weeks when found!?

[PsychNurse;~)]

We've got the ME saying that Conner was a full term baby...we've got Galloway measuring 11 bones..the average length of those bones put Conner between 35 to 36 weeks..then she applied a margin of error of 2 weeks giving an estimate of 33 to 38 weeks..so IYO this evidence proved BARD that Conner was 33 weeks when found!?

the me NEVER stated conner was a full term baby.

averages are great for averaging things out, but the reality is that some newborns are 18" long while others can be over 21" long.

you also have to keep in mind that while laci was, according to her doc, 33 weeks along, there is always a 2+ week window for error on those gestational estimates.

cyn

[adnoid]

...The "meringue harangue" narrowed the window of opportunity for Laci to have been abducted by strangers...

And helped tighten the noose around Scott. It was glorious.

[adnoid]

Was this blown off for a third time? Shocking! :D

Heck, MY questions are blown off more than three times before I can even finish my morning coffee!

[attorneywan2be]

the me NEVER stated conner was a full term baby.

averages are great for averaging things out, but the reality is that some newborns are 18" long while others can be over 21" long.

you also have to keep in mind that while laci was, according to her doc, 33 weeks along, there is always a 2+ week window for error on those gestational estimates.

cyn

Mark Geragos: And you, you also characterized in your report, did you not, previously when you've testified, that the baby appeared to you to be a full-term baby; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct

Here is my question:

-The ME testified that Conner appeared to be a full term baby
-The ME testified that he estimated his gestational age to be 9 months (280 days
-Galloway measured 11 bones..6 of the 11 bones put Conner at 38 to 40 weeks old..
-The average length of the 11 bones put Conner at 35 to 36 weeks old..after she applied a margin of error of 2 weeks she got 33 to 38 weeks estimated gestational age

Based on this evidence that was presented to the jury...do you think the prosectuion proved BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th at age 33 weeks?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Mark Geragos: And you, you also characterized in your report, did you not, previously when you've testified, that the baby appeared to you to be a full-term baby; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct

Here is my question:

-The ME testified that Conner appeared to be a full term baby
-The ME testified that he estimated his gestational age to be 9 months (280 days
-Galloway measured 11 bones..6 of the 11 bones put Conner at 38 to 40 weeks old..
-The average length of the 11 bones put Conner at 35 to 36 weeks old..after she applied a margin of error of 2 weeks she got 33 to 38 weeks estimated gestational age

Based on this evidence that was presented to the jury...do you think the prosectuion proved BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th at age 33 weeks?

again, the me testified that while conner appeared VISUALLY and by measurement to be consistent with full term, he knew that his visual assessment and measurements were not going to be an accurate estimation because of the swelling/maceration of conner's body. so i totally discount anything you say about the me stating conner appeared to be full term.

i do believe the prosecution proved bard that conner died on the 24th.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

again, the me testified that while conner appeared VISUALLY and by measurement to be consistent with full term, he knew that his visual assessment and measurements were not going to be an accurate estimation because of the swelling/maceration of conner's body. so i totally discount anything you say about the me stating conner appeared to be full term.

i do believe the prosecution proved bard that conner died on the 24th.

cyn

to clarify just a bit more, since there's a two + week variance in what laci's doctor estimated conner's gestational age to be (meaning he could actually have been up to 35 weeks gestation) and dr. galloway's estimates, i have no trouble believing the prosecution proved their case bard.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

to clarify just a bit more, since there's a two + week variance in what laci's doctor estimated conner's gestational age to be (meaning he could actually have been up to 35 weeks gestation) and dr. galloway's estimates, i have no trouble believing the prosecution proved their case bard.

cyn

You said:

(meaning he could actually have been up to 35 weeks gestation)

"Could actually have been" !!! and you consider that a fact that was proven BARD?

[One2Snoop]

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.

ITA Lavindar - I've said that same thing over and over again - there is NOTHING THAT SAYS EXACTLY WHO WAS ON THE COMPUTER THAT MORNING, although SCOTTS EMAIL WAS CHECKED THAT MORNING!

Just thought I'd add my 2cents on this computer subject - if we all think back to Dec. 2001, pop up blockers where pretty much non-existent. I think very few people really knew about them if they even existed. Technologies come a long way since Dec 2001, so I think Psych Nurse's theory that it was possibly a pop-up add ( they were so obvious back then vs today) is highly likely for that time period. IMO, JMO.

[Lavindar]

so you think he intentional withheld the meringue mention and then lied to Jacobson so Jacobson could swear out an affidavit that it wasn't mentioned and get the wiretap?

regardless of whether that was the only reason for the taps or not, it was a reason...

it's interesting that you wouldn't be surprised that AB was that deceitful....it makes me ask if you think he could have been that deceitful in anything else he did..


The police KNEW about amber when they swore out the affadavit for the wiretaps. Do you really believe that his having a mistress alone was not enough to support a wiretap - that and the lie about power to the warehosue. Scott was deceitful from the start. That is not a good thing to be in a missing persons case. Look closely at his behavior,. He comes home from being gone the better part of the day with NO communication with his wife. She is not home, her purse, keys, pepper spray are in the bedroom, she does not have a functional cell phone, her car is in the driveway, the door is unlocked, the dog is loose inthe yard on a leash, the bucket she supposedly used to mop the floor is sitting there, the floor is not mopped, baking she intended to do is not done, there are no groceries sitting out, the phone messages have not been checked and there is no note. Yet he empties the bucket (which I suspect is still full of clean water), washes his wet clothes from a rain that did not occur, eats pizza, and then, and only then calls her mother, not the police or the hospitals. He does not see if an ambulance has been called. He casually calls and says that Laci is missing. He is not frantic - he hasn't worked up to that yet. He allows someone ELSE to call the police and report her missing. He shows considerable lack of concern. If he were my husband and acted like that, he'd be in divorce court pronto.

[Lavindar]

Mark Geragos: And you, you also characterized in your report, did you not, previously when you've testified, that the baby appeared to you to be a full-term baby; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct

Here is my question:

-The ME testified that Conner appeared to be a full term baby
-The ME testified that he estimated his gestational age to be 9 months (280 days
-Galloway measured 11 bones..6 of the 11 bones put Conner at 38 to 40 weeks old..
-The average length of the 11 bones put Conner at 35 to 36 weeks old..after she applied a margin of error of 2 weeks she got 33 to 38 weeks estimated gestational age

Based on this evidence that was presented to the jury...do you think the prosectuion proved BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th at age 33 weeks?

The operative term here is APPEARED. Peterson's autopsy refers to him as a FETUS, not a baby. A baby appears fully formed at anytime in the third trimester. Internal developement is not complete however. That is why premies have a rough time of surviving. Conner weighed 3.5 lbs - that is NOT a full term baby by any stretch of the imagination. His internal development was not possible to assess do to maceration. Appearance and actuality are not the same thing, Please show me the testimony where he says that Conner appears to be a full term baby. Thank you in advance. I strongly suspect that the term was one that Garegos said, not Peterson.

[PsychNurse;~)]

You said:

(meaning he could actually have been up to 35 weeks gestation)

"Could actually have been" !!! and you consider that a fact that was proven BARD?

even utilizing just the 33 to 38 week scenerio, yes, imo, it was proven bard.

cyn

[Lavindar]

We've got the ME saying that Conner was a full term baby...we've got Galloway measuring 11 bones..the average length of those bones put Conner between 35 to 36 weeks..then she applied a margin of error of 2 weeks giving an estimate of 33 to 38 weeks..so IYO this evidence proved BARD that Conner was 33 weeks when found!?

Fetus information is NEVER exact. I have yet to find a woman who delivered on her "due date." Given that, it is NORMAL to give a plus or minus which Galloway did.

I have been reading Dr. Peterson's testimony and the "appeared to be a full term baby" are Geragos's words.

Here's some of Peterson's own words and descriptions:

66) Brian Peterson: Yes, your Honor. What we received was another deposed body, and this was received as just that, a decomposed infant or fetus body. And that was about the information that I had. I knew that he had been found washed up on shore. For what it's worth, our typical thinking in those type cases is to try to determine whether or not we're dealing with a baby that had been born or not. In other words, if we're dealing with a live birth that has subsequently been discarded, that's one set of issues. If we're dealing with a still birth that has been discarded, that's a different set of issues. So my job, in as much as I can, is to try to make that differentiation between still birth and live birth. In this case, as in Laci's case, the job was more difficult because this body had been subject to a large amount of post-mortem change. Not quite like Laci's change, but a different set of changes that ran more along the lines of a process called maceration. Maceration is a term for taking a body and putting it in water, oftentimes warm water, and the degradation that follows there. Things are a little bit different for a fetus in the uterus. The reason is that that environment is basically a sterile environment. So in the mom, you don't have decomposition, as we talked about yesterday. There's that difference between decomposition and autolysis. There's a difference between decomposition and maceration. So the changes that I saw involving Conner were more along the lines of autolysis and maceration. Additionally, to my eye there was no evidence of animal feeding. There weren't the parts missing, in other words, that there were in Laci. So, to start out with it was the same type process. Here was a body that had undergone substantial post-mortem degradation, and my job was to try to determine if this baby had ever been born, if it were a live birth or a still birth, and maybe come up with a cause of death.
67) David Harris: Now, as you're talking about some, some terminology there, again, and I want to go through that. Post-mortem degradation. To try and put it in terms that maybe we can all understand, when you're talking about the decomposition of this particular body, can you describe that for us a little bit more?
68) Brian Peterson: I think by way of comparison, of course, infant bodies are substantially different than adult bodies. They don't have the subcutaneous fat. The skeletal system is different. A lot of the bones aren't joined, as they are in adults. So, for example, your skull is actually made up of several bones. As adults, those bones are all fused together. As you know from being around infants, they haven't. They have the soft spot, front and back. That's because the skull plates haven't joined. So in Conner's case those plates were overriding. It was very easy to deform that head. In terms of changes beneath the skin, they weren't what you would see in an adult. It was more of a liquefying type process. So in Conner, for the most part the organs were still inside the body, but they were remarkably liquefied. How do I know that? Because the weights were substantially different than they should have been. So the tissue had to go somewhere, so that's basically what happens. It liquefies. So even though the organ looks like it's there, a lot of the mass was missing. So the other degradation-type processes that I observed was some post-mortem tearing that involved the shoulder, extending across the chest and to the abdomen. Again, to my eye there was no evidence of feeding there, just tearing. Now, this body was very soft and it came apart quite easily, so my thinking at the time and at this point was that that tearing could have been caused by the physical action of the body being thrown up on shore.
69) David Harris: As you go through in your examination of the body, do you do the same thing of documenting it and collecting anything that might be there?

80) Brian Peterson: If there is antemortem tearing, we'll associate that with blunt force injury. Blunt force injury, there's three different types: Contusion, which is a bruise; abrasion, which is a scraping-type injury, like road rash; or a crushing or tearing type injury, such as a laceration. In the case of laceration, the way we differentiate that from, say, sharp force, like an incision, is that in the depths of the laceration there are bridges, soft tissue bridges. They can be connective tissue, blood vessels, nerves, et cetera. In an incision, caused by a sharp object, there's no such bridging. The way that the tear on Conner look was more that the tissue was soft enough to simply pull apart. In the case of this happening during life there will be other changes in that soft tissue, like bleeding. There was no bleeding in this case. So it was simply dead tissue that was pulling apart.

[Lavindar]

Warning - rather graphic

110) Brian Peterson: Sure. This is a picture of Conner taken from his left. So this would be his left shoulder and arm right here. Over on the right you can get an idea of that tear that we were talking about a little bit earlier. The head doesn't look normally shaped because it's not. That's because of that overriding effect of the skull plates that I mentioned


Again, you can see better in this picture the overriding of the skull plates. Partly because of the brain being decomposed,

It's probably better to see it here, you can see how the forehead kind of collapses in, again because the brain has liquefied and those plates overrideThe back. There's some more liquefaction, disolving-type change there. That's actually skeletal muscle you can see through


142) David Harris: And Laci was in a fluid environment, but she wasn't protected in the same way. Can you describe the difference there?
143) Brian Peterson: Sure. We'll even use the term maceration in a hospital pathology where we're looking at a still birth and a baby that's died in the uterus and then, perhaps, is delivered a day or two or three or more later will undergo the same type changes. Not to the degree that we see in Conner, but maceration-type changes anyway. In a fresher stillborn, those will often involve skin changes, overriding of the skull plates, and, to a certain degree, liquefaction of the organs. So we'll see that in a hospital setting, too, and that's where that term maceration would be used. I think the difference is they were both in fluid, they were both in fluid environments, but Conner was much more protected than Laci. So the question is how can one reasonably explain the fact, both fluid environments, there's so much more of her missing, there's really little of him missing, how does that happen. And my conclusion was the fluid was different. He was protected in the uterus. There was amniotic fluid. She was in the ocean. Different kind of protection.145) Brian Peterson: Again at the time that Conner came in, first thing that morning, all we knew is that this was a body that had washed up, and, and we knew that basically we were looking at a fetus. So my thinking was certainly not this might be Conner Peterson. My thinking was Well, was this a stillborn or a live born. Again, if a live born baby is later either allowed to die or killed, and then disposed of, that's a rather important issue. If a baby is stillborn and the body is disposed of, that's still an important issue, but it is different than killing or disposing of a baby. So the job of a forensic pathologist is to try to determine, if we can, if that baby is stillborn or live born. Now, unfortunately, due to the condition of Conner's body the kinds of things that we would like to look for simply weren't there. For example one of the tests we can do, not really a test, one of the procedures that we can do is to take a microscopic section of the umbilical cord stump and look for a thing called vital reaction. The idea being that, in a living baby, when the umbilical cord is cut, there's inflammation at the end there. Eventually it scabs and dries and so forth. In this case, because of the post-mortem change, that simply wasn't practical. This was simply decomposed tissue. Another possibility would be to look for food in the stomach. So if the baby has fed after birth, there might be formula or curdled formula in the stomach. Again, that wasn't here. And that, that's about the extent of it. Unfortunately, there's no other dramatic, simple, or even complicated tests to differentiate stillbirth from live birth. So what I was left with was looking at Conner's anatomy and asking myself is there any anatomical reason that I think he couldn't have lived. I found no such evidence. So, just as the case was with Laci, I ended up concluding that the cause of death was undetermined.
146) David Harris: Now, to go back through this process and looking at everything in terms of the anatomy, and you were describing the umbilical cord, was there an umbilical cord there, or a portion of it there?
147) Brian Peterson: There was a portion of umbilical cord. The measurement that I gave was half a centimeter, roughly a quarter inch.
148) David Harris: And did you examine that at all?
Brian Peterson: I did. The, the margin of the cord, in other words, the part farthest away from Conner, I described as being soft and friable without evidence of knot or cutting. Friable means crumbly. It was falling apart.
149) David Harris: Now, when you say no evidence of knot or cutting, what does that mean?
150) Brian Peterson: Well, there, once a baby's born, the umbilical cord has to be closed or else the baby will bleed to death. Typically in a hospital setting that's done by putting clamps, two clamps on the cord and cutting in between. So what you end up with is a placenta and an umbilical cord that has a clamp on it, and a baby and cord with a clamp on it. In this case there was no evidence that, there was obviously no clamp. Had the cord been cut, as with a knife, that will typically leave a sharp margin. The margin was not sharp. Sometimes there can be knots in the cord. That can actually be a cause of death in the uterus. A true knot in the cord. There was no knot in this cord. So to make a long story short, there was no evidence that it had been cut, there was no evidence that it had been clamped, there was no evidence that there was a knot there. All there was was a crumbly end.
151) David Harris: Let me go back to something you just said. Under certain, you were describing a situation where there can be a knot in the umbilical cord and that can result in death. What happens? How does that happen?
152) Brian Peterson: The, the baby is certainly free to move in the uterus, and, and does a lot. And, and as that baby is moving, tumbling, whatever they do in there, they have to interact with their own umbilical cord. So it is possible to find even more than one actual knot in the cord, just from the way that baby loops around and tumbles, and et cetera, around the cord. It's more common to find a knot that isn't particularly tight and the baby does fine. We see those not uncommonly. Less commonly, depending on how that baby moves, if that knot gets snugged tight, then blood can no longer circulate between the placenta and the baby, and, of course, the placenta is sort of the life support system. That's how the baby gets oxygen and nutrients from the mom. So if blood can't flow through that cord, the baby dies.
153) David Harris: So you examined the small portion of the umbilical cord that was there. You were describing for us earlier how they were, that Conner's intestines were there. Do you also examine things such as the intestines?

[Lavindar]

154) Brian Peterson: I did. In this case there was a portion of the colon that actually was coming out the anus. In the colon there was a material call meconium. It's a dark green, kind of thick, it's a pasty fluid. And typically when newborns have their first bowel movement, that's what you see is meconium. Sometimes when babies are in distress in the uterus they can actually dump that in the uterus, which can cause lung problems later. But in Conner's case the meconium was still where it belonged, in the colon.
155) David Harris: And is there, does that indicate anything?
156) Brian Peterson: Well, the fact that was, that it was there. If it hadn't been there, then I might have thought Well, where did it go, why wasn't it where it was supposed to be. The fact that it was there was a clue to me that likely he had died before the birthing process, before he had a chance to get rid of that.
157) David Harris: Did you, as you go through this whole process, was there anything definitive that could give you the answer, just looking at Conner, that could give you the answer of whether he had been born or not?
158) Brian Peterson: There was not.
159) David Harris: And as part of the investigation that Jeff Soler from Richmond PD was there for, did you advise him of your findings at that point in time?
160) Brian Peterson: I did. And I, I think the way that I phrased it was, as I've said here earlier, was that there was nothing anatomic that would have precluded live birth.
161) David Harris: And that's just looking at Conner?
162) Brian Peterson: That's correct.
163) David Harris: Now, if you factor into everything that you find with Conner and then apply that to what you find with Laci, does that give you more information to form your opinion or conclusion?
164) Brian Peterson: It did, but unfortunately not specifically towards cause of death. I left the cause of death with Conner undetermined. But, truly, I believe that whatever, for whatever reason that Laci met her demise, it was her death that caused Conner's death; that he was still in the uterus. And I base that, again, on the difference in the bodies in terms of presence and absence, feeding, no feeding, protection, no protection.
165) David Harris: I want to come back to, to the discussion about cause of death in a minute, but as you go through this process when you have Conner there just by himself before Laci comes in for the autopsy, was Conner identified?
166) Brian Peterson: He was, he was Baby Doe at the time of the autopsy. And, in fact, at the time of Laci's autopsy later that day, he was still Baby Doe. He wasn't identified until later in the week. Also by DNA.

168) Brian Peterson: I did. Again, I took skeletal muscle, just as in the case with Laci, and also the thigh bones containing marrow. Those were shipped off to the DNA lab.
169) David Harris: And ultimately the results for the DNA results for both Conner and Laci came back?
170) Brian Peterson: And that's how they came back, with those identifications, that they were Conner and Laci.
171) David Harris: Once you, you got that confirmation that they were Laci and Conner, is that when you can put all of this information together conclusively?
172) Brian Peterson: Yes.

I fail to see how a mishapen fetus with liquified brains could even appear like a full term baby. Geragos is playing with words again Notice how Geragos does his questioning versus letting Peterson explain anything. What is Geragos hiding? The fact he knows the truth.

[Lavindar]

so I gather... lol

but wasn't there a G that was just as militant.. like the 'anti-marlene' that was also banned and a 'forbidden name' at ctv ?


I wouldn't know. I didn't even know Marlene ever posted here.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

Please elaborate as to the inconsistent statements Scott made to Brocchini that got his antenna up..in addition, some pregnant women go to work until couple of days before the due date..in fact, Fulbright testified that she worked until the day before she delivered..the maid testified that Laci went grocery shopping, carried several shopping bags..and according to testimony, Laci had a very busy schedule on the 23rd:

She went grocery shopping at Trader Joe's
She went to Phillips electric regarding a lamp
She went to Sweet serenity Spa
She went to her doctor's office..
She went to Salon Salon..

Hi AW2B!

From the outset, Scott's morning decision, to go fishing because it was too cold to golf didn't sit right, as it wouldn't have with any good detective worth his/her salt. Scott told Amy Krigbaum (Tara Venable heard it too) that he'd been golfing, and told others he'd been fishing. What Scott first said he'd been fishing for didn't match his equipment. Furthermore, his equipment wasn't even assembled and items were yet unopened.

Laci's OB-GYN said Laci was extremely tired the prior day, and IIRC, even assisted her to her car. Also, IIRC, Ms Nava testified that after Laci brought the groceries in, Laci headed for the sofa. Sharon said Laci was feeling ill and was cautioned not to walk McKenzie because she'd gotten sick while doing so previously. That, together with the sharp incline approach to East La Loma Park with McKenzie in tow would have been difficult for Laci to accomplish safely, and I doubt she would have risked harming herself and Conner. Furthermore, I believe Laci's tennis shoes were at the porch door.

The mops were wet, despite the fact Ms Nava had cleaned the day before and Laci had cooked (they had pizza) after that, nor had she begun her holiday baking, so Scott's tale of Laci mopping the floor was inconsitent with the evidence.

Scott was also seen throwing his flashlight to the ground and cursing when his tales were questioned.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

And helped tighten the noose around Scott. It was glorious.

Assisted by Karen Servas, who tightened it even further. In an attempt to pick her brain, or to otherwise fall into her good graces, she was invited to Scott's house for a special Christmas tortellini dinner.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi Paula..

Please elaborate as to the inconsistent statements Scott made to Brocchini that got his antenna up..in addition, some pregnant women go to work until couple of days before the due date..in fact, Fulbright testified that she worked until the day before she delivered..the maid testified that Laci went grocery shopping, carried several shopping bags..and according to testimony, Laci had a very busy schedule on the 23rd:

She went grocery shopping at Trader Joe's
She went to Phillips electric regarding a lamp
She went to Sweet serenity Spa
She went to her doctor's office..
She went to Salon Salon..

Prior to Brochinni's arrival, Scott told officers he had been fishing, but couldn't say for what kind of fish, I have little doubt Brochinni had been given this information. When Brochinni questions him later, Scott claims it was a morning decision to go fishing because it was too COLD to golf, but then says
he didn't stop for bait and a lot of reason he went was too get the boat in the water. So, it was going to be warmer out in the Bay then it would have been on a golf course? And he had to drive 90 miles away to get the boat in the water? Scott's demeanor was also noted in AB's report ( relaxed, lacking in urgency). I think the mop/bucket found outside the door/house, Scott's detailed explanation for this, his washing of the clothes he had been wearing, the loaded gun in the glove box... all of this combined could have aroused suspicion in a CAP Detective who is well- aware of domestic homicide statistics..JMO. ( and Laci's car was in the driveway, purse in the home, no sign of theft or forced entry into the home, dog w/ leash attached was found by Scott right away upon returning home, he claimed he hadn't spoken to her since that morning, but he did not act immediately to begin looking for Laci.. )
As for Laci's activities the day before, if she could lift and carry groceries, why does Scott CLAIM he had to empty a bucket of water for her? And why would Laci MOP the floor ( when the maid had just been there) prior to baking and more shopping, and just prior to walking the dog ( the dog would just track in more mud upon returning!) IMO
Scott's "story" made no sense..... IMO

[frydaddy]

Heck, MY questions are blown off more than three times before I can even finish my morning coffee!

It's why I'm a soda drinker myself!

I wonder if there is a medical condition that causes one to ask questions whose answers will never be considered. It reminds me of the great Pee Wee Herman (played by the not so swift Paul "Spanky" Reubens) rendering, "I know you are, but what am I?" Pee Wee really didn't want to know what the other person thought of himself, but he always asked!

[frydaddy]

Prior to Brochinni's arrival, Scott told officers he had been fishing, but couldn't say for what kind of fish, I have little doubt Brochinni had been given this information. When Brochinni questions him later, Scott claims it was a morning decision to go fishing because it was too COLD to golf, but then says
he didn't stop for bait and a lot of reason he went was too get the boat in the water. So, it was going to be warmer out in the Bay then it would have been on a golf course? And he had to drive 90 miles away to get the boat in the water? Scott's demeanor was also noted in AB's report ( relaxed, lacking in urgency). I think the mop/bucket found outside the door/house, Scott's detailed explanation for this, his washing of the clothes he had been wearing, the loaded gun in the glove box... all of this combined could have aroused suspicion in a CAP Detective who is well- aware of domestic homicide statistics..JMO. ( and Laci's car was in the driveway, purse in the home, no sign of theft or forced entry into the home, dog w/ leash attached was found by Scott right away upon returning home, he claimed he hadn't spoken to her since that morning, but he did not act immediately to begin looking for Laci.. )
As for Laci's activities the day before, if she could lift and carry groceries, why does Scott CLAIM he had to empty a bucket of water for her? And why would Laci MOP the floor ( when the maid had just been there) prior to baking and more shopping, and just prior to walking the dog ( the dog would just track in more mud upon returning!) IMO
Scott's "story" made no sense..... IMO

You and Paula are dead on. Detectives are trained to pick up on quirks and odd behaviors of anyone involved in a missing persons case. In hindsight, this "my poor Scott was the victim of a rush to judgment" is a little silly. I'd bet if you took 1000 detectives and placed them in Brocchini's shoes, 999 would have had their hinky meters set off by Scott and his behaviors, actions, and words. And 999 is being generous.

As I reflect on this case each day, I think the arguments of a particular advocate and the failure of a couple of them to answer questions, only reinforces my belief that Scott did this.

[Hey Paula]

You and Paula are dead on. Detectives are trained to pick up on quirks and odd behaviors of anyone involved in a missing persons case. In hindsight, this "my poor Scott was the victim of a rush to judgment" is a little silly. I'd bet if you took 1000 detectives and placed them in Brocchini's shoes, 999 would have had their hinky meters set off by Scott and his behaviors, actions, and words. And 999 is being generous.

As I reflect on this case each day, I think the arguments of a particular advocate and the failure of a couple of them to answer questions, only reinforces my belief that Scott did this.

Good Morning Frydaddy!

In nearly four months from the time Laci disappeared to the time of Scott's arrest, you would think that between the reward offer and the planning involved to keep Laci alive until Conner was "full term", the "real killers" would have surfaced or been outed. But alas, the only surfacing to have occurred, were the remains of Laci and Conner, 90 miles from Modesto, where Scott was trolling on the day Laci disappeared. Prior to him having been retained, Mark Geragos publically stated how damning and incontrovertible that evidence was. He even attached the sociopath label to Scott, but later used more benign descriptions such as "cad" and said Scott "felt like a 14 carat _______" for cheating on Laci.

There was no rush to judgment. Scott convicted himself through his own words and actions, and in some cases, due to the lack of them.

IMO

[frydaddy]

Good Morning Frydaddy!

In nearly four months from the time Laci disappeared to the time of Scott's arrest, you would think that between the reward offer and the planning involved to keep Laci alive until Conner was "full term", the "real killers" would have surfaced or been outed. But alas, the only surfacing to have occurred, were the remains of Laci and Conner, 90 miles from Modesto, where Scott was trolling on the day Laci disappeared. Prior to him having been retained, Mark Geragos publically stated how damning and incontrovertible that evidence was. He even attached the sociopath label to Scott, but later used more benign descriptions such as "cad" and said Scott "felt like a 14 carat _______" for cheating on Laci.

There was no rush to judgment. Scott convicted himself through his own words and actions, and in some cases, due to the lack of them.

IMO

Sweet P, your not kinda smart, you're real smart! :beer:

[deputydi]

You said:

(meaning he could actually have been up to 35 weeks gestation)

"Could actually have been" !!! and you consider that a fact that was proven BARD?
How is that any different than you stating that the ME testified that Conner APPEARED TO BE a full term baby. That's all you needed to convince you BARD that Conner was much older than 33 weeks.

[Hey Paula]

Sweet P, your not kinda smart, you're real smart! :beer:

It was bound to rub off because I'm in good company! :beer:

[deputydi]

Hi Paula..

Please elaborate as to the inconsistent statements Scott made to Brocchini that got his antenna up..in addition, some pregnant women go to work until couple of days before the due date..in fact, Fulbright testified that she worked until the day before she delivered..the maid testified that Laci went grocery shopping, carried several shopping bags..and according to testimony, Laci had a very busy schedule on the 23rd:

She went grocery shopping at Trader Joe's
She went to Phillips electric regarding a lamp
She went to Sweet serenity Spa
She went to her doctor's office..
She went to Salon Salon..
The only thing in your list I would consider even slightly strenuous is the first one. But, I hate grocery shopping myself -- maybe it was something Laci enjoyed. As for the Spa and hairdresser -- those are activities that are very relaxing and totally non-stressful (unless you get a bad haircut LOL).

[JustMyOpinion]

You and Paula are dead on. Detectives are trained to pick up on quirks and odd behaviors of anyone involved in a missing persons case. In hindsight, this "my poor Scott was the victim of a rush to judgment" is a little silly. I'd bet if you took 1000 detectives and placed them in Brocchini's shoes, 999 would have had their hinky meters set off by Scott and his behaviors, actions, and words. And 999 is being generous.

As I reflect on this case each day, I think the arguments of a particular advocate and the failure of a couple of them to answer questions, only reinforces my belief that Scott did this.

Good morning, frydaddy,
I am in total agreement!

[JustMyOpinion]

Good Morning Frydaddy!

In nearly four months from the time Laci disappeared to the time of Scott's arrest, you would think that between the reward offer and the planning involved to keep Laci alive until Conner was "full term", the "real killers" would have surfaced or been outed. But alas, the only surfacing to have occurred, were the remains of Laci and Conner, 90 miles from Modesto, where Scott was trolling on the day Laci disappeared. Prior to him having been retained, Mark Geragos publically stated how damning and incontrovertible that evidence was. He even attached the sociopath label to Scott, but later used more benign descriptions such as "cad" and said Scott "felt like a 14 carat _______" for cheating on Laci.

There was no rush to judgment. Scott convicted himself through his own words and actions, and in some cases, due to the lack of them.IMO

Good morning, Hey Paula,
I am in total agreement !

[attorneywan2be]

The operative term here is APPEARED. Peterson's autopsy refers to him as a FETUS, not a baby. A baby appears fully formed at anytime in the third trimester. Internal developement is not complete however. That is why premies have a rough time of surviving. Conner weighed 3.5 lbs - that is NOT a full term baby by any stretch of the imagination. His internal development was not possible to assess do to maceration. Appearance and actuality are not the same thing, Please show me the testimony where he says that Conner appears to be a full term baby. Thank you in advance. I strongly suspect that the term was one that Garegos said, not Peterson.

IYO, does the evidence regarding Conner's age constitute a proof BARD that he died on Dec 24th? that evidence would also include Galloway's estimate..


Mark Geragos: And you, you also characterized in your report, did you not, previously when you've testified, that the baby appeared to you to be a full-term baby; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct


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

In addition, detective Jeffrey Soler attended Conner's autopsy and he wrote in his report that the ME stated that Conner may have reached full term..

Mark Geragos: And in fact he had indicated during the autopsy that that baby might have been born alive; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: The only recollection I have was when I put in my report here.
Mark Geragos: Are you going to refresh your recollection with your report?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. What page are you looking at? Okay.
Jeffrey Soler: Okay.
Mark Geragos: And what, does that refresh your recollection?
Jeffrey Soler: The only reference that it makes to it is his comment that the baby may have reached full term. There is no other, I have no other recollection of whether he was able to say that the baby was born alive or not.
Mark Geragos: Now when you say, what does "the baby may have reached full term" mean to you?
Jeffrey Soler: All we're talking about is the age of the baby.
Mark Geragos: And that would have been nine months?
Jeffrey Soler: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically he also told you that he couldn't estimate the time that the baby had been in the water; is that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And one of the reasons for that is that the baby appeared to not have been in an unprotected environment for very long; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes.

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

Homicide detective Villalobos wrote in his report that the detectives that attended Conner's autopsy told him that there was some evidence that the baby may have been born alive..he called Grogan and informed him of that..

Mark Geragos: Now, when you talked to, you talked to Villalobos, what day was that?
Craig Grogan: It was April 14th of 2003.
Mark Geragos: And he called you, or you called him, do you remember? Doesn't matter.
Craig Grogan: He called me. But I believe it's based on a message I left him earlier that morning.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Judge Delucchi: And he specifically told you that they had recovered a male fetus; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that the baby was recovered at 4:30 on Sunday the 13th, right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He told you that he had heard from detectives, the detectives attending the autopsy that there was some evidence that the child may have been born alive, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

[adnoid]

...In nearly four months from the time Laci disappeared to the time of Scott's arrest, you would think that between the reward offer and the planning involved to keep Laci alive until Conner was "full term", the "real killers" would have surfaced or been outed...

Precisely. The other examples that have been posted of someone keeping a body have all been a SINGLE PERSON. You know the old saying - "3 people can keep a secret if 2 are dead" - and the minimum conspiracy I've seen posted here by a Scott advocate involved AT LEAST 5 people. With Laci alive and $500,000 there for the taking, what would keep a criminal from turning in their buddys? There's no honor among thieves.

[adnoid]

I've always believed Det Brocchini knew Scott had lied about the power failure and intentionally left his notebook and keys behind to see if Scott would inadvertently flip the switch on...

Imagine if he HAD tested it right then and there - Scott's supporters would be screaming that Al didn't trust Scott from the start. Instead he DID trust Scott and he's still vilified.

It is my theory that some people just won't support ANYTHING that LE does. Myself, I've never really had a problem with them.

[attorneywan2be]

How is that any different than you stating that the ME testified that Conner APPEARED TO BE a full term baby. That's all you needed to convince you BARD that Conner was much older than 33 weeks.

No, this is my theory that he lived BEYOND Dec 24th, and it is based on the record of the trial..however, the point we are discussing is whether or not the prosecution proved BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th?


There was testimony that he was 33 weeks when Laci disappeared...there was testimony that the average length of 11 bones put Conner's age between 35 to 36 weeks...there was testimony that 6 of the 11 bones measured put Conner's age between 38 to 40 weeks old...there was testimony that the ME estimated his age to be 9 months and it appeared to him the baby have reached full term..there was testimony that a Fire Captain at the scene of recovery thought that Conner was a 6 months old baby..

Given the above, did the prosecution prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th?

Please take this into consideration:


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

[adnoid]

...As I reflect on this case each day, I think the arguments of a particular advocate and the failure of a couple of them to answer questions, only reinforces my belief that Scott did this.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/gl24237.jpg

[attorneywan2be]

even utilizing just the 33 to 38 week scenerio, yes, imo, it was proven bard.

cyn

How would a range of 33 to 38 weeks prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th when he was 33 weeks?

[Otter]

How would a range of 33 to 38 weeks prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th when he was 33 weeks?

Because it was proven BARD that SP murdered Laci on the night of December 23/24, transported her body to SF Bay, launched his secret boat, and dropped/towed her body into a channel with anchors attached and left.

Since Conner was in utero, he died.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

From the outset, Scott's morning decision, to go fishing because it was too cold to golf didn't sit right, as it wouldn't have with any good detective worth his/her salt. Scott told Amy Krigbaum (Tara Venable heard it too) that he'd been golfing, and told others he'd been fishing. What Scott first said he'd been fishing for didn't match his equipment. Furthermore, his equipment wasn't even assembled and items were yet unopened.

Laci's OB-GYN said Laci was extremely tired the prior day, and IIRC, even assisted her to her car. Also, IIRC, Ms Nava testified that after Laci brought the groceries in, Laci headed for the sofa. Sharon said Laci was feeling ill and was cautioned not to walk McKenzie because she'd gotten sick while doing so previously. That, together with the sharp incline approach to East La Loma Park with McKenzie in tow would have been difficult for Laci to accomplish safely, and I doubt she would have risked harming herself and Conner. Furthermore, I believe Laci's tennis shoes were at the porch door.

The mops were wet, despite the fact Ms Nava had cleaned the day before and Laci had cooked (they had pizza) after that, nor had she begun her holiday baking, so Scott's tale of Laci mopping the floor was inconsitent with the evidence.

Scott was also seen throwing his flashlight to the ground and cursing when his tales were questioned.

IMO


Hi Paula..

I don't recall that Laci's OB-GYN testified that Laci was tired..please post that part of the TS...in addition, as far as I know, Laci's tennis shoes were never found to this date...Scott had already called Laci leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley so he had no reason to tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..having said that, I personally believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness and I think she honestly thought he said "golfing" IMO, he might have said I was gone all day..and since she was aware of him being an avid golfer.. as soon as she heard him say "I was Go...." she completed the sentence in her mind..as "I was golfing"..however, he told the police he was fishing..he told Sharon he was fishing..

[attorneywan2be]

Because it was proven BARD that SP murdered Laci on the night of December 23/24, transported her body to SF Bay, launched his secret boat, and dropped/towed her body into a channel with anchors attached and left.

Since Conner was in utero, he died.


Each fact has to be proven BARD before an inference of guilt can be drawn from that fact..IMO, they didn't prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th..

BTW, what evidence did the prosecution present that proved BARD that Scott killed Laci on Dec 24th? what evidence did they present to prove BARD that a murder occurred in the house at 523 Covena ave?

[Otter]

Each fact has to be proven BARD before an inference of guilt can be drawn from that fact..IMO, they didn't prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th..

BTW, what evidence did the prosecution present that proved BARD that Scott killed Laci on Dec 24th? what evidence did they present to prove BARD that a murder occurred in the house at 523 Covena ave?

While I realize IYO nothing was proven BARD, and jury of his peers arrived at verdicts finding SP guilty of first degree murder of Laci and second degree murder of his unborn son Conner. This is not opinion, this is fact.

[Lavindar]

The only thing in your list I would consider even slightly strenuous is the first one. But, I hate grocery shopping myself -- maybe it was something Laci enjoyed. As for the Spa and hairdresser -- those are activities that are very relaxing and totally non-stressful (unless you get a bad haircut LOL).

And I believe that Amy testified that Laci was very tired at the Salon. She had a facial wax at the Spa....how is that consdered anything BUT relaxing.

[Lavindar]

Each fact has to be proven BARD before an inference of guilt can be drawn from that fact..IMO, they didn't prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th..

BTW, what evidence did the prosecution present that proved BARD that Scott killed Laci on Dec 24th? what evidence did they present to prove BARD that a murder occurred in the house at 523 Covena ave?

I strongly suggest you read some of Dr. Petersons testimony when he talked about the condition of conner. I did last night and had trouble sleeping. His mis-shapen head, the plates shifting, the liquified brain. The consistent maceration that is found in stillborn fetuses. If I hadn't been convinced, his explanations sure convinced me.

[Lavindar]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/gl24237.jpg

Great visual

[Lavindar]

Hi Paula..

I don't recall that Laci's OB-GYN testified that Laci was tired..please post that part of the TS...in addition, as far as I know, Laci's tennis shoes were never found to this date...Scott had already called Laci leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley so he had no reason to tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..having said that, I personally believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness and I think she honestly thought he said "golfing" IMO, he might have said I was gone all day..and since she was aware of him being an avid golfer.. as soon as she heard him say "I was Go...." she completed the sentence in her mind..as "I was golfing"..however, he told the police he was fishing..he told Sharon he was fishing..
AMY DID testify that Laci was very tired the night of the 23rd. That coupled with her spending most of the day on the couch with her feet up would suggest that this is not an olympic athlete. Sharon I believe also testified to her being ill in the park.

[Lavindar]

IYO, does the evidence regarding Conner's age constitute a proof BARD that he died on Dec 24th? that evidence would also include Galloway's estimate..


Mark Geragos: And you, you also characterized in your report, did you not, previously when you've testified, that the baby appeared to you to be a full-term baby; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct


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

In addition, detective Jeffrey Soler attended Conner's autopsy and he wrote in his report that the ME stated that Conner may have reached full term..

Mark Geragos: And in fact he had indicated during the autopsy that that baby might have been born alive; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: The only recollection I have was when I put in my report here.
Mark Geragos: Are you going to refresh your recollection with your report?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. What page are you looking at? Okay.
Jeffrey Soler: Okay.
Mark Geragos: And what, does that refresh your recollection?
Jeffrey Soler: The only reference that it makes to it is his comment that the baby may have reached full term. There is no other, I have no other recollection of whether he was able to say that the baby was born alive or not.
Mark Geragos: Now when you say, what does "the baby may have reached full term" mean to you?
Jeffrey Soler: All we're talking about is the age of the baby.
Mark Geragos: And that would have been nine months?
Jeffrey Soler: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically he also told you that he couldn't estimate the time that the baby had been in the water; is that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And one of the reasons for that is that the baby appeared to not have been in an unprotected environment for very long; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes.

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

Homicide detective Villalobos wrote in his report that the detectives that attended Conner's autopsy told him that there was some evidence that the baby may have been born alive..he called Grogan and informed him of that..

Mark Geragos: Now, when you talked to, you talked to Villalobos, what day was that?
Craig Grogan: It was April 14th of 2003.
Mark Geragos: And he called you, or you called him, do you remember? Doesn't matter.
Craig Grogan: He called me. But I believe it's based on a message I left him earlier that morning.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Judge Delucchi: And he specifically told you that they had recovered a male fetus; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that the baby was recovered at 4:30 on Sunday the 13th, right?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He told you that he had heard from detectives, the detectives attending the autopsy that there was some evidence that the child may have been born alive, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.


My daughter MAY HAVE taken the cookies from the cookie jar too. Of course her friend MAY HAVE also. I don't see that as a definite at all. PLease read Dr Peterson's description of the mishapen head, the MACERATION an pay close attention to what Maceration is and how it occurs and then tell me that this was a full term baby.

It would have had to be the only miracle birth in history as he did not come out the cervix which was CLOSED and he wasn't cut out via caesarian.

Why do you ignore what the experts say and use what Geragos says?

Geragos KNEW Conner was not born alive. He was playing head games with everyone and until you learn how to read him CRITICALLY, I have some swamp land in Florida for sale

[attorneywan2be]

While I realize IYO nothing was proven BARD, and jury of his peers arrived at verdicts finding SP guilty of first degree murder of Laci and second degree murder of his unborn son Conner. This is not opinion, this is fact.

And it is also a fact that juries got it wrong before and appellate courts had reversed convictions..so the fact that this jury found him guilty doesn't mean anything to me because I firmly believe they reached the wrong verdict...

[Lavindar]

62) Margarita Nava: The floors, water, Pine-Sol, and the mop.
63) Rick Distaso: Would you mop the entire house?
64) Margarita Nava: Yes.
65) Rick Distaso: And did you do that on December 23rd?
66) Margarita Nava: Yes.
67) Rick Distaso: After mopping the entire house, what did you do with the mop?
68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.
69) Rick Distaso: Is that what you did on the 23rd?
70) Margarita Nava: Yes.
71) Rick Distaso: How many mops did you use?


Now WHY would Laci mop the floor the next morning. She had not cooked anything (they ordered pizza). Mopping the floor makes no sense whatsoever.

[frydaddy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/gl24237.jpg

With all due respect to my fellow SIG's, as they are a bright and talented bunch, I think this may hold up until midnight as the post of the day!

Boo yeah! :beer:

[Synopsis]

Was this blown off for a third time? Shocking! :D



Sorry, this is just the second time I have seen this addressed to me. I didn’t respond the first time because I figured it was simply bait. And bait is not debate.
However, I don’t have a pat answer for you. If I could answer that Scott Peterson wouldn’t be in prison IMO. But you are asking me where I think the body was stored for 4 months. I don’t think she was dead for 4 months. I don’t believe she was killed on December 24th.

I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.
Remember the dog trailing incident when the deputy wanted to follow the dog's lead to an area, and Brocchini stopped her? IIRC it was Brocchini. In all fairness, (which was not given to Scott,) it could have been another officer that ordered the stop.

I do believe she was in Tracy, CA at one time. I think she was held there for a period of time while still alive. No doubt in my mind.

And even though the "Longview siting" was discredited, I don't believe that tip was fully investigated. I don't know why Scott was not allowed to view those tapes. And if you read the TS of those telephone conversations between Scott & an officer in Longview, he says "it wasn't her." So does that mean there WAS a pregnant woman resembling Laci in the store and not just the imagination of the clerk? One that was dismissed as not Laci? And dismissed by who?

Remember that all the searches of the bay ended at dusk. There was no night searching. And they were looking for something already there. Not something being put there. And we know there can be mysterious travel via watercraft at night because of the "Zodiac Man" being seen there but not really investigated.

Boggles the mind. So many unanswered questions. And I'm aware that I have not answered yours. But there's no way IMO, to date, that anyone can do that. The trial sure didnt do it for me.

[frydaddy]

62) Margarita Nava: The floors, water, Pine-Sol, and the mop.
63) Rick Distaso: Would you mop the entire house?
64) Margarita Nava: Yes.
65) Rick Distaso: And did you do that on December 23rd?
66) Margarita Nava: Yes.
67) Rick Distaso: After mopping the entire house, what did you do with the mop?
68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.
69) Rick Distaso: Is that what you did on the 23rd?
70) Margarita Nava: Yes.
71) Rick Distaso: How many mops did you use?


Now WHY would Laci mop the floor the next morning. She had not cooked anything (they ordered pizza). Mopping the floor makes no sense whatsoever.


LOL - Dog and cat sheds a lot, but just in the area where Laci mopped, they are not allowed to shed anywhere else. *

* - Except for one time when Scott allowed them to shed in front of the laundry closet, when he vacuumed like a fiend. They even shed feathers and sand!

[Hey Paula]

LOL - Dog and cat sheds a lot, but just in the area where Laci mopped, they are not allowed to shed anywhere else. *

* - Except for one time when Scott allowed them to shed in front of the laundry closet, when he vacuumed like a fiend. They even shed feathers and sand!

My sides hurt from laughing so much and so hard! DH looked at me as though I'd lost my mind! :biggrin:

[Synopsis]

Good Morning Frydaddy!

In nearly four months from the time Laci disappeared to the time of Scott's arrest, you would think that between the reward offer and the planning involved to keep Laci alive until Conner was "full term", the "real killers" would have surfaced or been outed. But alas, the only surfacing to have occurred, were the remains of Laci and Conner, 90 miles from Modesto, where Scott was trolling on the day Laci disappeared. Prior to him having been retained, Mark Geragos publically stated how damning and incontrovertible that evidence was. He even attached the sociopath label to Scott, but later used more benign descriptions such as "cad" and said Scott "felt like a 14 carat _______" for cheating on Laci.

There was no rush to judgment. Scott convicted himself through his own words and actions, and in some cases, due to the lack of them.

IMO

To respond to no one coming forward with information......first of all the MPD were definitely NOT going to be receptive to ANYTHING that pointed in another direction other than Scott. Also fear may have guided many - reference the remark by the "snitch" in the Aponte document "you don't know who you are dealing with."

Secondly IMO so many times when there was an explanation given for Scott's actions or words people say(1) "there comes a time when there are too many coincidences or explaining things." So there's too many explanations.
Then when he or advocates cannot answer something, it becomes (2) his lack of an explanation makes him guilty.

[Otter]

And it is also a fact that juries got it wrong before and appellate courts had reversed convictions..so the fact that this jury found him guilty doesn't mean anything to me because I firmly believe they reached the wrong verdict...

Yes, juries have gotten it wrong, based on tampered evidence, false/mistaken witness statements, judical error, etc. The introduction of DNA evidence has freed innocent people, hallelujah!

You've posted much testimony of MG's crosses. He did an excellent job attempting to exonerate his client by all but testifying himself and framing his testimony/questions in such a way that an expert/detective would appear to contradict their own findings. This is not hard to comprehend. What MG was not unable to accomplish was to shake the opinion of the experts. Not having any of his own, save for Dr. March, testify, there was nothing for the jury to weigh. There were no "duelling" experts to confuse the facts.

CE is not DE. It cannot be tampered with or misidentified. It is what it is and stands on its own. What is there to reverse?

[frydaddy]

Sorry, this is just the second time I have seen this addressed to me. I didn’t respond the first time because I figured it was simply bait. And bait is not debate.
However, I don’t have a pat answer for you. If I could answer that Scott Peterson wouldn’t be in prison IMO. But you are asking me where I think the body was stored for 4 months. I don’t think she was dead for 4 months. I don’t believe she was killed on December 24th.

I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.
Remember the dog trailing incident when the deputy wanted to follow the dog's lead to an area, and Brocchini stopped her? IIRC it was Brocchini. In all fairness, (which was not given to Scott,) it could have been another officer that ordered the stop.

I do believe she was in Tracy, CA at one time. I think she was held there for a period of time while still alive. No doubt in my mind.

And even though the "Longview siting" was discredited, I don't believe that tip was fully investigated. I don't know why Scott was not allowed to view those tapes. And if you read the TS of those telephone conversations between Scott & an officer in Longview, he says "it wasn't her." So does that mean there WAS a pregnant woman resembling Laci in the store and not just the imagination of the clerk? One that was dismissed as not Laci? And dismissed by who?

Remember that all the searches of the bay ended at dusk. There was no night searching. And they were looking for something already there. Not something being put there. And we know there can be mysterious travel via watercraft at night because of the "Zodiac Man" being seen there but not really investigated.

Boggles the mind. So many unanswered questions. And I'm aware that I have not answered yours. But there's no way IMO, to date, that anyone can do that. The trial sure didnt do it for me.

I appreciate the response, though I wasn't the main one asking the question, I was simply the prod.

I am not sure what your theory is to get her to resemble a torso that had been in the water for three to six months, Nor am I sure how some think it is impossible for her and Conner to arrive where they did, in conditions described by the ME, as they did, from Scott dumping them in the bay on Christmas Eve, yet they do think it's possible for killers to deftly simulate that's where they'd end up and the condition they'd be in to frame Scott perfectly. So, I guess boggled is where we will leave it.

[frydaddy]

My sides hurt from laughing so much and so hard! DH looked at me as though I'd lost my mind! :biggrin:

Feel lucky you are the wife portion of your marraige! I only find it worthy of mentioning when my wife ISN'T looking at me that way, since it's such a rare occurance! :D

[attorneywan2be]

My daughter MAY HAVE taken the cookies from the cookie jar too. Of course her friend MAY HAVE also. I don't see that as a definite at all. PLease read Dr Peterson's description of the mishapen head, the MACERATION an pay close attention to what Maceration is and how it occurs and then tell me that this was a full term baby.

It would have had to be the only miracle birth in history as he did not come out the cervix which was CLOSED and he wasn't cut out via caesarian.

Why do you ignore what the experts say and use what Geragos says?

Geragos KNEW Conner was not born alive. He was playing head games with everyone and until you learn how to read him CRITICALLY, I have some swamp land in Florida for sale

Geragos didn't testify so I don't understand your question..it is his job to ask the questions, and he is allowed to ask leading questions on cross.. and it is the job of the witness to either agree or disagree..
IMO, Conner's condition or the shape of his head doesn't prove BARD that he died on Dec 24th...they didn't even prove BARD that Laci was killed on Dec 24th...

IMO

The facts that were proven BARD are :
1-Scott went to the bay on Dec 24th...in fact, that was his alibi
2-4 months later the bodies were found in the bay area close to his alibi

However, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott committed a murder..that he transported the body to the bay..that he attached anchors to the body..that he dumped the body in the bay..that the bodies were in the bay for about 4 months..that the bodies washed ashore where they were found..so the jury had to speculate in order to link #1 and #2...and they had to use facts/theories that were not proven BARD..

[Lavindar]

There seems to be plenty of testimony that Laci was tired


133) Rick Distaso: Did she seem tired at all to you?
134) Margarita Nava: To my seeing it, yes.
135) Rick Distaso: And what did you see about her that made you think she was tired?
36) Margarita Nava: She was walking slowly.

Serenity Spa employee
) Tina Reiswig: Yes.
56) Rick Distaso: Did she say anything to you?
57) Tina Reiswig: I told her how cute she looked. And she just wasn't herself. And she just responded she was tired.


Serenity Spa owner
74) Rick Distaso: Did Laci say anything while you were treating her about her physical condition, how she was feeling that day?
75) Michelle Buer: Just that she was tired.
80) Rick Distaso: And so she was a fairly regular client of yours?
81) Michelle Buer: Yes, she was.
82) Rick Distaso: And during that time, did you see her as the pregnancy progressed?
83) Michelle Buer: Yes, I did.
84) Rick Distaso: Did she ever talk to you about any physical effects she was feeling as a result of her pregnancy?
85) Michelle Buer: She was a rare pregnant woman. She was very happy through her whole pregnancy.
85) Rick Distaso: On this particular day, you said she said she was tired. Did she say anything else?
86) Michelle Buer: Not that I recall. She was just quiet, and that was her excuse for being quiet, that she was tired.

262) Rick Distaso: Did what, all right, let me ask you this. Did Laci ever complain to you about any problems she was having during her pregnancy? Physical problems is what I'm talking about.
263) Amy Rocha: She just had mentioned that, that she was tired. And there was one incident when she was walking that she got sick.
264) Rick Distaso: She told you about an incident when she was walking?
265) Amy Rocha: Yes.
266) Rick Distaso: And can you tell us, what did she say about, when she said she got sick, how did she explain that to you? Or did she?
267) Amy Rocha: She just said she felt dizzy and kind of nauseous.


505) Rick Distaso: Did she tell you anything about how she was feeling that night, anything about her physical condition?
506) Amy Rocha: She said she was tired.

105) David Harris: Let me, using number 56 so that you can have that put this up on the board. Can you see here where it's indicated the November 6 date. That's what you are referring to?
106) Tina Edraki: Yes, I am.
107) David Harris: And I don't want to make this sound bad, but is that written by a doctor?
108) Tina Edraki: That note?
109) David Harris: Yes.
110) Tina Edraki: Yes. It's written by me.
111) David Harris: And we can go through this so we can understand what's written up there. Starts on the left, it says 11-6, phone. And it indicates looks like there is a PH,
112) Tina Edraki: PT.
113) David Harris: PT. Patient calls. And there is a symbol there?
114) Tina Edraki: "With".
115) David Harris: And then there is word. I'll let you explain what that is.
116) Tina Edraki: Vasovagal episode, which basically means lightheadedness and dizziness, as if you are going to faint.
117) David Harris: Then there is something next to the vasovagal episodes.
118) Tina Edraki: Last week walking twenty, that says times twenty minutes, close parentheses, last week, WK is week. Then again this week; then, parentheses, today, and then the next line.
119) David Harris: And going through the next line?
120) Tina Edraki: PT is patient walks in a.m. then the symbol is for after breakfast. And then it's a REC, recommend patient not exercise. If she does, to do it later in the day.
121) David Harris: Okay. So from what you are describing about this phone call that you had with Miss Peterson, you make notes kind of contemporaneous with this phone call in the medical file?
122) Tina Edraki: Exactly.
123) David Harris: Miss Peterson was telling you about this dizzy vasovagal episode while she was walking, and you are nodding your head. For the report, that would be?
124) Tina Edraki: Yes.
125) David Harris: Okay. So she's calling you on the 6th. She said it happened to her on the 6th and in the previous week?
126) Tina Edraki: Correct.
127) David Harris: And your recommendation to her was to not to walk, or not to exercise any more?
128) Tina Edraki: Correct.
129) David Harris: Did Miss Peterson call back again?
130) Tina Edraki: According to the record she did on November 8th, two days later.
131) David Harris: And does she have the same complaint at that point in time?
132) Tina Edraki: It appears so. From the note it says CO, complains, and then SOB is short necessary of breath, with walking. And then the next part of that is denies sin syncope. Syncope is basically when you pass out. We call it syncope. So she wasn't complaining that she had passed out or blacked out. And self-care measures. And then it goes down to discussed the DIS. That's Cheryl Smith's signature, our Nurse Practitioner.
133) David Harris: I was going to ask you who she was.
134) Tina Edraki: Yeah.
135) David Harris: After the 6th and the 8th phone calls, did Miss Peterson come in shortly thereafter for another doctor's visit?
136) Tina Edraki: Yes.


30) Debra Wolski: She seemed to be fairly flexible. And she attributed that to being a cheerleader in school. But as she progressed and got bigger, the last time I saw her she was very uncomfortable.
31) David Harris: When was the last time that you saw her?
32) Debra Wolski: Friday, December 20th.
33) David Harris: And did you keep attendance records for your classes?
34) Debra Wolski: Yes.
35) David Harris: When you saw her on December 20th, what was, so she is there by herself on that last date?
36) Debra Wolski: She could barely walk that day. She was in pain. She told me that she had a sense the baby had shifted

39) David Harris: You mentioned earlier about sometimes yoga classes include people putting their legs up on the wall.
40) Debra Wolski: Uh-huh.
41) David Harris: Why is it you do that?
42) Debra Wolski: If you are lying down, and you elevate your feet above your heart, then the gravity draws the blood back into t he torso instead of extremities.
43) David Harris: Was this something that you did with Miss Peterson at some point?
44) Debra Wolski: Yes. Because she, her feet were very swollen, and she was really uncomfortable.
45) David Harris: And this is on the 20th that we're talking about?
46) Debra Wolski: Yes, it was a Friday.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

I don't recall that Laci's OB-GYN testified that Laci was tired..please post that part of the TS...in addition, as far as I know, Laci's tennis shoes were never found to this date...Scott had already called Laci leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley so he had no reason to tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..having said that, I personally believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness and I think she honestly thought he said "golfing" IMO, he might have said I was gone all day..and since she was aware of him being an avid golfer.. as soon as she heard him say "I was Go...." she completed the sentence in her mind..as "I was golfing"..however, he told the police he was fishing..he told Sharon he was fishing..

Perhaps I'm confusing Laci's OB-GYN with Tina from the Spa. One of them said Laci was tired.

I recall Laci's shoes being found by the porch doors. I thought they were her walking shoes.

I think Scott might have said he was golfing because that was what he'd told Amy he was going to do and might have been confused. Tera Venable also heard Scott tell Amy Krigbaum that he'd been golfing.

IMO

[Lavindar]

Geragos didn't testify so I don't understand your question..it is his job to ask the questions, and he is allowed to ask leading questions on cross.. and it is the job of the witness to either agree or disagree..
IMO, Conner's condition or the shape of his head doesn't prove BARD that he died on Dec 24th...they didn't even prove BARD that Laci was killed on Dec 24th...

IMO

The facts that were proven BARD are :
1-Scott went to the bay on Dec 24th...in fact, that was his alibi
2-4 months later the bodies were found in the bay area close to his alibi

However, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott committed a murder..that he transported the body to the bay..that he attached anchors to the body..that he dumped the body in the bay..that the bodies were in the bay for about 4 months..that the bodies washed ashore where they were found..so the jury had to speculate in order to link #1 and #2...and they had to use facts/theories that were not proven BARD..

Why do you not also say that Scott was the last person to see her alive. He went to the bay. She wound up in the Bay. She didn't drive herself there. She wasn't driven there by the burglars who left over $100,000 worth of jewelry in plain view yet took a change of clothes for her(Todd did not drive a car), she had to be planted by someone who was out to get Scott. What kind of enemies do you think Scott had? He was a poor salesman, only meeting 25% of his yearly goal 10 months into the year. There's no reason to frame him. Why go to all that trouble. Why not just plant the body in an orchard as most killers do?

[Synopsis]

Hi HP....

except Scott was not the 1st guy to ever pretend they were divorced or widowed when getting busted by their lover... or their lovers bff....

in fact Scott wasn't the 1st one to tell Amber his wife was 'gone'.... Scott never said she was dead, but the other guy made a big production about it didn't he?

no, telling a lie about you wife to your lover just doesn't mean anything other than bad timing IMO...

I disagree with the secrecy of the boat and the 5 anchors also...:D

Hi ekg,
No I know from personal experience guys have used the "black widower" story on unassuming women. It's cruel but it's done. And I think that because Amber had recently told him of her experience with that, it was the first thing that popped in his mind to try and cover his butt and get to keep playing with Amber.

IMO he was dumb schmuck with raging hormones, no sex at home, and wanted to prove he still "had it." I think he felt he would ride it out for awhile with Amber (no pun intended) and disappear into the woodwork later, and she would be none the wiser.

But talk about bad luck and timing - his wife disappears and makes headlines around the nation - and he's messing with a gal that is definitely not known for just disappearing into the woodwork.

[Lavindar]

Perhaps I'm confusing Laci's OB-GYN with Tina from the Spa. One of them said Laci was tired.

I recall Laci's shoes being found by the porch doors. I thought they were her walking shoes.

I think Scott might have said he was golfing because that was what he'd told Amy he was going to do and might have been confused. Tera Venable also heard Scott tell Amy Krigbaum that he'd been golfing.

IMO
Paula, the housekeeper, two people at the Serenity Day Spa, and Amy testified to Laci being tired that day. Dr. Endraki testified to her dizzy spells in NOVEMBER and how she was advised that if she felt she had to walk, to do it in the afternoon. Wolski testified to her swelling and being in pain on Dec 20th.

In short, LACI WAS TIRED!!!!! I believe she also told Sharon that on the phone that night.

[Lavindar]

Hi ekg,
No I know from personal experience guys have used the "black widower" story on unassuming women. It's cruel but it's done. And I think that because Amber had recently told him of her experience with that, it was the first thing that popped in his mind to try and cover his butt and get to keep playing with Amber.

IMO he was dumb schmuck with raging hormones, no sex at home, and wanted to prove he still "had it." I think he felt he would ride it out for awhile with Amber (no pun intended) and disappear into the woodwork later, and she would be none the wiser.

But talk about bad luck and timing - his wife disappears and makes headlines around the nation - and he's messing with a gal that is definitely not known for just disappearing into the woodwork.

I believe the amount of phone calls between them was about 50-50. He never tried to end it - she did.

If it were just ragin hormones, why didn't he take a trip down to south 9th. He'd been there before. He didn't get any sex from Amber after their last date. Why did he keep calling her?

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

CE is not DE. It cannot be tampered with or misidentified. It is what it is and stands on its own. What is there to reverse?



CE can also be tampered with..!!!! victim's blood is CE..fingerprints are CE..the murder weapon is CE...the only DE is a confession or an eyewitness to the crime..

You asked:

What is there to reverse?

IMO, The non-existence of CE that Scott committed a murder..that he killed Laci..there are insufficient evidence that supports the verdict..this is just one possible appeal issue..however, based on the trial record there are a number of powerful appeal issues..

[Wearing A Halo]

Hi Paula..

I don't recall that Laci's OB-GYN testified that Laci was tired..please post that part of the TS...in addition, as far as I know, Laci's tennis shoes were never found to this date...Scott had already called Laci leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley so he had no reason to tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..having said that, I personally believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness and I think she honestly thought he said "golfing" IMO, he might have said I was gone all day..and since she was aware of him being an avid golfer.. as soon as she heard him say "I was Go...." she completed the sentence in her mind..as "I was golfing"..however, he told the police he was fishing..he told Sharon he was fishing..

You, AW2B, are a blatant liar or mis-informed. You are either getting mis-info from some NG source or as an "independent thinker" you are making things up on your own about Amy Krigbaum and posting, "and since she was aware of him being an avid golfer..."

So which is it (AW2B)? Are you a liar or mis-informed by someone in the NG camp? Either way, you are flat out wrong about Amy Krigbaum and her awareness/knowing at the time DRISP said he was golfing that DRISP was an avid golfer!

[Synopsis]

ETA I disagree with the secrecy of the boat also. For all the reasons I have posted in the past, PLUS the fact that it is not plausible to pre-meditate to murder her on Christmas Eve, when they are expected to be somewhere later that day, bringing her absence immediately to everyone's attention. No down time at all.

Anduse a boat that he doesn't even know for sure if it will even start!!! Using anchors that to this day have NOT been found. If they NOW know where the body was resting, and it broke free from anchors causing the disarticulation, why can they not be found.

IMO The only reason they, too, didn't "float ashore" is because they never existed.

[attorneywan2be]

Sorry, this is just the second time I have seen this addressed to me. I didn’t respond the first time because I figured it was simply bait. And bait is not debate.
However, I don’t have a pat answer for you. If I could answer that Scott Peterson wouldn’t be in prison IMO. But you are asking me where I think the body was stored for 4 months. I don’t think she was dead for 4 months. I don’t believe she was killed on December 24th.

I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.
Remember the dog trailing incident when the deputy wanted to follow the dog's lead to an area, and Brocchini stopped her? IIRC it was Brocchini. In all fairness, (which was not given to Scott,) it could have been another officer that ordered the stop.

I do believe she was in Tracy, CA at one time. I think she was held there for a period of time while still alive. No doubt in my mind.

And even though the "Longview siting" was discredited, I don't believe that tip was fully investigated. I don't know why Scott was not allowed to view those tapes. And if you read the TS of those telephone conversations between Scott & an officer in Longview, he says "it wasn't her." So does that mean there WAS a pregnant woman resembling Laci in the store and not just the imagination of the clerk? One that was dismissed as not Laci? And dismissed by who?

Remember that all the searches of the bay ended at dusk. There was no night searching. And they were looking for something already there. Not something being put there. And we know there can be mysterious travel via watercraft at night because of the "Zodiac Man" being seen there but not really investigated.

Boggles the mind. So many unanswered questions. And I'm aware that I have not answered yours. But there's no way IMO, to date, that anyone can do that. The trial sure didnt do it for me.


ITA

I too firmly believe that Laci was held captive for weeks in Tracy before she was killed..

[Synopsis]

I appreciate the response, though I wasn't the main one asking the question, I was simply the prod.

I am not sure what your theory is to get her to resemble a torso that had been in the water for three to six months, Nor am I sure how some think it is impossible for her and Conner to arrive where they did, in conditions described by the ME, as they did, from Scott dumping them in the bay on Christmas Eve, yet they do think it's possible for killers to deftly simulate that's where they'd end up and the condition they'd be in to frame Scott perfectly. So, I guess boggled is where we will leave it.

I agree with you.

There are some elements of the condition of the bodies that do not seem to fit either way you perceive itIMO.

[Hey Paula]

Hi ekg,
No I know from personal experience guys have used the "black widower" story on unassuming women. It's cruel but it's done. And I think that because Amber had recently told him of her experience with that, it was the first thing that popped in his mind to try and cover his butt and get to keep playing with Amber.

IMO he was dumb schmuck with raging hormones, no sex at home, and wanted to prove he still "had it." I think he felt he would ride it out for awhile with Amber (no pun intended) and disappear into the woodwork later, and she would be none the wiser.

But talk about bad luck and timing - his wife disappears and makes headlines around the nation - and he's messing with a gal that is definitely not known for just disappearing into the woodwork.

Scott is so unlucky and the victim of so many coincidences! :D

[attorneywan2be]

ETA I disagree with the secrecy of the boat also. For all the reasons I have posted in the past, PLUS the fact that it is not plausible to pre-meditate to murder her on Christmas Eve, when they are expected to be somewhere later that day, bringing her absence immediately to everyone's attention. No down time at all.

Anduse a boat that he doesn't even know for sure if it will even start!!! Using anchors that to this day have NOT been found. If they NOW know where the body was resting, and it broke free from anchors causing the disarticulation, why can they not be found.

IMO The only reason they, too, didn't "float ashore" is because they never existed.


Exactly..I wrote about this extensively..and IMO by all indications the boat was no secret..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8834906&postcount=254

[Synopsis]

ITA

I too firmly believe that Laci was held captive for weeks in Tracy before she was killed..
Hi AW2B!
I didn't know that was your opinion also. I think the testimony of Brocchini regarding how the Tracy tip was treated was not just irresponsible, SOMEONE should have been held accountable for it!

I cannot say it is true, but if it was true, Laci was still alive. To say the place was "too dangerous for police to go in and search" was not acceptable.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree with you.

There are some elements of the condition of the bodies that do not seem to fit either way you perceive itIMO.


For example, the lack of fish bite marks on both bodies..no evidence of chewing either..so IMO it's impossible for the bodies to have been in the bay for about 4 months and no fish would touch them..!

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!
I didn't know that was your opinion also. I think the testimony of Brocchini regarding how the Tracy tip was treated was not just irresponsible, SOMEONE should have been held accountable for it!

I cannot say it is true, but if it was true, Laci was still alive. To say the place was "too dangerous for police to go in and search" was not acceptable.

Hi Synopsis

I know..I was stunned when I heard that..and I was deeply saddened because I believe that Laci could have been saved..

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi ekg,
No I know from personal experience guys have used the "black widower" story on unassuming women. It's cruel but it's done. And I think that because Amber had recently told him of her experience with that, it was the first thing that popped in his mind to try and cover his butt and get to keep playing with Amber.

IMO he was dumb schmuck with raging hormones, no sex at home, and wanted to prove he still "had it." I think he felt he would ride it out for awhile with Amber (no pun intended) and disappear into the woodwork later, and she would be none the wiser.

But talk about bad luck and timing - his wife disappears and makes headlines around the nation - and he's messing with a gal that is definitely not known for just disappearing into the woodwork.


So it's your opinion Scott is a victim of Laci ( he had raging hormones but she wouldn't give him sex) and a victim of Amber ( because she refused to remain silent ) ? Do I have this right?

[Hey Paula]

ETA I disagree with the secrecy of the boat also. For all the reasons I have posted in the past, PLUS the fact that it is not plausible to pre-meditate to murder her on Christmas Eve, when they are expected to be somewhere later that day, bringing her absence immediately to everyone's attention. No down time at all.

Anduse a boat that he doesn't even know for sure if it will even start!!! Using anchors that to this day have NOT been found. If they NOW know where the body was resting, and it broke free from anchors causing the disarticulation, why can they not be found.

IMO The only reason they, too, didn't "float ashore" is because they never existed.

Christmas Eve was perfect for the following reasons (in Scott's thinking, IMO):

1) The Berkeley Marina would be exceedingly quiet because either most people were away visiting family for the Christmas holiday, or playing host to family and friends at their own house and too busy preparing to go to the Bay. The fact that there were but a handful of parking receipts issued from 12/23 to 12/25 is evidence of this.

2) Scott had already told Amber that Christmas would be his first holiday without Laci and he'd planned to make that a true statement to be remembered in the future.

3) The Christmas holiday was when his maternal grandfather was killed.

4) The MPD would likely have only a skeleton crew working during the Christmas holiday, and Laci's disappearance wouldn't bring the department out in full force. (Det Brocchini had to be called in from an hour's drive away, as he was headed to visiting family for the holiday).

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

You, AW2B, are a blatant liar or mis-informed. You are either getting mis-info from some NG source or as an "independent thinker" you are making things up on your own about Amy Krigbaum and posting, "and since she was aware of him being an avid golfer..."

So which is it (AW2B)? Are you a liar or mis-informed by someone in the NG camp? Either way, you are flat out wrong about Amy Krigbaum and her awareness/knowing at the time DRISP said he was golfing that DRISP was an avid golfer!


I don't debate or respond to posters who resort to personal attacks..if you want to debate in a respectful manner I would address your questions...

[Lavindar]

CE can also be tampered with..!!!! victim's blood is CE..fingerprints are CE..the murder weapon is CE...the only DE is a confession or an eyewitness to the crime..

You asked:

What is there to reverse?

IMO, The non-existence of CE that Scott committed a murder..that he killed Laci..there are insufficient evidence that supports the verdict..this is just one possible appeal issue..however, based on the trial record there are a number of powerful appeal issues.. You are right. Her head AND neck were missing. Scott managed to get rid of any DNA evidence so there won't be any to clear him either.

[Lavindar]

Christmas Eve was perfect for the following reasons (in Scott's thinking, IMO):

1) The Berkeley Marina would be exceedingly quiet because either most people were away visiting family for the Christmas holiday, or playing host to family and friends at their own house and too busy preparing to go to the Bay. The fact that there were but a handful of parking receipts issued from 12/23 to 12/25 is evidence of this.

2) Scott had already told Amber that Christmas would be his first holiday without Laci and he'd planned to make that a true statement to be remembered in the future.

3) The Christmas holiday was when his maternal grandfather was killed.

4) The MPD would likely have only a skeleton crew working during the Christmas holiday, and Laci's disappearance wouldn't bring the department out in full force. (Det Brocchini had to be called in from an hour's drive away, as he was headed to visiting family for the holiday).

IMO I want to know why he takes a boat that he doesn't even know if it will start 90 miles to try it out? He passed at least 3 boat launches that I know of. He also doesn't know if it has any leaks or anything else wrong with it.

BTW, San Francisco Bay is not noted for its huge numbers of 14 foot aluminum FRESHWATER boats. Without a salt-water adapter, the engine on it was now ruined. Someone as familiar with boats as they tried to say Scott was would have known that.

[Synopsis]

So it's your opinion Scott is a victim of Laci ( he had raging hormones but she wouldn't give him sex) and a victim of Amber ( because she refused to remain silent ) ? Do I have this right?

I don't think you need to ask me if you have it right. Your opinion is clearly reflected in your question.

Do I think Scott is a victim? I think Scott is a victim of wrongful conviction.

[Hey Paula]

Paula, the housekeeper, two people at the Serenity Day Spa, and Amy testified to Laci being tired that day. Dr. Endraki testified to her dizzy spells in NOVEMBER and how she was advised that if she felt she had to walk, to do it in the afternoon. Wolski testified to her swelling and being in pain on Dec 20th.

In short, LACI WAS TIRED!!!!! I believe she also told Sharon that on the phone that night.

Thanks, Lavindar!

Yes, you have refreshed my recollection, and that is my memory as well.

IIRC, Sharon did testify that Laci said she was tired that night.

IMO

[Lavindar]

For example, the lack of fish bite marks on both bodies..no evidence of chewing either..so IMO it's impossible for the bodies to have been in the bay for about 4 months and no fish would touch them..!
Laci's body was covered with adipocere. fish won't touch that. Conner was in her womb so fish couldn't get to him.

simple

[Lavindar]

Thanks, Lavindar!

Yes, you have refreshed my recollection, and that is my memory as well.

IIRC, Sharon did testify that Laci said she was tired that night.

IMO I was wrong. But Sharon did testify to:
283) Rick Distaso: Did she talk to you about an incident where she got sick in the park?
284) Sharon Rocha: Yes, she did.
285) Rick Distaso: Okay. Do you remember when the first time it was that she talked about that?
286) Sharon Rocha: It was the very end of October or very beginning of November because she had called me, she had told me she had been walking in the park. She started to feel dizzy and then she started vomiting and she was really embarrassed because the maintenance people from the park were like following her along cleaning up after her. She was trying to get home as quickly as possible because she was afraid she was going to pass out.
287) Rick Distaso: Okay. And you were not with her when this happened?
286) Sharon Rocha: No, she was alone.
287) Rick Distaso: She called you and told you about it?
288) Sharon Rocha: Yes, she did.
289) Rick Distaso: And what did you tell her to do?
290) Sharon Rocha: I told her to call her doctor immediately because I didn't think that sounded right, that there was something wrong. And she said that she would, but I don't think she did at the time. I think it was a few days later before she did call.
291) Rick Distaso: Okay. And did she then call you again and tell you about some other incident where she got sick in the park?
292) Sharon Rocha: Yes, she did.
293) Rick Distaso: What did she tell you about that one?
294) Sharon Rocha: That was probably about a week or so after the first time, and that's when she said she became very dizzy. That she sat down immediately so she didn't get sick. And as soon as she could she got up and walked home as soon as she possibly could. And then she had also told me that when she did talk to her doctor, they had told her that she should probably stop walking, but if she continued to walk she should at least walk later in the day because she was probably dehydrated.
295) Rick Distaso: By this point in her pregnancy was Laci feeling the effects of her pregnancy?
296) Sharon Rocha: Yes, she was.
297) Rick Distaso: What I mean by that is, when you were talking about these incidences when she was getting sick in the park, was she visibly showing?
298) Sharon Rocha: Oh, yes, she was.
299) Rick Distaso: Because this was October or November. And do you know when, the baby was due in February?
300) Sharon Rocha: Yes.
301) Rick Distaso: The, do you know was she talking to you at all about at this time the physical effects of her pregnancy?
302) Sharon Rocha: At this time, yes, as time was going on she was telling me, like I said, she was complaining. By mid November, at least, maybe even a little earlier, she was complaining about her feet swelling, she was having a hard time standing up for any length of time or walking, her back was aching and she seemed to be tired all the time.

[attorneywan2be]

Why do you not also say that Scott was the last person to see her alive. He went to the bay. She wound up in the Bay. She didn't drive herself there. She wasn't driven there by the burglars who left over $100,000 worth of jewelry in plain view yet took a change of clothes for her(Todd did not drive a car), she had to be planted by someone who was out to get Scott. What kind of enemies do you think Scott had? He was a poor salesman, only meeting 25% of his yearly goal 10 months into the year. There's no reason to frame him. Why go to all that trouble. Why not just plant the body in an orchard as most killers do?

"He went to the bay. She wound up in the Bay."

Exactly..IMO, that was no proof that he killed Laci BARD..his alibi was widely publicized..so her killer could have placed the bodies there...the jury are not supposed to think along these lines--> "if no evidence was presented that points to someone else then it must be Scott"..they are supposed to reach a verdict based on the facts that were proven BARD..then they have to decide what inference can be drawn from those facts, if that inference is of guilt, then they have to make sure that it is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from those facts...I don't think the jury in this case followed those rules..

[Synopsis]

I believe the amount of phone calls between them was about 50-50. He never tried to end it - she did.

If it were just ragin hormones, why didn't he take a trip down to south 9th. He'd been there before. He didn't get any sex from Amber after their last date. Why did he keep calling her?

Why? Why? Why?
Maybe he didn't like what he saw on South 9th.
Your right-he didn't get any after the last date-but he got it on the first!
Why did he keep calling her? Why did he keep telling her he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance?

I have my thoughts on some of the "why's" involving his actions - but why do YOU think he kept calling her? IMO it would have made a lot more sense in this pre-planned murder to shut it down.

[Synopsis]

I want to know why he takes a boat that he doesn't even know if it will start 90 miles to try it out? He passed at least 3 boat launches that I know of. He also doesn't know if it has any leaks or anything else wrong with it.


Exactly! So why would he do all the above if he had a dead body he was planning to dispose of???

[attorneywan2be]

Laci's body was covered with adipocere. fish won't touch that. Conner was in her womb so fish couldn't get to him.

simple

How long does it take for adipocere to form?

Please provide a link that would explain that fish won't touch a body dumped or buried at sea?

[Lavindar]

"He went to the bay. She wound up in the Bay."

Exactly..IMO, that was no proof that he killed Laci BARD..his alibi was widely publicized..so her killer could have placed the bodies there...the jury are not supposed to think along these lines--> "if no evidence was presented that points to someone else then it must be Scott"..they are supposed to reach a verdict based on the facts that were proven BARD..then they have to decide what inference can be drawn from those facts, if that inference is of guilt, then they have to make sure that it is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from those facts...I don't think the jury in this case followed those rules..


When we they placed there? There was constant law enforcement of one kind or another in the area for months. This person would have had to follow Scott to the Bay because the Coast Guard was on search on the 27th and the information that Scott had been to the Berkeley Marina was not released until the NIGHT of the 27th. So when did this placement occur? And where were they holding her that her body would be consistent with being in a marine environment for three to six months? Tracy is not on the Bay. If you want to believe an alternate theory, you need to be able to back it up.

[Lavindar]

How long does it take for adipocere to form?

Please provide a link that would explain that fish won't touch a body dumped or buried at sea?
Dr. Peterson explained it in the testimony I posted far better than I. And I believe there WAS some animal feeding on her body.

[attorneywan2be]

Dr. Peterson explained it in the testimony I posted far better than I. And I believe there WAS some animal feeding on her body.

He stated that he didn't see any evidence of chewing or fish bite marks..

[JustMyOpinion]

Why? Why? Why?
Maybe he didn't like what he saw on South 9th.
Your right-he didn't get any after the last date-but he got it on the first!
Why did he keep calling her? Why did he keep telling her he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance?

I have my thoughts on some of the "why's" involving his actions - but why do YOU think he kept calling her? IMO it would have made a lot more sense in this pre-planned murder to shut it down.


I don't believe Scott is the poster boy for common sense.
It appears to me Scott kept contacting Amber because she was useful to him. It appears to me Scott murdered Laci because she no longer was...........
JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Sorry, this is just the second time I have seen this addressed to me. I didn’t respond the first time because I figured it was simply bait. And bait is not debate.
However, I don’t have a pat answer for you. If I could answer that Scott Peterson wouldn’t be in prison IMO. But you are asking me where I think the body was stored for 4 months. I don’t think she was dead for 4 months. I don’t believe she was killed on December 24th.

I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.
Remember the dog trailing incident when the deputy wanted to follow the dog's lead to an area, and Brocchini stopped her? IIRC it was Brocchini. In all fairness, (which was not given to Scott,) it could have been another officer that ordered the stop.

I do believe she was in Tracy, CA at one time. I think she was held there for a period of time while still alive. No doubt in my mind.

And even though the "Longview siting" was discredited, I don't believe that tip was fully investigated. I don't know why Scott was not allowed to view those tapes. And if you read the TS of those telephone conversations between Scott & an officer in Longview, he says "it wasn't her." So does that mean there WAS a pregnant woman resembling Laci in the store and not just the imagination of the clerk? One that was dismissed as not Laci? And dismissed by who?

Remember that all the searches of the bay ended at dusk. There was no night searching. And they were looking for something already there. Not something being put there. And we know there can be mysterious travel via watercraft at night because of the "Zodiac Man" being seen there but not really investigated.

Boggles the mind. So many unanswered questions. And I'm aware that I have not answered yours. But there's no way IMO, to date, that anyone can do that. The trial sure didnt do it for me.

Since when is a question pertaining to the subject of the forum considered bait?
Is this not the "Murder of Laci Peterson - Conviction of Scott Peterson" forum?

Included in the definition of debate: The discussing of any question.

This is your theory:
I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.

There is no doubt in your mind Laci was held in Tracy, but you are unable to answer a question directed to you in regards to your theory on what the abductors did with the bodies after Laci died.

We know:
GALLOWAY: Yes. In order to do that, we look not just at the bones, but at the decay state of the soft tissue. And, in this case, we had the presence of a substance known as adipocere, which is a white sort of soapy substance. And the body fats actually change into this. That was present in large quantities. Although it had not penetrated right through the body. That put us with a minimum of six months for being in the water, based on previous studies and my own experience in this area.

HARRIS: Did you say minimum of six months?

GALLOWAY: Minimum of -- a minimum of three months, and then a maximum of six months. That was based upon the presence of still red tissue deep in the muscles.

GALLOWAY: My conclusion was, Miss Peterson had been in the water from three to six months.

Where did the abductors store the bodies after Laci died?
Going by the expert testimony, and condition of the bodies when they were found,what environment was available to the abductors?

In your post, you talk about all your beliefs. You talk about the abductors - the subsequent disposal - the zodiac man...............but, you fail to consider a very crucial part of the abduction to frame Scott Peterson.

imo, a reasonable answer to this question is needed in order to be able to say, "I have no doubt".

[Lavindar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocere

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm This link says adopicere won't form if insects are present.

all the other links I found require membership to obtain

[Lavindar]

Since when is a question pertaining to the subject of the forum considered bait?
Is this not the "Murder of Laci Peterson - Conviction of Scott Peterson" forum?

Included in the definition of debate: The discussing of any question.

This is your theory:
I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.

There is no doubt in your mind Laci was held in Tracy, but you are unable to answer a question directed to you in regards to your theory on what the abductors did with the body after Laci died.

We know:




Where did the abductors store the bodies after Laci died?
Going by the expert testimony, and condition of the bodies when they were found,what environment was available to the abductors?

In your post, you talk about all your beliefs. You talk about the abductors - the subsequent disposal - the zodiac man...............but, you fail to consider a very crucial part of the abduction.

imo, a reasonable answer to this question is needed in order to be able to say, "I have no doubt".

I have to add that Valentin was the dog handler who called off Merlin, not Brocchini and that was at the dumpster at Gallo Winery. I will check the transcripts for it.

Brocchini did call the dog off after he left the warehouse heading to Maze. They then went a distance on Maze (Hwy132 - the fastest route to the Bay Area from the warehouse and the dog picked up the scent again and followed it in a consistent manner towards the Bay Area.This entire issue is unimportant as this dog evidence was NOT ALLOWED in the trial so it cannot be used in an appeal.

[Lavindar]

I see we are heading into the "conspiracy of the homeless people." The homeless people encamped in the park were there because they were HOMELESS and VEHICLE-LESS. How could they transport Laci ANYWHERE - on their backs?

[Dora]

62) Margarita Nava: The floors, water, Pine-Sol, and the mop.
63) Rick Distaso: Would you mop the entire house?
64) Margarita Nava: Yes.
65) Rick Distaso: And did you do that on December 23rd?
66) Margarita Nava: Yes.
67) Rick Distaso: After mopping the entire house, what did you do with the mop?
68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.
69) Rick Distaso: Is that what you did on the 23rd?
70) Margarita Nava: Yes.
71) Rick Distaso: How many mops did you use?


Now WHY would Laci mop the floor the next morning. She had not cooked anything (they ordered pizza). Mopping the floor makes no sense whatsoever.


Maybe she planned on mopping up footprints after taking the dog for a walk?? Dunno....but this testimony that you quoted actually answers a question you had earlier:


Lavindar wrote:
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.


Scott didn't put the mop and bucket out the front door.

Diagram of the house

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/12.JPG


Officer Evers testified at pre-lim that the mop and bucket were found in front of the door south of the living room:

Q. You were shown several photographs, Officer Evers, last Friday. I believe among them was Number 48, which is a mop and bucket; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, where was that located when you saw it?

A. Outside the door south of the family room, the garage that was converted into a family room.

Q. Okay. It would be somewhere in this area here (indicates)?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you -- the entryway is along that path, right? There's a brick path towards the front door?

A. Correct.

Q. So this bucket and mop are sitting right on the -- adjacent to the walkway right to the front door?

A. Yeah, it's sitting right on -- it's sitting right in front of the door to the family room.

Q. Okay. But, I mean, to walk to the front door, you've got to walk by that --

A. Yes.

Q. -- right? Was it hidden in some fashion?

A. No.



Which also would have been the door right next to the washer and dryer - which is exactly where Laci instructed Margarita Nava to put the mop and bucket when she was done with it. So actually - Scott was only following Laci's instructions.

As you pointed out - it's a little unclear as to whether Laci was actually mopping the floor when Scott left - or if that was something she was going to do....maybe the cat was going to drink the water because it hadn't been used yet?

[Lavindar]

How long does it take for adipocere to form?

Please provide a link that would explain that fish won't touch a body dumped or buried at sea? I did NOT say that. I said that fish won't touch adipocere.
Neither will insects.

[Heyes]

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

It did, your right. Then not even looking Sharon in the eyes and avoiding her.... Yup he's guilty.

[Lavindar]

Maybe she planned on mopping up footprints after taking the dog for a walk?? Dunno....but this testimony that you quoted actually answers a question you had earlier:



Scott didn't put the mop and bucket out the front door.

Diagram of the house

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/12.JPG


Officer Evers testified at pre-lim that the mop and bucket were found in front of the door south of the living room:



Which also would have been the door right next to the washer and dryer - which is exactly where Laci instructed Margarita Nava to put the mop and bucket when she was done with it. So actually - Scott was only following Laci's instructions.

As you pointed out - it's a little unclear as to whether Laci was actually mopping the floor when Scott left - or if that was something she was going to do....maybe the cat was going to drink the water because it hadn't been used yet?


Nava testified that she put the MOP out by the door (I believe there are two doors there) and that Laci would move it. She put the rags in the bucket ON TOP OF THE WASHER

59) Rick Distaso: Did you clean the floors?
60) Margarita Nava: Yes.
61) Rick Distaso: How did you do that?
62) Margarita Nava: The floors, water, Pine-Sol, and the mop.
63) Rick Distaso: Would you mop the entire house?
64) Margarita Nava: Yes.
65) Rick Distaso: And did you do that on December 23rd?
66) Margarita Nava: Yes.
67) Rick Distaso: After mopping the entire house, what did you do with the mop?
68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.
69) Rick Distaso: Is that what you did on the 23rd?
70) Margarita Nava: Yes.
71) Rick Distaso: How many mops did you use?
72) Margarita Nava: Just one.
73) Rick Distaso: And when you mopped the floors, did you use a bucket?
74) Margarita Nava: Yes.
75) Rick Distaso: And you filled it with water?
76) Margarita Nava: Yes.
77) Rick Distaso: Then added the Pine-Sol?
78) Margarita Nava: Yes.
79) Rick Distaso: After mopping the floors, what did you do with the bucket?
80) Margarita Nava: After I finish, I will place all the rags, the things that I cleaned with inside the bucket, and I will put the bucket on top of the washing machine, and Laci will clean them, wash them later on.
81) Rick Distaso: What color was the bucket?
82) Margarita Nava: I think it was blue, like a dark blue.

Again I restate that Nava mopped all the floors in the house on the 23rd

[Miss Bootsie]

For example, the lack of fish bite marks on both bodies..no evidence of chewing either..so IMO it's impossible for the bodies to have been in the bay for about 4 months and no fish would touch them..!

AW, In the past, information has been provided to you on the way fish feed.:shrug:
lol, fish don't nibble and chew on bones like land animals do.

[attorneywan2be]

When we they placed there? There was constant law enforcement of one kind or another in the area for months. This person would have had to follow Scott to the Bay because the Coast Guard was on search on the 27th and the information that Scott had been to the Berkeley Marina was not released until the NIGHT of the 27th. So when did this placement occur? And where were they holding her that her body would be consistent with being in a marine environment for three to six months? Tracy is not on the Bay. If you want to believe an alternate theory, you need to be able to back it up.


I don't think they were there guarding the bay for 24 hours..and I personally believe that the bodies were planted the same day they were found...the ME testified that there was no animal feeding on Conner..had he been in water even for hours, IMO there would have been evidence of fish bite marks on his body, in fact, parts of his body would have been eaten by fish...even as he was supposedly in the uterus, there was an opening at the top where fish could have gotten to Conner...had he been planted on shore for hours, IMO there would have been evidence of animal feeding, such as insects...birds..etc...etc..I think after his death the killers kept him submerged in a sealed plastic bag...

[attorneywan2be]

AW, In the past, information has been provided to you on the way fish feed.:shrug:
lol, fish don't nibble and chew on bones like land animals do.

The ME was looking for fish bite marks and evidence of chewing, if he didn't expect to find such evidence he wouldn't have made a note of it..
Miss Bootsie...I simply don't agree with your argument..!

[Dora]

I believe the amount of phone calls between them was about 50-50. He never tried to end it - she did.

If it were just ragin hormones, why didn't he take a trip down to south 9th. He'd been there before. He didn't get any sex from Amber after their last date. Why did he keep calling her?

Never heard this one before....what is your source for this information?

[Synopsis]

"He went to the bay. She wound up in the Bay."

Exactly..IMO, that was no proof that he killed Laci BARD..his alibi was widely publicized..so her killer could have placed the bodies there...the jury are not supposed to think along these lines--> "if no evidence was presented that points to someone else then it must be Scott"..they are supposed to reach a verdict based on the facts that were proven BARD..then they have to decide what inference can be drawn from those facts, if that inference is of guilt, then they have to make sure that it is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from those facts...I don't think the jury in this case followed those rules..
This is one of the points I was most interested in trying to find out about the appeal. How much weight will it carry in the appeal process and what or how heavy a burden has to be met in order for it to stand alone?

In "after-verdict" interviews several of the jurors made public statements using words like "what swayed me" or "what convinced me" etc and then going on to describe personal feelings about Scott's actions at trial. Having NOTHING to do with any fact of evidence at all. Could this be used as evidence of not following the judge's instructions or rules of procedure?

One very telling statement by a juror:
“If the remains had never been found or were found in the desert or Yosemite, Beratlis said, “we wouldn't be here."

But other comments used by jurors don’t seem to support that the decision was based on evidence, but more on personal opinion.
"The fact of the mistrust, that this person was Laci's husband, the person that married her until death do her part swayed me", Cordosi said.

"For everything the defendant said stating that he didn't want children, he also showed examples where he was good with kids, he played with kids and everything else," he said. "It couldn't be concluded that there was definitely premeditation on the killing or murder of his son," Beratlis said.
But Beratlis said he was eager to hear "anything — a plea for his life or just his opinion on everything that went on in the last two years."
Absolutely not allowed! Draw no conclusions from not taking the stand

Cardosi said “that it seemed strange for a man who had lost his wife and child to not express more sadness.”
Personal assumption-not evidence

"It’s hard to narrow it down to one specific topic — there are many," Cardosi said. "Collaboratively, when you add it all up, there doesn’t seem to be any other possibility."
So, if not Scott – then who is not allowed.

"I played in my mind over and over conspiracies: Was somebody trying to set up Scott? Was somebody after Laci? It didn't add up for me."
He was not tasked to solve the crime

"I still would have liked to see, I don't know if remorse is the right word," he said. "He lost his wife and his child — it didn't seem to faze him. While that was going on ... he is romancing a girlfriend."
If he was innocent, and he'd lost his wife and child, it didn't seem to faze him,'' said Cardosi, a 29-year-old firefighter and paramedic who lives in Half Moon Bay.
Not judging evidence-judging Scott.

ON PENALTY:
"At the end of the verdict, there was no emotion, no anything," Nice said. "That spoke volumes. That was loud and clear.''
The jurors said that they had finally concluded that death was the right sentence for Peterson because he had betrayed the woman closest to him and the unborn son whose name the couple had already chosen.
Betrayal is unacceptable reason to put a man to death.

ABRAMS: We are back with three of the jurors from the Scott Peterson case. Steve Cardosi, Greg Beratlis and Richelle Nice. Before I go back to my legal team asking some questions, Richelle, we kept talking here about the fact that there was very little to no physical evidence for the prosecution, that there was no evidence in the home that necessarily tied Scott Peterson to the crime. Did that ever trouble you?
NICE: It did. But, you know, looking at when you get in the deliberation room and you get a look at the evidence up close, there‘s little things that you didn‘t see that—out in the courtroom that, for me, put it together. There was a picture of Laci‘s bedroom and her bed, you can tell was clearly not made by Laci. And if she had made the bed that morning, it would not have just been thrown over the top of the bed. You can tell she was very meticulous, and she was—she liked her things nice, and she liked her things neat. And that spread was thrown over the top. That was one of the small things.
This is absolutely NOT what the testimony was, and no evidence of what she is describing It’s also a personal assumption of hers as to how Laci would have had it..

Do any of these statements which are documented by video have any bearing on anything regarding an appeal? TIA

[Dora]

Nava testified that she put the MOP out by the door (I believe there are two doors there) and that Laci would move it. She put the rags in the bucket ON TOP OF THE WASHER

59) Rick Distaso: Did you clean the floors?
60) Margarita Nava: Yes.
61) Rick Distaso: How did you do that?
62) Margarita Nava: The floors, water, Pine-Sol, and the mop.
63) Rick Distaso: Would you mop the entire house?
64) Margarita Nava: Yes.
65) Rick Distaso: And did you do that on December 23rd?
66) Margarita Nava: Yes.
67) Rick Distaso: After mopping the entire house, what did you do with the mop?
68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.
69) Rick Distaso: Is that what you did on the 23rd?
70) Margarita Nava: Yes.
71) Rick Distaso: How many mops did you use?
72) Margarita Nava: Just one.
73) Rick Distaso: And when you mopped the floors, did you use a bucket?
74) Margarita Nava: Yes.
75) Rick Distaso: And you filled it with water?
76) Margarita Nava: Yes.
77) Rick Distaso: Then added the Pine-Sol?
78) Margarita Nava: Yes.
79) Rick Distaso: After mopping the floors, what did you do with the bucket?
80) Margarita Nava: After I finish, I will place all the rags, the things that I cleaned with inside the bucket, and I will put the bucket on top of the washing machine, and Laci will clean them, wash them later on.
81) Rick Distaso: What color was the bucket?
82) Margarita Nava: I think it was blue, like a dark blue.

Again I restate that Nava mopped all the floors in the house on the 23rd

Okay - so Nava mopped all the floors in the house on the 23rd. I wasn't disputing that. The main point of my post - was that earlier you said you found it suspicious that Scott put the mop and the bucket outside the door which I proved to you was the door next to the washer. Nava's testimony proves this is exactly where Laci wanted it. Yes - there are two doors near that area - however testimony and the diagram show that the mop and bucket were not outside the front door as you said.

In a conversation Scott had with Sharon about Laci mopping - Sharon asked Scott why she was mopping when Nava had just done so the day before...Scott said something like (paraphrasing) - I don't know - you know her - she was always mopping. Sharon's response - was okay. She didn't dispute it.

[Synopsis]

You are right. Her head AND neck were missing. Scott managed to get rid of any DNA evidence so there won't be any to clear him either.

GAWD!! Are you saying he cut her head and neck off!!!:eek: :eek:

[Heyes]

Assisted by Karen Servas, who tightened it even further. In an attempt to pick her brain, or to otherwise fall into her good graces, she was invited to Scott's house for a special Christmas tortellini dinner.

IMO
Can you imagine how uncomfortable Ms. Servas must have been? It boggles my mind. When I heard that I figured jackie and lee must have also known Laci was never coming home. I don't know anyone that behaves in that manner. Who does that? A sit down dinner? ugh

[Hey Paula]

Can you imagine how uncomfortable Ms. Servas must have been? It boggles my mind. When I heard that I figured jackie and lee must have also known Laci was never coming home. I don't know anyone that behaves in that manner. Who does that? A sit down dinner? ugh

It's totally incredible and inconceivable for me to fathom such an event. I'm sure KS was uncomfortable and likely felt as we do. The Ps appear to be very cold, unfeeling and uncaring. Is it any wonder Scott was devoid of emotion and had a flat affect? I have often wondered if Scott was a sensitive child, who perhaps shut down emotionally, as a coping mechanism. until the day came when he could feel no more.

I was struck by what Richelle Nice once said when she asked Scott how his family felt about his incarceration and how he was faring on DR. Scott told her the family doesn't discuss their problems with one another.

IMO

[Lavindar]

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/relatedstories/story/7731618p-8633622c.html Here's one you can read and you will notice that the FRONT door to the house is on the south side behind the gate.

[Wearing A Halo]

I don't debate or respond to posters who resort to personal attacks..if you want to debate in a respectful manner I would address your questions...

You, AW2B, don't respond to posters?? You just did respond by responding. That you don't want to debate is all on you. We all know the truth in regards to Amy Krigbaum not being aware of DRISP being an avid golfer. Kim never knew that DRISP cared to golf. You are the one who is not aware of this point, but then again it is not like your credibility is all that credible, is it? DRISP did in fact (as in factually) tell Amy Krigbaum that he was golfing.

[Lavindar]

Maybe she planned on mopping up footprints after taking the dog for a walk?? Dunno....but this testimony that you quoted actually answers a question you had earlier:



Scott didn't put the mop and bucket out the front door.

Diagram of the house

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/12.JPG


Officer Evers testified at pre-lim that the mop and bucket were found in front of the door south of the living room:



Which also would have been the door right next to the washer and dryer - which is exactly where Laci instructed Margarita Nava to put the mop and bucket when she was done with it. So actually - Scott was only following Laci's instructions.

As you pointed out - it's a little unclear as to whether Laci was actually mopping the floor when Scott left - or if that was something she was going to do....maybe the cat was going to drink the water because it hadn't been used yet?

Thank you for the diagram. There are two doors very close to each other that could be described as "front" doors. One leads to the dining room and the other to the living room. Either way, Laci did NOT instruct nava to put the mops and bucket there. She told her to put hte rags in the bucket and put it on top of the washer and the mop outside. Scott put the mop and bucket outside and if not by the front door, it was certainly where anyone coming into the house would see it. And Laci as far as we know NEVER told scott to put the mop and bucket there. At least I never read that anywhere.

[Synopsis]

IMO the only real importance of the mop & bucket is it is what set Brocchini down his fantasy road that he was about to unmask a cover-up of a man killing his pregnant wife and cleaning up the evidence.

He wanted so bad to be "Captain Marvel" a big media hero, and Scott nor anyone else was going to get in his way.

TAI -From the very beginning 1)he fed mis-information to the media.
2)He and others let rumors and distinct lies prevail in the public's opinion. 3) He purposely set about lying to friends and relatives about the insurance policy and other things in order to turn Scott's friends and family against him and make him crack.
4) He either lied or withheld information to Jacobson to obtain wiretapping authority and search warrants.
5) He failed or refused to even follow up on many tips involving Laci unless they pointed in Scott's direction. The Tracy tip being the biggest IMO.

6)Although it was not a reliable tip, or at least it was never investigated, he "dead-headed" police information from another city that a mental patient had confessed to the murder.
7) He withheld the information that a camera was monitoring the house on Covena. One that could have possibley captured McGregor breaking into the house.
8) He failed to investigate 3 other women reported at the house on the same night.
9) He failed to consider a link between 3 dark skinned men seen by Diane J. and Kim M. Pacific Islander boyfriend & 2 roommates. Also with police reports of Pacific Islander man wanted in Tracy, CA for kidnapping and a tip that Laci was held there.
10) He failed to follow up on the fact she lied about her where-abouts on Dec 24th - TWICE.
11) He reported that all the property taken from the house on Covena had been returned and accounted for and didn't account for the CLOTHES and camera she took.
12) The pawn slip showing the watch that either was-or looked like Laci's was ignored or hidden away - buried in discovery - not checked out.
13) Didn't give accurate information as to where he got the concrete sample from
And this is just from memory. I could go further if I still had files, but these are just a few etched in memory. And the "good guy" Grogan let all this happen. Brocchini was the goat while he turned a blind eye. It's a breach of public trust at the least. IMO
Gotta go AW2B - BBL

[cookiewench]

I don't think they were there guarding the bay for 24 hours..and I personally believe that the bodies were planted the same day they were found...the ME testified that there was no animal feeding on Conner..had he been in water even for hours, IMO there would have been evidence of fish bite marks on his body, in fact, parts of his body would have been eaten by fish...even as he was supposedly in the uterus, there was an opening at the top where fish could have gotten to Conner...had he been planted on shore for hours, IMO there would have been evidence of animal feeding, such as insects...birds..etc...etc..I think after his death the killers kept him submerged in a sealed plastic bag...

I don't know how many times this has already been repeated, but here it goes again:

Conner's body was in a putrified condition. It was not "edible". Even a carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it.

[Lavindar]

IMO the only real importance of the mop & bucket is it is what set Brocchini down his fantasy road that he was about to unmask a cover-up of a man killing his pregnant wife and cleaning up the evidence.

He wanted so bad to be "Captain Marvel" a big media hero, and Scott nor anyone else was going to get in his way.

TAI -From the very beginning 1)he fed mis-information to the media.
2)He and others let rumors and distinct lies prevail in the public's opinion. 3) He purposely set about lying to friends and relatives about the insurance policy and other things in order to turn Scott's friends and family against him and make him crack.
4) He either lied or withheld information to Jacobson to obtain wiretapping authority and search warrants.
5) He failed or refused to even follow up on many tips involving Laci unless they pointed in Scott's direction. The Tracy tip being the biggest IMO.

6)Although it was not a reliable tip, or at least it was never investigated, he "dead-headed" police information from another city that a mental patient had confessed to the murder.
7) He withheld the information that a camera was monitoring the house on Covena. One that could have possibley captured McGregor breaking into the house.
8) He failed to investigate 3 other women reported at the house on the same night.
9) He failed to consider a link between 3 dark skinned men seen by Diane J. and Kim M. Pacific Islander boyfriend & 2 roommates. Also with police reports of Pacific Islander man wanted in Tracy, CA for kidnapping and a tip that Laci was held there.
10) He failed to follow up on the fact she lied about her where-abouts on Dec 24th - TWICE.
11) He reported that all the property taken from the house on Covena had been returned and accounted for and didn't account for the CLOTHES and camera she took.
12) The pawn slip showing the watch that either was-or looked like Laci's was ignored or hidden away - buried in discovery - not checked out.
13) Didn't give accurate information as to where he got the concrete sample from
And this is just from memory. I could go further if I still had files, but these are just a few etched in memory. And the "good guy" Grogan let all this happen. Brocchini was the goat while he turned a blind eye. It's a breach of public trust at the least. IMO
Gotta go AW2B - BBL

\And where is your proof for this character assassination? Innuendo - you have not provided that affadavit you said he faked.

PEople in Modesto do not feel the way you do in any way shape or form. You blame Brocchini for everything. The man was honest. He admitted his mistakes on the stand. Read the law - it is imperative for the defense to read ALL the discovery which Geragos did not do given the number of complaints he made about not having something and then it being proven that he did.

Until I see some PROOF of your allegations, I will not believe any of them. You proved it when you quoted Geragos instead of the testimony in your "summarizing."

BTW, Brocchini was never the lead detective on this case and was not responsible for media information either. He was one of many detectives on this case - he was just the first one who arrived on the scene. I could say things about you too that malign your character without proof and it would be no different than what you are doing. Was Brocchini ever sanctioned? NO.

As for Kim McGregor - SCOTT refused to press charges against her and told Brocchini he would get the things returned. WHY WOULDN't he press charges against someone who broke into his house? Maybe because he put her up to it.The three SHORT of STATURE dark skinned men were likely Phillipinos - friends of the Medinas who didn't want to come forward because of the publicity.

[adnoid]

So it's your opinion Scott is a victim of Laci ( he had raging hormones but she wouldn't give him sex) and a victim of Amber ( because she refused to remain silent ) ? Do I have this right?

You have it right in that I have seen what you posted expressed by Scott's supporters - that Laci drove Scott to Amber, and that Amber was an ungrateful mistress. Marlene, for instance, states that Amber should have avoided the police and only done the minimum they asked out of "loyalty" to Scott.

"Loyalty to Scott". Don't that beat all?

[adnoid]

I don't debate or respond to posters who resort to personal attacks..if you want to debate in a respectful manner I would address your questions...

Well, you ignore mine, and I've never attacked you personally.

[Lavindar]

I don't know how many times this has already been repeated, but here it goes again:

Conner's body was in a putrified condition. It was not "edible". Even a carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it.

The uterine wall was abraded, but Conner would have been in the amniotic sac until it rupture and he would have been set free into a stormy bay - fish normally lay low in storms imo

[Hey Paula]

You have it right in that I have seen what you posted expressed by Scott's supporters - that Laci drove Scott to Amber, and that Amber was an ungrateful mistress. Marlene, for instance, states that Amber should have avoided the police and only done the minimum they asked out of "loyalty" to Scott.

"Loyalty to Scott". Don't that beat all?

They're probably just repeating, and expanding upon, what the family said during their Barbara Walters interview about Laci being pregnant and Scott needing sex from Amber. Lee said it as though it was the perfectly normal and acceptable way for an expectant father and husband to act. Scott had unprotected sex with Amber, a woman he didn't know, and then came home to Laci. How does anyone know whether or not Scott and Laci had sex? I think this was said to excuse Scott for his infidelities, even though he'd also behaved this way while he and Laci were newlyweds.

IMO

[Lavindar]

This is one of the points I was most interested in trying to find out about the appeal. How much weight will it carry in the appeal process and what or how heavy a burden has to be met in order for it to stand alone?

In "after-verdict" interviews several of the jurors made public statements using words like "what swayed me" or "what convinced me" etc and then going on to describe personal feelings about Scott's actions at trial. Having NOTHING to do with any fact of evidence at all. Could this be used as evidence of not following the judge's instructions or rules of procedure?

It's called consciousness of guilt and is permissable.

One very telling statement by a juror:
“If the remains had never been found or were found in the desert or Yosemite, Beratlis said, “we wouldn't be here."

He's absolutely correct. Scott was not in a desert.

But other comments used by jurors don’t seem to support that the decision was based on evidence, but more on personal opinion.
"The fact of the mistrust, that this person was Laci's husband, the person that married her until death do her part swayed me", Cordosi said.

"For everything the defendant said stating that he didn't want children, he also showed examples where he was good with kids, he played with kids and everything else," he said. "It couldn't be concluded that there was definitely premeditation on the killing or murder of his son," Beratlis said.
But Beratlis said he was eager to hear "anything — a plea for his life or just his opinion on everything that went on in the last two years."
Absolutely not allowed! Draw no conclusions from not taking the stand I believe he is referring to the lack of emotion shown by scott during the trial.

Cardosi said “that it seemed strange for a man who had lost his wife and child to not express more sadness.”
Personal assumption-not evidenceConscioussness of guilt

"It’s hard to narrow it down to one specific topic — there are many," Cardosi said. "Collaboratively, when you add it all up, there doesn’t seem to be any other possibility."
So, if not Scott – then who is not allowed.Absolutely is. If all the evidence points to scott and no one else, then that is BARD

"I played in my mind over and over conspiracies: Was somebody trying to set up Scott? Was somebody after Laci? It didn't add up for me."
He was not tasked to solve the crime He was trying to come up with some reasonable doubt.

"I still would have liked to see, I don't know if remorse is the right word," he said. "He lost his wife and his child — it didn't seem to faze him. While that was going on ... he is romancing a girlfriend."
If he was innocent, and he'd lost his wife and child, it didn't seem to faze him,'' said Cardosi, a 29-year-old firefighter and paramedic who lives in Half Moon Bay.
Not judging evidence-judging Scott.Consciousness of guilt. A widowed man would not be so intent on romancing a girl friend. He would be grieving

ON PENALTY:
"At the end of the verdict, there was no emotion, no anything," Nice said. "That spoke volumes. That was loud and clear.''
The jurors said that they had finally concluded that death was the right sentence for Peterson because he had betrayed the woman closest to him and the unborn son whose name the couple had already chosen.
Betrayal is unacceptable reason to put a man to death. /But murder is.

ABRAMS: We are back with three of the jurors from the Scott Peterson case. Steve Cardosi, Greg Beratlis and Richelle Nice. Before I go back to my legal team asking some questions, Richelle, we kept talking here about the fact that there was very little to no physical evidence for the prosecution, that there was no evidence in the home that necessarily tied Scott Peterson to the crime. Did that ever trouble you?
NICE: It did. But, you know, looking at when you get in the deliberation room and you get a look at the evidence up close, there‘s little things that you didn‘t see that—out in the courtroom that, for me, put it together. There was a picture of Laci‘s bedroom and her bed, you can tell was clearly not made by Laci. And if she had made the bed that morning, it would not have just been thrown over the top of the bed. You can tell she was very meticulous, and she was—she liked her things nice, and she liked her things neat. And that spread was thrown over the top. That was one of the small things.
This is absolutely NOT what the testimony was, and no evidence of what she is describing It’s also a personal assumption of hers as to how Laci would have had it..

Do any of these statements which are documented by video have any bearing on anything regarding an appeal? TIA

No, because consciousness of guilt is admissable in CA. Most of these behaviors show a consciousness of guilt. No sadness, no grief etc. ad nauseum.

[Lavindar]

GAWD!! Are you saying he cut her head and neck off!!!:eek: :eek: NO, i AM SAYING HER HEAD AND SEVERAL VERTEBRAE IN HER NECK WERE MISSING - THEY WERE DISARTICULATED - SO WITHOUT THEM YOU CANNOT PROVE STRANGULATION.

[cookiewench]

IMO the only real importance of the mop & bucket is it is what set Brocchini down his fantasy road that he was about to unmask a cover-up of a man killing his pregnant wife and cleaning up the evidence.

He wanted so bad to be "Captain Marvel" a big media hero, and Scott nor anyone else was going to get in his way.

TAI -From the very beginning 1)he fed mis-information to the media.
2)He and others let rumors and distinct lies prevail in the public's opinion. 3) He purposely set about lying to friends and relatives about the insurance policy and other things in order to turn Scott's friends and family against him and make him crack.
4) He either lied or withheld information to Jacobson to obtain wiretapping authority and search warrants.
5) He failed or refused to even follow up on many tips involving Laci unless they pointed in Scott's direction. The Tracy tip being the biggest IMO.

6)Although it was not a reliable tip, or at least it was never investigated, he "dead-headed" police information from another city that a mental patient had confessed to the murder.
7) He withheld the information that a camera was monitoring the house on Covena. One that could have possibley captured McGregor breaking into the house.
8) He failed to investigate 3 other women reported at the house on the same night.
9) He failed to consider a link between 3 dark skinned men seen by Diane J. and Kim M. Pacific Islander boyfriend & 2 roommates. Also with police reports of Pacific Islander man wanted in Tracy, CA for kidnapping and a tip that Laci was held there.
10) He failed to follow up on the fact she lied about her where-abouts on Dec 24th - TWICE.
11) He reported that all the property taken from the house on Covena had been returned and accounted for and didn't account for the CLOTHES and camera she took.
12) The pawn slip showing the watch that either was-or looked like Laci's was ignored or hidden away - buried in discovery - not checked out.
13) Didn't give accurate information as to where he got the concrete sample from
And this is just from memory. I could go further if I still had files, but these are just a few etched in memory. And the "good guy" Grogan let all this happen. Brocchini was the goat while he turned a blind eye. It's a breach of public trust at the least. IMO
Gotta go AW2B - BBL

I have yet to see anyone explain why they think these detectives would have been willing to let their own reputations by destroyed (and possibly lose their jobs along with their credibility) just to frame Scott?

Why would they purposely ignore evidence and tips, knowing that the "real killer" could come to light through an informer, a confession, or some of the evidence?

How did they KNOW it was safe to do all these things, and that the "real murderer" wouldn't be found, and how would they know this from day ONE?

[Miss Bootsie]

The ME was looking for fish bite marks and evidence of chewing, if he didn't expect to find such evidence he wouldn't have made a note of it..
Miss Bootsie...I simply don't agree with your argument..!



I provided information to you about the feeding habits of fish. For example, crabs chew with their stomachs.


Did you know that crabs chew with their stomachs? When an organism ingests food, it must break that food down into a form that can be converted into energy for the cells in its body. The first step in this process is to mechanically break the food into smaller bits, or to chew it. Many animals have highly specialized systems to perform the task of chewing. Crabs are no exception. They have several specialized mouthparts that help them handle food and direct it into their mouths. But to help with chewing, crabs have teeth in their stomachs. Three sets of teeth make up the gastric mill and are used to grind up food before it is passed on to the rest of the digestive system.

Will you please, in turn, provide information to back up the reasons why you don't agree with my argument?

[TopGunner]

Can you imagine how uncomfortable Ms. Servas must have been? It boggles my mind. When I heard that I figured jackie and lee must have also known Laci was never coming home. I don't know anyone that behaves in that manner. Who does that? A sit down dinner? ugh

Hiya Heyes -

A sociopath without conscience who just committed premeditated murder, that's who! :D

[Heyes]

Hiya Heyes -

A sociopath without conscience who just committed premeditated murder, that's who! :D

Hiya Top, I do believe your right!
His parents actions are what is so suprising. I mean what did they say?
Oh heck scott she's missing now, she'll be missing after dinner, go ahead and eat up?

[TopGunner]

IMO the only real importance of the mop & bucket is it is what set Brocchini down his fantasy road that he was about to unmask a cover-up of a man killing his pregnant wife and cleaning up the evidence.

He wanted so bad to be "Captain Marvel" a big media hero, and Scott nor anyone else was going to get in his way.

TAI -From the very beginning 1)he fed mis-information to the media.
2)He and others let rumors and distinct lies prevail in the public's opinion. 3) He purposely set about lying to friends and relatives about the insurance policy and other things in order to turn Scott's friends and family against him and make him crack.
4) He either lied or withheld information to Jacobson to obtain wiretapping authority and search warrants.
5) He failed or refused to even follow up on many tips involving Laci unless they pointed in Scott's direction. The Tracy tip being the biggest IMO.

6)Although it was not a reliable tip, or at least it was never investigated, he "dead-headed" police information from another city that a mental patient had confessed to the murder.
7) He withheld the information that a camera was monitoring the house on Covena. One that could have possibley captured McGregor breaking into the house.
8) He failed to investigate 3 other women reported at the house on the same night.
9) He failed to consider a link between 3 dark skinned men seen by Diane J. and Kim M. Pacific Islander boyfriend & 2 roommates. Also with police reports of Pacific Islander man wanted in Tracy, CA for kidnapping and a tip that Laci was held there.
10) He failed to follow up on the fact she lied about her where-abouts on Dec 24th - TWICE.
11) He reported that all the property taken from the house on Covena had been returned and accounted for and didn't account for the CLOTHES and camera she took.
12) The pawn slip showing the watch that either was-or looked like Laci's was ignored or hidden away - buried in discovery - not checked out.
13) Didn't give accurate information as to where he got the concrete sample from
And this is just from memory. I could go further if I still had files, but these are just a few etched in memory. And the "good guy" Grogan let all this happen. Brocchini was the goat while he turned a blind eye. It's a breach of public trust at the least. IMO
Gotta go AW2B - BBL


Snyopsis, I think you need to go back and refresh your memory. Just about everything stated here is inaccurate, incomplete, or unknown by anyone here.

Brochinni BTW is not on trial here, but it's a consistent spin of the NG's to try and reflect guilt elsewhere.

There were many leads not followed up on, out of THOUSANDS, because the information given most likely was bogus. In all trials, let alone high profile, people (wacks) come out of the woodwork with outrageous claims. We are not privy to what was or was not followed up on, nor WHY.

This is just blowing smoke. .

[TopGunner]

You have it right in that I have seen what you posted expressed by Scott's supporters - that Laci drove Scott to Amber, and that Amber was an ungrateful mistress. Marlene, for instance, states that Amber should have avoided the police and only done the minimum they asked out of "loyalty" to Scott.

"Loyalty to Scott". Don't that beat all?

Oh good grief. Of course Amber should have layed low - as Jackie herself also stated. Why in the world would she have run to the police after learning her *single* boyfriend, who had just "lost his wife and it would be his first holiday without her" was "a person of interest" in the disappearance of his pregnant wife? Golly gee NO! She should have run to Baskin Robbins and STUFFED it all down so far she'd look like....................well, you know who.

I'd kick my kids a*s over the moon for not going to the police with the TRUTH. Funny how differently we're all raised. Some build character, some don't.

[Dora]

Thank you for the diagram. There are two doors very close to each other that could be described as "front" doors. One leads to the dining room and the other to the living room. Either way, Laci did NOT instruct nava to put the mops and bucket there. She told her to put hte rags in the bucket and put it on top of the washer and the mop outside. Scott put the mop and bucket outside and if not by the front door, it was certainly where anyone coming into the house would see it. And Laci as far as we know NEVER told scott to put the mop and bucket there. At least I never read that anywhere.

Thanks for the additional diagram.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

According to the testimony you provided - Nava said Laci instructed her to put the mop outside the door next to the washer and dryer.

68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.


The location of the washer and dryer is much clearer in the diagram you provided. Using both diagrams - you will see that this door Nava is referring to - is also on the south side of the living room - just as the washer and dryer are (the diagram I provided shows which direction is north) - which according to Evers Pre-lim testimony - is the door where the mop and bucket were found.

Q. You were shown several photographs, Officer Evers, last Friday. I believe among them was Number 48, which is a mop and bucket; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, where was that located when you saw it?

A. Outside the door south of the family room, the garage that was converted into a family room.


Amy Rocha testified as to which door was considered the front door. It is the door that leads to the dining room - the red writing that says "front door" is Amy Rocha's handwriting - she was asked to label it during her testimony. It is also the same door that the modbee labeled "Front Door" - so I disagree that there are two doors that can be considered the front door. It is not the door that is located next to the washer and drawer - nor is it the door that is on the south side of the living room (which are the same door).

No, I have never read anywhere that Laci told Scott to put the mop and bucket there either. But I would say it's a valid assumption that she had at one time or another - since he put it in the exact same place that we know she told Nava to put the mop when she was done with it.

[TopGunner]

I have yet to see anyone explain why they think these detectives would have been willing to let their own reputations by destroyed (and possibly lose their jobs along with their credibility) just to frame Scott?

Why would they purposely ignore evidence and tips, knowing that the "real killer" could come to light through an informer, a confession, or some of the evidence?

How did they KNOW it was safe to do all these things, and that the "real murderer" wouldn't be found, and how would they know this from day ONE?



Hi Cookie!

Of course they didn't purposely frame Scott - he did an outstanding job all by his little 'ol self. People APPEAR to forget, that it wasn't JUST THE COPS that suspected ISP. It was friends, family, co-workers, etc. Even Sharon and Ron suspected him prior to knowing about the affair. The affair simply nailed it. But wait! I forgot - it's all a conspiracy. We're ALL in on it. I just know the REAL killer, who held Laci for 4 months (under water somewhere that had hungry fish), then "took" Conner out of her, and cleverly planted them A MILE APART - is waiting in the wings to collect the uncollected reward. I mean, that's got to be it right? Somehow this is all about the reward, because it isn't about ISP. Even the people on Masterminds are this creative and clever - let alone 3 bumbling burlars on bicycles who turned themselves in, and then took AND PASSED a lie detector test.


OMG - I think this must be what LSD feels like. :tongue:

[Dora]

I don't know how many times this has already been repeated, but here it goes again:

Conner's body was in a putrified condition. It was not "edible". Even a carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it.

Repetition doesn't make something true. Is there anything to back this up? I think Dr. Peterson disagrees with you:

PETERSON: Conner's body was, relatively speaking, in much better shape with respect to most of the parts being there, compared to Laci's where, as you recall, we were missing substantial soft tissue, and even some bones from the arms and the legs. Conner's body had undergone a similar type process with respect to autolysis, maceration, body soaking in fluid, and so forth. But there wasn't quite the evidence that it had been exposed so much to the other physical forces that we discussed yesterday, namely the tidal action and animal feeding. So there were some similarities, but again, to my eye, marked differences, particularly including, particularly because Conner was so much smaller. And my thinking was that as small he was and as softened as he was, that if he had spent substantial unprotected time in the water, like Laci did, he would have been eaten. There simply wouldn't have been anything left.

[Miss Bootsie]

I provided information to you about the feeding habits of fish. For example, crabs chew with their stomachs.




Will you please, in turn, provide information to back up the reasons why you don't agree with my argument?

Here you go AW.
If fish don't chew their food - their chewing mechanism is in their stomachs - how do they leave chew marks?
I would really like to know.

Guess what, fish can’t really chew their food like me or you can chew on them because, get this, chewing would mess with the flow of water through their gills.

Here’s a practical way you can try this at home. Take a scalpel, a hosepipe, a piece of biltong and a hairdryer. Cut a small incision through the cheeks from the outside right at that part that hurts after grinding your teeth all night at Truth. Then point the hosepipe and the hairdryer directly into your mouth and turn them both on. You have now successfully simulated the way a fish breathes. Now, put the biltong in your mouth and chew on it - how much oxygen is your fish brain getting now?? Nada. Fish don’t chew their food because they will die.
http://vincentmaher.com/mit/?p=319

[TopGunner]

Repetition doesn't make something true. Is there anything to back this up? I think Dr. Peterson disagrees with you:

Dora, it's hardly "repetition".

It's been posted about in great length already, which is what she meant. There are plenty of links and an abundance of testimony posted to back it all up. There's no reason to "go there" again, just because some people would like to pretend it hasn't all been covered.

[TopGunner]

Why? Why? Why?
Maybe he didn't like what he saw on South 9th.
Your right-he didn't get any after the last date-but he got it on the first!
Why did he keep calling her? Why did he keep telling her he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance?

I have my thoughts on some of the "why's" involving his actions - but why do YOU think he kept calling her? IMO it would have made a lot more sense in this pre-planned murder to shut it down.



ITA - why would he continue callering her AFTER his own lawyer advised him to stop? A bit smug don't you think? Such is the warped mind of a sociopath.

[Dora]

\And where is your proof for this character assassination? Innuendo - you have not provided that affadavit you said he faked.

PEople in Modesto do not feel the way you do in any way shape or form. You blame Brocchini for everything. The man was honest. He admitted his mistakes on the stand. Read the law - it is imperative for the defense to read ALL the discovery which Geragos did not do given the number of complaints he made about not having something and then it being proven that he did.

Until I see some PROOF of your allegations, I will not believe any of them. You proved it when you quoted Geragos instead of the testimony in your "summarizing."

BTW, Brocchini was never the lead detective on this case and was not responsible for media information either. He was one of many detectives on this case - he was just the first one who arrived on the scene. I could say things about you too that malign your character without proof and it would be no different than what you are doing. Was Brocchini ever sanctioned? NO.

As for Kim McGregor - SCOTT refused to press charges against her and told Brocchini he would get the things returned. WHY WOULDN't he press charges against someone who broke into his house? Maybe because he put her up to it.The three SHORT of STATURE dark skinned men were likely Phillipinos - friends of the Medinas who didn't want to come forward because of the publicity.


So....

when Brocchini excised information from a report - it was a "mistake" - and because he admitted it - when confronted - that makes him "honest"?

Or when he writes a report saying meringue was never mentioned in an episode of Martha Stewart - when in fact it was...he simply made a mistake - missed it - even though that was his only purpose in watching the show? Sure - it turned out okay - because of the timing of the meringue comment - but I bet the prosecution was experiencing a Mark Furhman moment until they started scrambling and were able to turn it around and use it to their advantage.

You're right - Brocchini wasn't the lead detective - maybe he wasn't in charge of what was released to the media - but he sure is an early riser....he had already read the newspaper by 6:40 a.m. the day the article about the bogus insurance policy came out in the paper - and was calling Scott's friends to tell them to check it out.

and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's - but didn't come forward because they were afraid of publicity? Now why would going to the police with information mean publicity? After all - the person who turned in Todd was afforded anonymity - why wouldn't they be given the same?

[TopGunner]

This is one of the points I was most interested in trying to find out about the appeal. How much weight will it carry in the appeal process and what or how heavy a burden has to be met in order for it to stand alone?

In "after-verdict" interviews several of the jurors made public statements using words like "what swayed me" or "what convinced me" etc and then going on to describe personal feelings about Scott's actions at trial. Having NOTHING to do with any fact of evidence at all. Could this be used as evidence of not following the judge's instructions or rules of procedure?

One very telling statement by a juror:
“If the remains had never been found or were found in the desert or Yosemite, Beratlis said, “we wouldn't be here."

But other comments used by jurors don’t seem to support that the decision was based on evidence, but more on personal opinion.
"The fact of the mistrust, that this person was Laci's husband, the person that married her until death do her part swayed me", Cordosi said.

"For everything the defendant said stating that he didn't want children, he also showed examples where he was good with kids, he played with kids and everything else," he said. "It couldn't be concluded that there was definitely premeditation on the killing or murder of his son," Beratlis said.
But Beratlis said he was eager to hear "anything — a plea for his life or just his opinion on everything that went on in the last two years."
Absolutely not allowed! Draw no conclusions from not taking the stand

Cardosi said “that it seemed strange for a man who had lost his wife and child to not express more sadness.”
Personal assumption-not evidence

"It’s hard to narrow it down to one specific topic — there are many," Cardosi said. "Collaboratively, when you add it all up, there doesn’t seem to be any other possibility."
So, if not Scott – then who is not allowed.

"I played in my mind over and over conspiracies: Was somebody trying to set up Scott? Was somebody after Laci? It didn't add up for me."
He was not tasked to solve the crime

"I still would have liked to see, I don't know if remorse is the right word," he said. "He lost his wife and his child — it didn't seem to faze him. While that was going on ... he is romancing a girlfriend."
If he was innocent, and he'd lost his wife and child, it didn't seem to faze him,'' said Cardosi, a 29-year-old firefighter and paramedic who lives in Half Moon Bay.
Not judging evidence-judging Scott.

ON PENALTY:
"At the end of the verdict, there was no emotion, no anything," Nice said. "That spoke volumes. That was loud and clear.''
The jurors said that they had finally concluded that death was the right sentence for Peterson because he had betrayed the woman closest to him and the unborn son whose name the couple had already chosen.
Betrayal is unacceptable reason to put a man to death.

ABRAMS: We are back with three of the jurors from the Scott Peterson case. Steve Cardosi, Greg Beratlis and Richelle Nice. Before I go back to my legal team asking some questions, Richelle, we kept talking here about the fact that there was very little to no physical evidence for the prosecution, that there was no evidence in the home that necessarily tied Scott Peterson to the crime. Did that ever trouble you?
NICE: It did. But, you know, looking at when you get in the deliberation room and you get a look at the evidence up close, there‘s little things that you didn‘t see that—out in the courtroom that, for me, put it together. There was a picture of Laci‘s bedroom and her bed, you can tell was clearly not made by Laci. And if she had made the bed that morning, it would not have just been thrown over the top of the bed. You can tell she was very meticulous, and she was—she liked her things nice, and she liked her things neat. And that spread was thrown over the top. That was one of the small things.
This is absolutely NOT what the testimony was, and no evidence of what she is describing It’s also a personal assumption of hers as to how Laci would have had it..

Do any of these statements which are documented by video have any bearing on anything regarding an appeal? TIA


Snyopis, you are referring to one interview. Do you have the book the jurors wrote? Do you have the A&E DVD with their full statements? They said much more than what is written here, but I also believe that unless they testify to these statements, they cannot be used in an appeal.

Btw - what they state again and again, indepent of each other, is they all felt ISP was innocent going into the trial.

[Lavindar]

Thanks for the additional diagram.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

According to the testimony you provided - Nava said Laci instructed her to put the mop outside the door next to the washer and dryer.

68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.


The location of the washer and dryer is much clearer in the diagram you provided. Using both diagrams - you will see that this door Nava is referring to - is also on the south side of the living room - just as the washer and dryer are (the diagram I provided shows which direction is north) - which according to Evers Pre-lim testimony - is the door where the mop and bucket were found.

Q. You were shown several photographs, Officer Evers, last Friday. I believe among them was Number 48, which is a mop and bucket; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, where was that located when you saw it?

A. Outside the door south of the family room, the garage that was converted into a family room.


Amy Rocha testified as to which door was considered the front door. It is the door that leads to the dining room - the red writing that says "front door" is Amy Rocha's handwriting - she was asked to label it during her testimony. It is also the same door that the modbee labeled "Front Door" - so I disagree that there are two doors that can be considered the front door. It is not the door that is located next to the washer and drawer - nor is it the door that is on the south side of the living room (which are the same door).

No, I have never read anywhere that Laci told Scott to put the mop and bucket there either. But I would say it's a valid assumption that she had at one time or another - since he put it in the exact same place that we know she told Nava to put the mop when she was done with it.


I will concede that the "front" door is to the dining room; however, my point is that the mops and bucket would have been in plain view of anyone walking to the front door and I doubt that someone expecting guests would want them there.

[Dora]

I will concede that the "front" door is to the dining room; however, my point is that the mops and bucket would have been in plain view of anyone walking to the front door and I doubt that someone expecting guests would want them there.

I agree - they would have been in plain view of anyone arriving at their home. But I think if their habit was to put the mop outside that door until it dried - it makes sense for him to have done so. He was late - in a hurry - would get it later. A good 17 hours until their guests would be arriving for Christmas brunch (I'm assuming brunch would have been around 11:00). I don't see anything suspicious about it.

[deputydi]

Snyopis, you are referring to one interview. Do you have the book the jurors wrote? Do you have the A&E DVD with their full statements? They said much more than what is written here, but I also believe that unless they testify to these statements, they cannot be used in an appeal.

Btw - what they state again and again, indepent of each other, is they all felt ISP was innocent going into the trial.
IMO you're right. Juror statements are not part of the trial record and that's all that will be looked at in the first appeal. It's possible that in the habeas appeal they can be used as argument, but IMO it won't pass the required muster to get Scott a new trial.

[cookiewench]

Repetition doesn't make something true. Is there anything to back this up? I think Dr. Peterson disagrees with you:

The doctor was explaining that if Conner had been born live and then put into the water when Laci was, his body would have been destroyed by feeding - BUT, he hadn't been, so his body, enclosed in the womb all that time, had been subject to autolysis and maceration.

His actual biological structure had changed: he wasn't decaying flesh any more, because his flesh wasn't flesh. Even the seagulls wouldn't have been interested. Conner's remains would have been poison to any fish or animal.

[court~critic1®]

I agree - they would have been in plain view of anyone arriving at their home. But I think if their habit was to put the mop outside that door until it dried - it makes sense for him to have done so. He was late - in a hurry - would get it later. A good 17 hours until their guests would be arriving for Christmas brunch (I'm assuming brunch would have been around 11:00). I don't see anything suspicious about it.


What was he "late" for?

:shrug:

[deputydi]

So....

when Brocchini excised information from a report - it was a "mistake" - and because he admitted it - when confronted - that makes him "honest"?

Or when he writes a report saying meringue was never mentioned in an episode of Martha Stewart - when in fact it was...he simply made a mistake - missed it - even though that was his only purpose in watching the show? Sure - it turned out okay - because of the timing of the meringue comment - but I bet the prosecution was experiencing a Mark Furhman moment until they started scrambling and were able to turn it around and use it to their advantage.

You're right - Brocchini wasn't the lead detective - maybe he wasn't in charge of what was released to the media - but he sure is an early riser....he had already read the newspaper by 6:40 a.m. the day the article about the bogus insurance policy came out in the paper - and was calling Scott's friends to tell them to check it out.

and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's - but didn't come forward because they were afraid of publicity? Now why would going to the police with information mean publicity? After all - the person who turned in Todd was afforded anonymity - why wouldn't they be given the same?

Mistake free trials only exist on tv. I admit this wasn't a "perfect" investigation and things were done that, in retrospect, should have been done differently. Problem with all your complaints is they don't mean anything as far as the appeals process is concerned. Guaranteed, mistakes will be found -- but none will rise to the level of fatal error, which is what is required for the verdict to be overturned.

[Lavindar]

I agree - they would have been in plain view of anyone arriving at their home. But I think if their habit was to put the mop outside that door until it dried - it makes sense for him to have done so. He was late - in a hurry - would get it later. A good 17 hours until their guests would be arriving for Christmas brunch (I'm assuming brunch would have been around 11:00). I don't see anything suspicious about it.


He was late? for dinner with Sharon and Ron and family? Then why did he wash his (allegedly) wet clothes. It did NOT rain in Berkeley that day like scott said. It rained in San Jose. His jacket was in the truck - dry. He took time to eat when he was late for dinner? I still see it as very fishy. He got home at 4:30 - I believe dinner was at 6. He had plenty of time as Sharon and Ron were only 2 miles away.

[cookiewench]

Why do any Law Officers go bad? :shrug:

http://www.intergate.com/~letterle/corrupt.html

http://www.fbiwhistlestop.com/

I didn't ask why any law officers would go bad.

I asked why some law officers would risk their job and reputation to "frame" Scott, knowing that the "real" killer might be caught, turned in, or confess.

I think that theory is ridiculous. Scott Peterson was no one to them. They didn't know him or have a grudge against him.

Just like the OJ glove: how could Mark Furhman have known that OJ's blood was going to match the blood on the glove he allegedly "planted", and why would he risk years in prison for himself when, for all he knew, it was the "real killer's" blood on that glove - the real killer who could have been confessing to someone at that very moment.

[deputydi]

He was late? for dinner with Sharon and Ron and family? Then why did he wash his (allegedly) wet clothes. It did NOT rain in Berkeley that day like scott said. It rained in San Jose. His jacket was in the truck - dry. He took time to eat when he was late for dinner? I still see it as very fishy.
LOL. Don't you snack on leftover pizza an hour before going to your in-laws for dinner? Doesn't everybody?

[Synopsis]

I have yet to see anyone explain why they think these detectives would have been willing to let their own reputations by destroyed (and possibly lose their jobs along with their credibility) just to frame Scott?

Why would they purposely ignore evidence and tips, knowing that the "real killer" could come to light through an informer, a confession, or some of the evidence?

How did they KNOW it was safe to do all these things, and that the "real murderer" wouldn't be found, and how would they know this from day ONE?

Brocchini zeroed in on Scott from that night forward. He admitted that. After the media kicked in it snowballed. IMO and this is in my opinion after Todd & Pearce were arrested within a tight circle in the MPD the case against Scott Peterson was sealed. There would be NO ONE coming forward or surfacing or confessing to ANYTHING! Who would they confess to? Anybody even suggesting anything or anyone other than Scott Peterson as the perp became an advisary to LE. And that's not a very safe feeling.

Although in the history of our justice system there have been many cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct, I'd be interested in seeing any record of anyone losing their job or even reprimanded. (sans Niphong) The only time they're taken to task is if they actually kill someone.

They stood a better chance of losing a job if they were proven wrong about Scott Peterson than if they were found to be dishonest. It's all in the politics.

[Synopsis]

I have no nada books on the Peterson case.

I read Amber Frey's online.

[Lavindar]

May I suggest you Take a chill pill Lady.

You said Scott managed to get rid of the DNA. How did he do that????:eek:

by dumping her in the Bay. The DNA would wash off, the disarticulation of her limbs and head was a big plus for him

[Lavindar]

Brocchini zeroed in on Scott from that night forward. He admitted that. After the media kicked in it snowballed. IMO and this is in my opinion after Todd & Pearce were arrested within a tight circle in the MPD the case against Scott Peterson was sealed. There would be NO ONE coming forward or surfacing or confessing to ANYTHING! Who would they confess to? Anybody even suggesting anything or anyone other than Scott Peterson as the perp became an advisary to LE. And that's not a very safe feeling.

Although in the history of our justice system there have been many cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct, I'd be interested in seeing any record of anyone losing their job or even reprimanded. (sans Niphong) The only time they're taken to task is if they actually kill someone.

They stood a better chance of losing a job if they were proven wrong about Scott Peterson than if they were found to be dishonest. It's all in the politics.
Here's a big problem with your Brocchini theory. For him to have been successful at this ALLEGED frame up, he would have had to have the cooperation of 300 officers in over 90 different agencies. Brocchini was not in charge after he called in Grogran at 11am on Christmas morning

6) Mark Geragos: I'll stipulate there is 42,000 pages of documents.
7) Birgit Fladager: I'll accept that.
8) Judge Delucchi: There is 42,000 pages of documents under, which are also subject to discovery we are dealing with.
9) Birgit Fladager: Okay. Detective Grogan, approximately how many tips were phoned in on this case?
10) Craig Grogan: Over 10,000.
11) Birgit Fladager: How many reporting officers were involved?
12) Craig Grogan: Over 300 reporting officers.
13) Birgit Fladager: How many agencies assisted the Modesto Police Department?
14) Craig Grogan: Around 90.

This is a conspiracy beyond belief. Not one person of the 300 reporting officers ever let slip that there was a huge coverup either. Don't forget that the Mayor of Modesto said he thought he was innocent. In 42000pages of documents did Geragos find anything seriously wrong? You can bet he was looking for it.

[Otter]

Brocchini zeroed in on Scott from that night forward. He admitted that. After the media kicked in it snowballed. IMO and this is in my opinion after Todd & Pearce were arrested within a tight circle in the MPD the case against Scott Peterson was sealed. There would be NO ONE coming forward or surfacing or confessing to ANYTHING! Who would they confess to? Anybody even suggesting anything or anyone other than Scott Peterson as the perp became an advisary to LE. And that's not a very safe feeling.

Although in the history of our justice system there have been many cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct, I'd be interested in seeing any record of anyone losing their job or even reprimanded. (sans Niphong) The only time they're taken to task is if they actually kill someone.

They stood a better chance of losing a job if they were proven wrong about Scott Peterson than if they were found to be dishonest. It's all in the politics.

I can think of some offhand, but you're asking the question along with stating your allegations. Why don't you look for some examples that you could share with us? :)

[Results]

Today marks the one year anniversary for missing Roxanne if you could please go post your support on the vigil thread for Roxanne would sure appreciate it. Roxy's Mom reads the forum and post with updates so lets show her our CL community compassion! Sorry to disrupt your thread and everyone have a wonderful weekend. Link below to the vigil thread:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showt...ghlight%3DRoxy

[Synopsis]

I see we are heading into the "conspiracy of the homeless people." The homeless people encamped in the park were there because they were HOMELESS and VEHICLE-LESS. How could they transport Laci ANYWHERE - on their backs?

GMAB!!! Many of them LIVED in their vehicles!!

[Synopsis]

Here's a big problem with your Brocchini theory. For him to have been successful at this ALLEGED frame up, he would have had to have the cooperation of 300 officers in over 90 different agencies. Brocchini was not in charge after he called in Grogran at 11am on Christmas morning

6) Mark Geragos: I'll stipulate there is 42,000 pages of documents.
7) Birgit Fladager: I'll accept that.
8) Judge Delucchi: There is 42,000 pages of documents under, which are also subject to discovery we are dealing with.
9) Birgit Fladager: Okay. Detective Grogan, approximately how many tips were phoned in on this case?
10) Craig Grogan: Over 10,000.
11) Birgit Fladager: How many reporting officers were involved?
12) Craig Grogan: Over 300 reporting officers.
13) Birgit Fladager: How many agencies assisted the Modesto Police Department?
14) Craig Grogan: Around 90.

This is a conspiracy beyond belief. Not one person of the 300 reporting officers ever let slip that there was a huge coverup either. Don't forget that the Mayor of Modesto said he thought he was innocent. In 42000pages of documents did Geragos find anything seriously wrong? You can bet he was looking for it.

Oh pooey!! These numbers are fodder for court TS. You know very well who the players in this case were!!

[Lavindar]

GMAB!!! Many of them LIVED in their vehicles!! Not if they were camped in the park - they were sleeping in the park not in their cars.
No place to park near their encampment

[Lavindar]

Oh pooey!! These numbers are fodder for court TS. You know very well who the players in this case were!!

And you provide no proof for any of your accusations. There were NOT three women with Kim when she burglarized the house. You are stating things you know nothing about.

[Lavindar]

Not if they were camped in the park - they were sleeping in the park not in their cars.
No place to park near their encampment /the homeless in modesto who have cars live in them, not in the parks or at the shelter

[deputydi]

Oh pooey!! These numbers are fodder for court TS. You know very well who the players in this case were!!
Do you honestly believe there was a cover up? Do you realize what heroes these guys would have been if they could have arrested anyone other than Scott? Many, many people (myself included) were hoping and praying that someone other than Laci's husband killed her. I didn't believe it for a long time no matter how damning things looked for him. I simply couldn't imagine that a man who had no prior history of violence, who was about to become a first time father, who was married to this woman with the capitivating smile, who seemed to be living the America dream could possibly have done something so horrible. I would have been ecstatic if they could have connected Laci's murder to the burglars or the homeless or anyone other than Scott.

Then, the bodies washed ashore and I couldn't kid myself any longer. All the pieces started fitting together and there was no other conclusion I could come up with that made any sense. There still isn't.

Corruption in LE does exist, but save your outrage for a case that deserves it.

[Lavindar]

GMAB!!! Many of them LIVED in their vehicles!!
Maybe where you live, but not in that park. There is no vehicle access to the park other than maintenance trucks. Why do you think they used horses and foot traffic to look for her?
People are not living in a van down by the river in East LaLoma Park. They were living by Dry Creek and NOT in the vehicles that you seem to want to believe they own.

[TopGunner]

Really - where? Here? I'm new - admittedly I haven't read all of the threads - but surely the person who provided the links could be kind enough to slap one here for me? One thing I am positively sure of - there was NO TESTIMONY that Conner was not edible - so you are definitely wrong there.

Are you accusing me of pretending that it hasn't been covered...hmmm....isn't that calling me a liar? That's not very nice. :no:


If you ask ME, I'd say you're the one baiting and maybe we shoud have FW decide. If I was accusing you of lying, I'd say YOU'RE A LIAR. I'm not one to beat around the bush.

I explained to you that what was meant by that post was it had already been discussed, period. And btw, I don't believe you're new here at all.

[Synopsis]

I can think of some offhand, but you're asking the question along with stating your allegations. Why don't you look for some examples that you could share with us? :)
I'm glad you asked. The first link covers almost every state with statistics.
The first link is an example written by a very respected skilled advocate and speaker and writer who I have personally heard speak.
Here's the link - but if you don't want to bother to read, here's an excerpt
http://truthinjustice.org/convicting.htm
Excerpt:
(e) Shoddy Police Work: The police work of investigating crimes, when done correctly and thoroughly, is indeed a noble profession. Law and order are essential to a cohesive and just society. Because police work is fraught with so many different kinds of pressures, it is rather easy for an investigation to go awry. The high volume of violent crime plagues every urban police department. Skilled detectives are few, and their caseloads are overwhelming. The "burnout" syndrome is a well-documented reality within police ranks. Interdepartmental politics and the bureaucracy stifle initiative and energy. The pressure to "solve" a case is intensely felt by the line detective and comes both from his Once they come to suspect someone as the culprit, and this often occurs early within the investigation and is based on rather flimsy circumstantial information, then the investigation blindly focuses in on that adopted "target." Crucial pieces of evidence are overlooked and disregarded. Some witnesses are not interviewed who should be, while others are seduced or coerced into telling the police what they want to hear. Evidence or information that does not fit the suspect or the prevailing theory of the crime is dismissed as not material or is changed to implicate the suspect. Good old-fashioned legwork is replaced by expediency and shortcuts. Coercive confessions are extracted and solid leads are ignored. Before too long, momentum has gathered, and the "project" now is to put it on the suspect. Any information that points to the suspect, no matter how spuriously secured, is somehow obtained; and anything that points away from him is ridiculed and twisted into nothingness.superiors and the community and from his own ambitious need for recognition and advancement. If today's climate of "burn or bury" them puts more pressure on the detective to resolve, it also gives him more license to do so by whatever means. Too often, as a result of the above factors, police officers take the easy way out.

[TopGunner]

So....

when Brocchini excised information from a report - it was a "mistake" - and because he admitted it - when confronted - that makes him "honest"?

Or when he writes a report saying meringue was never mentioned in an episode of Martha Stewart - when in fact it was...he simply made a mistake - missed it - even though that was his only purpose in watching the show? Sure - it turned out okay - because of the timing of the meringue comment - but I bet the prosecution was experiencing a Mark Furhman moment until they started scrambling and were able to turn it around and use it to their advantage.

You're right - Brocchini wasn't the lead detective - maybe he wasn't in charge of what was released to the media - but he sure is an early riser....he had already read the newspaper by 6:40 a.m. the day the article about the bogus insurance policy came out in the paper - and was calling Scott's friends to tell them to check it out.

and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's - but didn't come forward because they were afraid of publicity? Now why would going to the police with information mean publicity? After all - the person who turned in Todd was afforded anonymity - why wouldn't they be given the same?



Brocchini excised information from HIS report because the information was in the report of the officer who wrote it. This was written and handed to Geregos PROIOR to Brocchini taking the stand and Geregos put his Hollywood spin on it. The information remained in the report of the officer who wrote it, and the defense had it the whole time.

[TopGunner]

GMAB!!! Many of them LIVED in their vehicles!!

Since when do homeless people own vehicles? What address to they register them to? Insurance?

[odette]

Today marks the one year anniversary for missing Roxanne if you could please go post your support on the vigil thread for Roxanne would sure appreciate it. Roxy's Mom reads the forum and post with updates so lets show her our CL community compassion! Sorry to disrupt your thread and everyone have a wonderful weekend. Link below to the vigil thread:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showt...ghlight%3DRoxy

This link will take you to the main page of Roxanne's Forum .. Scroll down a little for the Vigil link .. :)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/forumdisplay.php?f=376

[Synopsis]

Do you honestly believe there was a cover up? Do you realize what heroes these guys would have been if they could have arrested anyone other than Scott? .
Heroes???? Their whole careers as investigators would have been toast. They had their target...and they were determined to hit a bullseye.

Corruption in LE does exist, but save your outrage for a case that deserves it.
Very good advice. I suggest you take it!

[Synopsis]

Not if they were camped in the park - they were sleeping in the park not in their cars.
No place to park near their encampment

Then explain how the "brown van Renfroes" who were living at the encampment, moved to the encampment in Fresno after the police came searching? I can't give you the exact date, because they said their van, was in the shop the day she went missing.

The police report is in the record of the visit to them in Fresno on other matters.

ETA And the mental patient who was one of the "homeless" drove a whit van. Remember........??

[Otter]

I'm glad you asked. The first link covers almost every state with statistics.
The first link is an example written by a very respected skilled advocate and speaker and writer who I have personally heard speak.
Here's the link - but if you don't want to bother to read, here's an excerpt
http://truthinjustice.org/convicting.htm
Excerpt:


Hey, when you bold to much you kinda counteract the boldness of the boldness you intended. Friendly hint. :)

You found a very interesting source. I have discernment, so before I read the opinion, I like to read the mission.

http://www.centurionministries.org/

Centurian Ministries ... everyone is innocent. Never heard of them, although their one investigator is based where I live. But so what, it sounds amazingly like PWC! I could check it out more, but there's no point. The evil are good, the victims are evil. More Bizarro world. This board is bizarro enough for me.

If I may be so bold Syn, as the day goes on your posting style changes drastically. You may want to examine that. I mean that in a concerned way.

[Otter]

Since when do homeless people own vehicles? What address to they register them to? Insurance?

I'm expermenting with flooding the board. :biggrin: We have a huge homeless community here in Seattle. They shun shelters and help because they simply like the lifestyle. That's their opinion, not mine.

Anywhooo, there's blocks and blocks of vehicles parked under a bridge 1/4 mile from me. No insurance, no registration. They live in them and aren't hassled. We also have the campers in parks. The campers would no doubt love to have a vehicle.

Its a foreign world. Its brutal. And no way would they bother with a pregnant woman for 4 months. That is a well formed IMO.

[deputydi]

Heroes???? Their whole careers as investigators would have been toast. They had their target...and they were determined to hit a bullseye.


Very good advice. I suggest you take it!
Do you think I am the only person who would have been elated to find out that Scott did not murder his wife and unborn child? I refuse to believe ANYONE got any satisfaction out of knowing Scott killed Laci and Conner.

FYI, I am outraged at instances of LE corruption. It may be more widespread than I believe, but it is certainly less widespread than you believe. There was NO prosecutorial or investigative misconduct in this trial. Your problem is you believe every mistake -- no matter how innocent or explainable -- amounts to misconduct. It is not. As I said before, if 20/20 hindsight is used, mistakes can be found in every single criminal investigation. They rarely are attributed to misconduct. I have no doubt you'll find something nefarious in that statement, but despite everything you may have read about this "brotherhood", the good cops hate the bad ones more than you do.

[TopGunner]

Oh they ALL list addresses. Just no one lives at the addresses given!!

Read the transcripts of the detective who did the leg work trying to locate any of them. There are also DMV records and drivers licenses in the TS of his testimony also.

I think you asked me earlier about any books on this case I have read.

I have purchased none and read none of the books written on this case.

I read Amber Frey's book online. But I don't consider that as valid nformation about this case.


There are DMV records and drivers licences of the homeless people in the transcripts??? :eek: Are you talking about the Scott Peterson transcripts? :read: Never heard that one, you happen to have a link?:confused:

[Wearing A Halo]

I'm glad you asked. The first link covers almost every state with statistics.
The first link is an example written by a very respected skilled advocate and speaker and writer who I have personally heard speak.
Here's the link - but if you don't want to bother to read, here's an excerpt
http://truthinjustice.org/convicting.htm
Excerpt:
(e) Shoddy Police Work: The police work of investigating crimes, when done correctly and thoroughly, is indeed a noble profession. Law and order are essential to a cohesive and just society. Because police work is fraught with so many different kinds of pressures, it is rather easy for an investigation to go awry. The high volume of violent crime plagues every urban police department. Skilled detectives are few, and their caseloads are overwhelming. The "burnout" syndrome is a well-documented reality within police ranks. Interdepartmental politics and the bureaucracy stifle initiative and energy. The pressure to "solve" a case is intensely felt by the line detective and comes both from his Once they come to suspect someone as the culprit, and this often occurs early within the investigation and is based on rather flimsy circumstantial information, then the investigation blindly focuses in on that adopted "target." Crucial pieces of evidence are overlooked and disregarded. Some witnesses are not interviewed who should be, while others are seduced or coerced into telling the police what they want to hear. Evidence or information that does not fit the suspect or the prevailing theory of the crime is dismissed as not material or is changed to implicate the suspect. Good old-fashioned legwork is replaced by expediency and shortcuts. Coercive confessions are extracted and solid leads are ignored. Before too long, momentum has gathered, and the "project" now is to put it on the suspect. Any information that points to the suspect, no matter how spuriously secured, is somehow obtained; and anything that points away from him is ridiculed and twisted into nothingness.superiors and the community and from his own ambitious need for recognition and advancement. If today's climate of "burn or bury" them puts more pressure on the detective to resolve, it also gives him more license to do so by whatever means. Too often, as a result of the above factors, police officers take the easy way out.


Yet another PWC propoganda, surely you got this link from Marlene. I read this along time ago on her site. Next you will post Carl Worden for some reason.

[cookiewench]

Brocchini zeroed in on Scott from that night forward. He admitted that. After the media kicked in it snowballed. IMO and this is in my opinion after Todd & Pearce were arrested within a tight circle in the MPD the case against Scott Peterson was sealed. There would be NO ONE coming forward or surfacing or confessing to ANYTHING! Who would they confess to? Anybody even suggesting anything or anyone other than Scott Peterson as the perp became an advisary to LE. And that's not a very safe feeling.

Although in the history of our justice system there have been many cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct, I'd be interested in seeing any record of anyone losing their job or even reprimanded. (sans Niphong) The only time they're taken to task is if they actually kill someone.

They stood a better chance of losing a job if they were proven wrong about Scott Peterson than if they were found to be dishonest. It's all in the politics.

And I'm asking you to provide a link to where "in the history of our justice system", no one but Nifong has ever lost their job or been reprimanded.

Of course they zeroed in on Scott from the first night. They are detectives, and the circumstances, statistics, and Scott's behavior were all pointing straight at him.

Since the Medinas didn't even leave their house that day until AFTER Laci's dog was found, the burglars were never viable suspects.

I'll cast my vote with the others who wish you would study the facts of this case before you make any more flat-out statements about it.

[Lavindar]

There are DMV records and drivers licences of the homeless people in the transcripts??? :eek: Are you talking about the Scott Peterson transcripts? :read: Never heard that one, you happen to have a link?:confused:

NOT FAIR. I ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION THAT THE RENFROWS WERE LIVING AT THE ENCAMPMENT IN EAST LA LOMA PARK OR EVEN DRY CREEK PARK FIRST. NOTE: given the proof so far provided, I am NOT holding my breath

[Otter]

And I'm asking you to provide a link to where "in the history of our justice system", no one but Nifong has ever lost their job or been reprimanded.

Of course they zeroed in on Scott from the first night. They are detectives, and the circumstances, statistics, and Scott's behavior were all pointing straight at him.

Since the Medinas didn't even leave their house that day until AFTER Laci's dog was found, the burglars were never viable suspects.

I'll cast my vote with the others who wish you would study the facts of this case before you make any more flat-out statements about it.

I don't like doing this, but I will. :beer:

Maybe in my speculation I should refrain from the booze, but naaaah.

ETA: I remember asking for the same thing. Real cases is what I would've looked for, not some bogus website that nothing but opinion.

[Lavindar]

I don't like doing this, but I will. :beer:

Maybe in my speculation I should refrain from the booze, but naaaah.

maybe a little nip might make some of it make sense.

[TopGunner]

I'm expermenting with flooding the board. :biggrin: We have a huge homeless community here in Seattle. They shun shelters and help because they simply like the lifestyle. That's their opinion, not mine.

Anywhooo, there's blocks and blocks of vehicles parked under a bridge 1/4 mile from me. No insurance, no registration. They live in them and aren't hassled. We also have the campers in parks. The campers would no doubt love to have a vehicle.

Its a foreign world. Its brutal. And no way would they bother with a pregnant woman for 4 months. That is a well formed IMO.



Otter, we LOVE when you flood the boards......:rose:

Homeless people living in abandoned cars I can totally accept, but registrations with the DMV?! I dunno <scratching head>, sounds like something from "those" transcripts. Not the REAL transcripts. :seeya:

[adnoid]

So....

when Brocchini excised information from a report - it was a "mistake" - and because he admitted it - when confronted - that makes him "honest"?...

Think about it: to be "excised" it would have had to been in there, and then removed. That's not what happened. It was not put into HIS report because he did not interview the person in question, but in his notes was information that the person had been interviewed. The detective that actually interviewed the witness put it into HIS report.

It was a classic Geragos maneuver - ask a question of the WRONG PERSON to try to confuse the jury. It failed - the jury was too sharp.

[deputydi]

And I'm asking you to provide a link to where "in the history of our justice system", no one but Nifong has ever lost their job or been reprimanded.

Of course they zeroed in on Scott from the first night. They are detectives, and the circumstances, statistics, and Scott's behavior were all pointing straight at him.

Since the Medinas didn't even leave their house that day until AFTER Laci's dog was found, the burglars were never viable suspects.

I'll cast my vote with the others who wish you would study the facts of this case before you make any more flat-out statements about it.
I'll join Otter in the toast :beer:

[TopGunner]

NOT FAIR. I ASKED FOR THE INFORMATION THAT THE RENFROWS WERE LIVING AT THE ENCAMPMENT IN EAST LA LOMA PARK OR EVEN DRY CREEK PARK FIRST. NOTE: given the proof so far provided, I am NOT holding my breath

Errr........is this for me? :chicken: LOL...

[Lavindar]

And you are responding to posts that you either cannot or do not read!!!

I didnt say there were 3 women with Kim.

I said 3 women were reported being there later the same night!!!

And your source for this is?

[adnoid]

Heroes???? Their whole careers as investigators would have been toast...

Back that up.

[TopGunner]

And you are responding to posts that you either cannot or do not read!!!

I didnt say there were 3 women with Kim.

I said 3 women were reported being there later the same night!!!


Synopsis, what is your reference for these three woman? I've never heard of this, has anyone else?

[Lavindar]

Then explain how the "brown van Renfroes" who were living at the encampment, moved to the encampment in Fresno after the police came searching? I can't give you the exact date, because they said their van, was in the shop the day she went missing.

The police report is in the record of the visit to them in Fresno on other matters.

ETA And the mental patient who was one of the "homeless" drove a whit van. Remember........??
It's been half an hour and you still have not provided information on any of the allegations that you claim to be true. I'm still waiting





























i

[Lavindar]

Synopsis, what is your reference for these three woman? I've never heard of this, has anyone else?
No, only thing I can think of is they were Geragos's employees using the pool that night. Cancel that. The burglary was in winter.

Do you have any clue what we can do to get her to post any information to these little fairy tales she tells?

[TopGunner]

No, only thing I can think of is they were Geragos's employees using the pool that night.

Do you have any clue what we can do to get her to post any information to these little fairy tales she tells?


Ummmmmmmmmm................................nope.

[Lavindar]

Errr........is this for me? :chicken: LOL...No, it's for the person who makes up stuff and claims it to be fact.


You know, a mentallly ill man in a white van, three women at teh Peterson house the night of the burglary, and the brown van people living in the encampment at East La Loma Park IN THEIR VAN
Check post 1191

[Otter]

Think about it: to be "excised" it would have had to been in there, and then removed. That's not what happened. It was not put into HIS report because he did not interview the person in question, but in his notes was information that the person had been interviewed. The detective that actually interviewed the witness put it into HIS report.

It was a classic Geragos maneuver - ask a question of the WRONG PERSON to try to confuse the jury. It failed - the jury was too sharp.

I don't want to get tipsy or anything ... :beer:

Yep, its not that hard to follow. Its called following procedure. MOO.

[Otter]

Synopsis, what is your reference for these three woman? I've never heard of this, has anyone else?

Not only that, but why the yelling? Makes my ears/eyes hurt. :(

[Lavindar]

Not if they were camped in the park - they were sleeping in the park not in their cars.
No place to park near their encampment

Then explain how the "brown van Renfroes" who were living at the encampment, moved to the encampment in Fresno after the police came searching? I can't give you the exact date, because they said their van, was in the shop the day she went missing.

The police report is in the record of the visit to them in Fresno on other matters.

ETA And the mental patient who was one of the "homeless" drove a whit van. Remember........??

\\\\

It's been an hour. I think we are being ignored. I would be a good attorney. I do not ask any question that I do not know the answer to

The Renfrows were camped at Woodward Reservoir about 20 miles from that encampment. I am still waiting for the mental patient in teh white van and the three women at the Peterson residence. I suspect they are "made up" to make someone look intelligent.

An NE investigation has uncovered stunning info that blows a huge hole in Scott's murder defense. On July 22, Scott's lawyers announced they had evidence in the Laci Peterson case that "totally exonerates" Scott and would lead to Laci's "true killers"- but their claims are pure fiction. Scotty's attorney, Mark Geragos, has suggested that Laci was the victim of a Satanic cult whose members were spotted in a battered van near the Petersons' Modesto home, around the time of Laci's disappearance on Christmas Eve.

But what Scott's lawyer said were bloodstains in the van is actually barbecue sauce. And a Satanic image on a window of the van is tinting that was scratched off by a child. What's more Scott's lawyers cited a "mystery woman's" claims of being abducted by a Satanic cult even though she had a history of mental problems, the NE has learned. And a source close to the case revealed that defense attorneys have been unable to locate the woman.

"Now that the so-called evidence in the van can be innocently explained, you can expect the defense team to abandon the Satanic cult theory faster
than Liz Taylor abandons her husbands," said Craig Silverman, a former
chief deputy district for Denver who has tried dozens of homicide cases.

Defense attorney Geragos repossessed a 1987 van belonging to May Ann
Renfrow, 64, to use as possible evidence in the case. But Mary Ann, her
husband Donnie, 55, son Rayoune Miranda, 32 and daughter Sherry Moulton,
37, say that neither they nor their van had anything to do with Laci's murder.

"Obviously Mark Geragos was trying to clear his client- and using us to do," Mary Ann told the NE. Cops first interviewed Mary Ann and her homeless family at their campsite at the Woodward Reservoir outside Modesto on Dec. 30. They were looking for a brown van in connection with Laci's disappearance and wanted to see the vehicle the family used to pull their trailer from one campsite to another.

"We told them our van had broken down on Dec.22 and hadn't been repaired
until the 29th, "Rayoune told the NE. "They examined it thoroughly and
after we satisfied them that we'd never been in Laci's neighborhood,
they went away. We didn't hear anything for nearly five months."

Then on May 21, police investigators came back to see Rayoune. They'd had a report that implicated him in the Dec. 14 rape of a woman, Rayoune said. "The woman told a rape counselor she'd been subjected to Satanic rituals in a brown van, that her attacker had Satanic 666 tattooed on his neck, and that she overheard him talking with other people about the plans to kidnap a baby on Dec. 24th, Rayoune said. "I had to show them I didn't have a 666 tattoo, by pulling up my hair."

"Eventually the police told us the woman was nuts and had accused quite a few other men of rape." "But they said they had to follow up because Mark Geragos was now pushing the issue." After lead detectives in the Peterson murder case questioned family members,and cops collected hair and saliva samples, authorities took the family's van and trailer away for examination. They were eventually cleared in the murder.

But the defense team's Satanic cult theory, began making the TV news, with
Geragos pinning the blame for Laci's death on four or five people in a
mysterious brown van. "Mom was behind in her payments- she owed $600-
and Mark Geragos bought the van by making the payment," Rayoune recalled.

One June 4 the family watched as CNN reporter Dave Mattingly declared, "a source on the defense team tells me that they are more certain than ever of their theory because of things they have found after they examined the van. "They claim to have found duct tape inside the van, as well as blood stains. They also claim to have found a Satanic image sketched in the glas of the van."

"We couldn't believe our ears," Sherry said. "Of course there was duct tape-
our trailer's canvas was ripped in several places and we used duct tape to hold it together to protect us form the cold."

"As for the bloodstains the police know the truth. When my son was helping one of the detectives move an ice chest in the van, they spilled a bottle of BBQ sauce. That's the stain the defenseis talking about." And the satanic image? "The van windows are tinted and my grandchildren tore at the tinting material with their fingers one day so they could see outside better." It left a strange pattern on the window-but there's nothing Satancic about it."

The family has also been told, she said that defense team investigators found the picture of the devil in the family trailer. Sherry showed an NE reporter a sticker of a sexy woman with bat wings and horns stuck to the trailer door.

"My kids got it out of a machine," she said adding that it's ridiculous for her family to be accused of being Satanists. Gergagos or his investigators never talked to the family.

The defense is operating under a gag order, but a source told the NE, "The defense has the van and it's being tested at a laboratory. Results are expected by the end of August."

After cops returned the family's tattered trailer, a friend helped them tow it back to their campsite, where despite the fact that they have been cleared and people drive past their campsite honking and hollering insults. "Mr. Geragos has destroyed our Lives," Mary Ann said. "I don't know how he could be so cruel."


So much for your fairy tale Now where's the information on the mental patient in the white van adn the three women??????? You've had time.

[One2Snoop]

Since when do homeless people own vehicles? What address to they register them to? Insurance?

If a homeless person owned a car I think they'd register it the same way Scott registered his boat, they don't. :biggrin:

[Luke Davis]

If a homeless person owned a car I think they'd register it the same way Scott registered his boat, they don't. :biggrin:Or they could just steal one.

[One2Snoop]

Or they could just steal one.

LOL, that too!

[One2Snoop]

Synopsis, what is your reference for these three woman? I've never heard of this, has anyone else?

I don't recall anything about 3 women either. :shrug:

[cookiewench]

OT, but I am LOL'ing about how a 1987 van could have to be repossessed.

Where can you get financing on something that's worth not more than $1,000?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi ekg,
No I know from personal experience guys have used the "black widower" story on unassuming women. It's cruel but it's done. And I think that because Amber had recently told him of her experience with that, it was the first thing that popped in his mind to try and cover his butt and get to keep playing with Amber.

IMO he was dumb schmuck with raging hormones, no sex at home, and wanted to prove he still "had it." I think he felt he would ride it out for awhile with Amber (no pun intended) and disappear into the woodwork later, and she would be none the wiser.

But talk about bad luck and timing - his wife disappears and makes headlines around the nation - and he's messing with a gal that is definitely not known for just disappearing into the woodwork.

isp's whole problem is that he claims he LOST his wife (didn't state 'gone' as ekg claimed), this would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with amber after the first of the year.

the above becomes glaringly incriminating based on the fact that the very next day isp starts looking for a boat to buy--and he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci had been together.

the above becomes even more incriminating based on the fact that less than 2 weeks later laci actually is LOST and it is isp's FIRST holidays without her, and he is FREE since laci disappeared on the very day isp drove over 4 hours to spend less than 1 hour on the water in a boat he'd started looking to buy the day after telling amber that series of lies about his LOST wife.

cyn

[cookiewench]

Why don't you have your doctor adjust your meds! You really need to.

Your spewing of accusations about others is ridiculous. I don't quote others as my opinions. But you might be wise to do so because your own opinions and accusations are silly and childish. You act like a little kid trying to get attention.
IMO From reading your posts, it's obvious how very little you know.

Now that you've gotten that off your chest, are you going to tell us about those three women?

[Synopsis]

Synopsis, what is your reference for these three woman? I've never heard of this, has anyone else?

Sorry, I had company.
But since you asked so nicely, here's the reference. It was in everyone's favorite, A. Brocchini's testimony.
GERAGOS: Now, you said that the person went to the trunk of a white Honda, opened the trunk, and had carried out a bundle from the house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And placed that bundle into the trunk of the car?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she saw the woman walking around in the front yard, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes. She saw her walk around in the front yard talking to herself, she said.

GERAGOS: That would have been back to People's 38.

BROCCHINI: Okay.

GERAGOS: Then she called the police; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And they were in the driveway as well, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And, once again, Krigbaum called 9-1-1. However, this time the officers, same as last time, I guess, by the time the officers arrived, these, the second wave of people had already left.

BROCCHINI: That's right.

GERAGOS: Now, at about, you get this first call, you didn't get the call, but the police received the call in the early morning hours at about 1:53 in the morning on Sunday morning. So from Saturday night going into Sunday morning, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And so at some point at about three in the morning is when this second, the other threesome shows up, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Then at about ten in the morning, or is it ten at night, the following day, officers were dispatched over to Scott's house and Laci's house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: It was about eight at night.

GERAGOS: Eight at night. Okay. Now, at that point, it was determined that there was a window that was broken, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

[Synopsis]

Taking these important questions 1 at a time........
As for a prosecutor actually losing his job over prosecutorial misconduct, (including police) I said there hadn't been one. And I still have been unable to find a case. If you know of a case other than Niphong well great. Post it.

Everyone seems to think there is a great threat to LE to handle everything properly out of fear of losing their job or being severely punished and I say that's not the case. Maybe there has been cases, but they have to be rare.

Even when people are exonerated because of prosecutorial misconduct, or proved innocent, they sometimes get money settlements, but you never hear of any reprimand in the way of loss of a job or jail time for the ones who put him in jail.

This was discussed recently on CTV during the Niphong case.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi Synopsis

I know..I was stunned when I heard that..and I was deeply saddened because I believe that Laci could have been saved..

so you believe her body was stored in a tub in tracy.

ok--where's her head and missing limbs? you're convinced she wasn't in the bay since there's no 'fish bite marks' on the remains but you've no trouble believing someone was able to have removed her limbs without leaving tool marks? imo that's a total contradiction. how can you buy into one and not the other?

you realize laci's head disarticulated at the base of its connection to the spine meaning that if it had been removed by someone they'd have had to have cut it off BELOW the top of her shoulders--and do it without leaving any tool marks.

it would require extensive surgical skill and the appropriate surgical tools in order to remove someone's head/limbs without leaving tool marks, so in your scenerio someone also had to have been a surgeon or former surgeon.

decomposition wouldn't account for tool marks disappearing since the bones don't decompose.

now what about laci's uterus? who performed a cesarean by abrading the top (fundus) of her uterus? there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open. aside from that, who would open her up ABOVE the belly button and then reach in basically at the base of her rib cage and then reach their hands DOWN into her abraded uterus to lift conner's body up out of the top of her abraded uterus without pulling the top of her uterus wide open? the person would have to reach both their hands into the uterus, grab conner and pull him out through that abraded area.... based on the size of the opening do you really see that as likely?

wow.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

I don't think they were there guarding the bay for 24 hours..and I personally believe that the bodies were planted the same day they were found...the ME testified that there was no animal feeding on Conner..had he been in water even for hours, IMO there would have been evidence of fish bite marks on his body, in fact, parts of his body would have been eaten by fish...even as he was supposedly in the uterus, there was an opening at the top where fish could have gotten to Conner...had he been planted on shore for hours, IMO there would have been evidence of animal feeding, such as insects...birds..etc...etc..I think after his death the killers kept him submerged in a sealed plastic bag...

then can you please explain why his body was consistent with internal decomposition but not external? his internal organs were liquified, including his brain. his exterior was swollen/macerated, but not decomposed.

cyn

[Miss Bootsie]

Repetition doesn't make something true. Is there anything to back this up? I think Dr. Peterson disagrees with you:

Conner didn't spend substantial unprotected time in the water - (like Laci did for four months).
He started his journey to shore during a storm.
Fish don't stay on the surface during a storm.
They go deeper into the water.

[Miss Bootsie]

.
*Snipped

Everyone seems to think there is a great threat to LE to handle everything properly out of fear of losing their job or being severely punished and I say that's not the case. Maybe there has been cases, but they have to be rare.

*Snipped



You are most definitely wrong about this.

[cookiewench]

Taking these important questions 1 at a time........
As for a prosecutor actually losing his job over prosecutorial misconduct, (including police) I said there hadn't been one. And I still have been unable to find a case. If you know of a case other than Niphong well great. Post it.

Everyone seems to think there is a great threat to LE to handle everything properly out of fear of losing their job or being severely punished and I say that's not the case. Maybe there has been cases, but they have to be rare.

Even when people are exonerated because of prosecutorial misconduct, or proved innocent, they sometimes get money settlements, but you never hear of any reprimand in the way of loss of a job or jail time for the ones who put him in jail.

This was discussed recently on CTV during the Niphong case.

What are you talking about? It's the detectives you were making the accusations against in this case - not the prosecutor.

[Synopsis]

Here's a small example to be considered before you assume that NONE of the homeless had cars and that DMV and DL did play into the "investigation" at least that's what I gleaned from the testimony. I didn't just dream it up or make it up, as some do. It's all in Cloward's and Coyle's testimony. I would suggest you read Coyle's testimony completely. It's extremely enlightening.
Good night all!
GERAGOS: Okay. And this person also on their questionnaire, can you tell me on question number eight of the questionnaire, what was the vehicle that this person has access to?
COYLE: At that time a Chevy van 1985, white.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did that, is that significant in any way to you in terms of this investigation?
COYLE: No.
GERAGOS: Okay. So a van, or white van, mid 80s, with a sex offender who's giving us an address that can't be verified, is this a completed investigation? Does this go into the completed file
COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: I've got another one that's listed on your list as I think 101?
COYLE: 101. Go ahead.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, specifically this person was contacted by Officer Musto?
COYLE: Actually, it was two officers together, Officer Kelly and Officer Musto, I believe.
GERAGOS: Was this person contacted over the phone?
COYLE: In person on one occasion. I'm looking to make sure that he wasn't.
GERAGOS: I'm at 3120. Is that what?
COYLE: Yes, on that occasion that was by phone.
GERAGOS: Now this person by phone said he had never seen Laci Peterson before and never had contact with her?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Then he says, "I observed no visible signs of cuts or scratches on this gentleman's arms or hands"?
COYLE: Yeah, I believe he does a supplement later saying that was entered in error there.
GERAGOS: Because it would have been very hard to observe that, he didn't have a video, phone or anything?
COYLE: Absolutely. It would have been hard.
GERAGOS: So at some point later on somebody goes back and takes a look and sees that on this report he's got telephone contact and he's writing in the report "I observed no visible signs of cuts or scratches"?
COYLE: That's correct.GERAGOS: Okay. Was this person completed?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: And this person had access to a car? I'm once again referring you to the neighbor who gave Officer Kelly and Musto the original information that same as?
COYLE: Yes, it appears he has a car that's connected to him somehow, yes.
GERAGOS: And this was a completed investigation?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And let me show you, ask you to refer you to No. 9.
COYLE: Go ahead.
GERAGOS: This person is a registered sex offender?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. When you first tried to find him, somebody tried to, it wasn't you personally, back on December 29th?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. He listed an address on Kerr, K-e-r-r?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Two officers went over to try and contact him at that Kerr Avenue address?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Now, when a registrant lists an address, it's extremely important, it's a violation of law if they are listing an address where they are not staying, correct?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. That in and of itself can be a strike offense, correct?
COYLE: I wouldn't have any information about strikes, I just know it is a criminal offense, but I don't know what.
GERAGOS: Okay. When the officers went over to this address on Kerr Avenue, what happened?
COYLE: Apparently there was no one there that answered the door. They talked to somebody else who said that their relative was in charge of the property and they didn't know the person we were looking for.GERAGOS: Okay. You went a little bit farther and said no one under the name of this particular sex offender lived at that location, correct? I'm looking at the first paragraph.
COYLE: Right, he didn't know anybody by that name staying at the residence, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Then at some point somebody went back to this Kerr Avenue address?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And they interviewed two people who lived there, two residents?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Both the residents said they lived at that residence for how long?
COYLE: Two years.
GERAGOS: And they didn't know this sex offender and no one under his name stayed with them?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: They had a back house, but there was no one under this sex offender's name who lived there?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And whoever the officer was, I think Musto, went to the back house and contacted the resident and she also denied knowing who the person was and she lived there for over a year?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Then at some point somebody conducted a driver's license check?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: They found a name that matched that had another address?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Went to the address, attempted to contact him, no answer?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Left a note?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Do you remember what date that was? It's either May 5th
COYLE: I believe it's May 5th, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Then this gentleman was contacted on May the 7th?
COYLE: Yes. He actually leaves a message on the 6th or he telephoned on the 6th and they arranged for a meeting on the 7th.
GERAGOS: He said he was at home on the 24th between 8:30 and 5:00?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he said he might have visited some friends in the surrounding area, that he would not have done so until after 5:00 o'clock?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: He says he has a car, a four-door Accord?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: And did that complete the investigation of this gentleman?
COYLE: Yes.

[Synopsis]

And last but not least:
GERAGOS: Now, I'm going to return for just one moment to the gentleman you started off with. There was
COYLE: Which number was that?
GERAGOS: It was No. 42.
COYLE: Go ahead.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, this person had a history of mental illness; is that correct?
COYLE: I don't know if I could say "history," we did contact him at our mental health facility at one point.
GERAGOS: He was not apparently in an institution on the 24th and 25th?
COYLE: I don't believe he was, no.
GERAGOS: Okay. He was interviewed by one of the sergeants, correct?
COYLE: No, I don't think so.
GERAGOS: It looks like Sergeant Conner, Corder, I'm sorry. Is it Corder?
COYLE: Well, that's, that is, yeah, that's who spoke to our detective but
GERAGOS: Okay. So Sergeant Corder, if I understand what happened with this particular person, Sergeant Corder arrested this gentleman for some vandalism and traffic violations?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: And while he interviewed this guy, this guy claimed he committed a murder in Modesto around Christmas time?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Said he murdered a female named Alisa Peterson at Scenic Park?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: He said the only witness was the dog?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Said he was driving his sister's white Chevy van during that time period?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Said he murdered her by breaking her neck?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: And then he called friends over to pick up the body and drive it over to the Bay Area?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Now it looks like on the next page that there was an Officer Wolfe who interviewed this gentleman later on; is that correct?
COYLE: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And that would have been about a year later in sometime December 2002?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: 2003, I'm sorry.
COYLE: 2003.
GERAGOS: And he was eliminated, is that correct, as a suspect because of his history of mental illness?
COYLE: No, I wouldn't say he was eliminated. I can't say eliminated at all. He was completed because of the witnesses who were also interviewed by our detective.
GERAGOS: Can I show you a report by Detective Brocchini?
COYLE: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay.
COYLE: I've got that.
GERAGOS: You've got that there. Did Detective Brocchini write Kegel was eliminated as a suspect because of his history of mental illness?
COYLE: That's what's written here, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. You certainly weren't going to eliminate him because he's got a history of mental illness?
COYLE: I didn't want to eliminate anybody, but, I mean, I didn't want to eliminate him at all, no.
GERAGOS: Okay. But that report was prepared, the one that you and I are reading from is from Brocchini; is that correct?
COYLE: That's correct.

[cookiewench]

Sorry, I had company.
But since you asked so nicely, here's the reference. It was in everyone's favorite, A. Brocchini's testimony.
GERAGOS: Now, you said that the person went to the trunk of a white Honda, opened the trunk, and had carried out a bundle from the house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And placed that bundle into the trunk of the car?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she saw the woman walking around in the front yard, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes. She saw her walk around in the front yard talking to herself, she said.

GERAGOS: That would have been back to People's 38.

BROCCHINI: Okay.

GERAGOS: Then she called the police; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And they were in the driveway as well, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And, once again, Krigbaum called 9-1-1. However, this time the officers, same as last time, I guess, by the time the officers arrived, these, the second wave of people had already left.

BROCCHINI: That's right.

GERAGOS: Now, at about, you get this first call, you didn't get the call, but the police received the call in the early morning hours at about 1:53 in the morning on Sunday morning. So from Saturday night going into Sunday morning, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And so at some point at about three in the morning is when this second, the other threesome shows up, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Then at about ten in the morning, or is it ten at night, the following day, officers were dispatched over to Scott's house and Laci's house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: It was about eight at night.

GERAGOS: Eight at night. Okay. Now, at that point, it was determined that there was a window that was broken, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

This testimony is about something that occured the day before the break-in, and has nothing to do with the break-in. It's just more of Geragos's spin.

[Synopsis]

What are you talking about? It's the detectives you were making the accusations against in this case - not the prosecutor.

All inclusive my dear. Police detectives and prosecutors.

[Synopsis]

This testimony is about something that occured the day before the break-in, and has nothing to do with the break-in. It's just more of Geragos's spin.

Good grief!!! This is ridiculous! If it's Geragos spin - Brocchini is testifying to it!
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at some point you were assigned to investigate a burglary at the house on 523 Covena; is that correct? The Peterson house?

BROCCHINI: Yes, twice.

GERAGOS: Okay. The first time was what date?

BROCCHINI: January 19th.

GERAGOS: On January 19th you received information that Amy Krigbaum across the street had observed a female go into Scott's backyard, correct? Do you want that page number?

BROCCHINI: No. Yeah, I remember.

GERAGOS: 1105, on the top.

BROCCHINI: She called me and said that she had seen a female come out of the front gate or back gate of the house.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was, she called you at about 1:53 in the morning on Sunday the 19th of January, 2003?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she said that she had seen somebody exit the gate. Which gate did she tell you?

BROCCHINI: I'd have to look to be sure, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Okay. 1105 is the top. 1175 Bates number stamp on the lower right.

BROCCHINI: Okay. The north side gate. So that would have been the one right in front of the cars on the driveway.

JUDGE: Use the pointer, detective.

GERAGOS: Do you have the pointer there?

BROCCHINI: She saw her come out this gate right here.

GERAGOS: Okay. And said that went to the trunk of a white Honda Civic that was facing southbound on the west side of e 10 the street. Where would that have been? Maybe I better put this down and you can show on People's 33.

BROCCHINI: What did I tell you?

JUDGE: Southbound on west the side of the street.

BROCCHINI: Same side of the street as the Peterson house, facing down.

GERAGOS: Heading in this direction towards Encina. So the front of the car was facing towards Encina?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, you said that the person went to the trunk of a white Honda, opened the trunk, and had carried out a bundle from the house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And placed that bundle into the trunk of the car?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she saw the woman walking around in the front yard, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes. She saw her walk around in the front yard talking to herself, she said.

GERAGOS: That would have been back to People's 38.

BROCCHINI: Okay.

GERAGOS: Then she called the police; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And they were in the driveway as well, right?

[cookiewench]

All inclusive my dear. Police detectives and prosecutors.

You were specifically accusing the detectives in the Peterson case. It is NOT all-inclusive.

The prosecutor was not involved in the investigation, and your accusations are about the investigation.

[Synopsis]

You are most definitely wrong about this.

Well I have seen no cases of any police, lab workers that falsify reports, and prosecutors that withhold evidence at trial ever being punished for it.

If you know of any personally or even one that has been documented - great!
Because I think they should be held accountable when one's liberty is at stake.

My brother is a detective on our local police force and his son, my nephew is with the FBI. I have another nephew who is a policeman in B'ham, Alabama.

My brother and nephew won't talk about it, and the other nephew knows of none.

[cookiewench]

Good grief!!! This is ridiculous! If it's Geragos spin - Brocchini is testifying to it!
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, at some point you were assigned to investigate a burglary at the house on 523 Covena; is that correct? The Peterson house?

BROCCHINI: Yes, twice.

GERAGOS: Okay. The first time was what date?

BROCCHINI: January 19th.

GERAGOS: On January 19th you received information that Amy Krigbaum across the street had observed a female go into Scott's backyard, correct? Do you want that page number?

BROCCHINI: No. Yeah, I remember.

GERAGOS: 1105, on the top.

BROCCHINI: She called me and said that she had seen a female come out of the front gate or back gate of the house.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was, she called you at about 1:53 in the morning on Sunday the 19th of January, 2003?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she said that she had seen somebody exit the gate. Which gate did she tell you?

BROCCHINI: I'd have to look to be sure, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Okay. 1105 is the top. 1175 Bates number stamp on the lower right.

BROCCHINI: Okay. The north side gate. So that would have been the one right in front of the cars on the driveway.

JUDGE: Use the pointer, detective.

GERAGOS: Do you have the pointer there?

BROCCHINI: She saw her come out this gate right here.

GERAGOS: Okay. And said that went to the trunk of a white Honda Civic that was facing southbound on the west side of e 10 the street. Where would that have been? Maybe I better put this down and you can show on People's 33.

BROCCHINI: What did I tell you?

JUDGE: Southbound on west the side of the street.

BROCCHINI: Same side of the street as the Peterson house, facing down.

GERAGOS: Heading in this direction towards Encina. So the front of the car was facing towards Encina?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, you said that the person went to the trunk of a white Honda, opened the trunk, and had carried out a bundle from the house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And placed that bundle into the trunk of the car?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she saw the woman walking around in the front yard, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes. She saw her walk around in the front yard talking to herself, she said.

GERAGOS: That would have been back to People's 38.

BROCCHINI: Okay.

GERAGOS: Then she called the police; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And they were in the driveway as well, right?

Yep. In the early morning hours - but the break in was that evening.

[Synopsis]

Yep. In the early morning hours - but the break in was that evening.

Amy Krigbaum was witnessing it!! The question posted to me was that several had never heard of the 3 women being at the house on Covena after Kim M. was there. And they asked for a link - and got it

:

[Miss Bootsie]

so you believe her body was stored in a tub in tracy.

ok--where's her head and missing limbs? you're convinced she wasn't in the bay since there's no 'fish bite marks' on the remains but you've no trouble believing someone was able to have removed her limbs without leaving tool marks? imo that's a total contradiction. how can you buy into one and not the other?

you realize laci's head disarticulated at the base of its connection to the spine meaning that if it had been removed by someone they'd have had to have cut it off BELOW the top of her shoulders--and do it without leaving any tool marks.

it would require extensive surgical skill and the appropriate surgical tools in order to remove someone's head/limbs without leaving tool marks, so in your scenerio someone also had to have been a surgeon or former surgeon.

decomposition wouldn't account for tool marks disappearing since the bones don't decompose.

now what about laci's uterus? who performed a cesarean by abrading the top (fundus) of her uterus? there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open. aside from that, who would open her up ABOVE the belly button and then reach in basically at the base of her rib cage and then reach their hands DOWN into her abraded uterus to lift conner's body up out of the top of her abraded uterus without pulling the top of her uterus wide open? the person would have to reach both their hands into the uterus, grab conner and pull him out through that abraded area.... based on the size of the opening do you really see that as likely?

wow.

cyn

Regarding fish bite marks.
Fish do not chew on bone. In fact, fish do not chew period because the action would interfer with their breathing.
For lack of the appropriate word - Fish do nibble -To take small or hesitant bites: fish nibbling at the bait.
But, fish don't grind the bites with their teeth - chew
If fish don't chew, there is no way chew marks could be left on hard bone.



As Dr. Peterson stated, evidence of fish feeding would leave scalloped edges on soft tissue.
PETERSON: And scalloping is a change that I would associate with feeding, animal feeding, like crustaceans. I didn't see that here.

However:
There was no soft tissue left from the belly button up with the exception of the breast tissue which was protected by the bra. Therefore, how could Dr. Peterson see any evidence of fish feeding from the belly button up.

GERAGOS: I'm talking from belly button up there was no soft tissue left, correct?
PETERSON: Correct.

As stated by Dr. Peterson, the pants offered protection from the belly button down.
HARRIS: You were asked about being a difference between the lower portion of Laci Peterson's body and the top portion of her body, possibly being an injury to the top portion of the body. Was there also a difference in terms of her protection, in terms of clothing that you found at the autopsy?
PETERSON: Well, again, there wasn't complete clothing from the waist down, but there was some clothing, namely, the trousers, panties. And I think could those have accounted for the difference. Sure, they cover. In other words, that clothing being in place would have provided relative protection, just as it did for the breasts. There was no skin left on the breasts, but the granular tissue, the fat tissue was still there, where it was missing on the rest of the chest, which I think is pretty good indicator the clothing provided some level of protection.


So, actually, there was not any soft tissue left (other than the soft tissue that was protected), for Dr. Peterson to find evidence of fish feeding on.

Sadly, there was not much left of the body period.

It is not true, that the lack of fish nibble marks on the remains,if that is the case, is an indication Laci's body was not in the Bay.imo

[PsychNurse;~)]

Regarding fish bite marks.
Fish do not chew on bone. In fact, fish do not chew period because the action would interfer with their breathing.
For lack of the appropriate word - Fish do nibble -To take small or hesitant bites: fish nibbling at the bait.
But, fish don't grind the bites with their teeth - chew
If fish don't chew, there is no way chew marks could be left on hard bone.



As Dr. Peterson stated, evidence of fish feeding would leave scalloped edges on soft tissue.


However:
There was no soft tissue left from the belly button up with the exception of the breast tissue which was protected by the bra. Therefore, how could Dr. Peterson see any evidence of fish feeding from the belly button up.


As stated by Dr. Peterson, the pants offered protection from the belly button down.



So, actually, there was not any soft tissue left (other than the soft tissue that was protected), for Dr. Peterson to find evidence of fish feeding on.

Sadly, there was not much left of the body period.

It is not true, that the lack of fish bite marks on the remains, is an indication Laci's body was not in the Bay.imo

:)

my post was to aw2b regarding her suppositions on where laci's body was kept.

cyn

[Synopsis]

QUOTE DORA:Reference to post by Lavinder
and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's -

Of course they weren't. Why would friends of the Medinas be stealing their safe. Diane J. was to testify that the 3 dark skinned men with a safe in the Medinas front yard. Those are the unidentified males.

[cookiewench]

Amy Krigbaum was witnessing it!! The question posted to me was that several had never heard of the 3 women being at the house on Covena after Kim M. was there. And they asked for a link - and got it

:

According to the testimony you posted here, it sounds like those three women were at the house in the early morning hours of the day BEFORE the evening of the burglary.

[cookiewench]

QUOTE DORA:Reference to post by Lavinder
and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's -

Of course they weren't. Why would friends of the Medinas be stealing their safe. Diane J. was to testify that the 3 dark skinned men with a safe in the Medinas front yard. Those are the unidentified males.

That is simply untrue.

Diane Jackson didn't testify at all.

[Miss Bootsie]

:)

my post was to aw2b regarding her suppositions on where laci's body was kept.

cyn

Hi Cyn:

Sorry for any confusion.You mentioned fish bite marks in your post, so thought I would take the opportunity to give my opinion.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi Cyn:

Sorry for any confusion.You mentioned fish bite marks in your post, so thought I would take the opportunity to give my opinion.

hi. i only mentioned 'fish bite marks' because aw2b is so insistent that the bodies couldn't have been in the bay since there were none found by the medical examiner, but believes tool marks from someone dismembering laci weren't seen due to decompositon (even though bones don't decompose like that).

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

Well, you ignore mine, and I've never attacked you personally.

I didn't mean to ignore your post adnoid..please keep in mind, that sometimes one NG would be debating with a number of SIGs..so it is not that easy to keep track and address each and every post...in addition, I have my own personal affairs to attend to.. so I don't have unlimited time..sometimes when I'm interrupted by a phone call or whatever I might not go back to where I left off...so I would probably miss some of the posts that are addressed to me..

[JustMyOpinion]

Brocchini zeroed in on Scott from that night forward. He admitted that.

Brocchini was doing his job. He was a CAP detective dispatched to the scene, and there's no doubt that a spouse must be eliminated from suspicion under the circumstances which existed. He did a thorough walk through of home, looked into the vehicles, accompanied Scott to the warehouse, got a statement from Scott on videotape, ( instructed photos to be taken, took some photos, had some items collected into potential evidence). I think his suspicions were further aroused by Scott's fishy story, and Scott's demeanor, JMO.. he couldn't eliminate him, yet. When Scott reversed himself on taking the polygraph and Brochinni also learned he had lied about electricity in the warehouse, his suspicions likely increased, IMO. Brocchini did a good job, and Scott's video-taped statement was a compelling piece of circumstantial evidence at trial ( as were some of the photos taken that night..) IMO. If my loved one were to go missing, I would hope to have this kind of immediate, thorough response from LE. The same kind of response from LE led to the discovery of Kelsey Smith's remains and apprehension of a suspect, led to the same in Ohio in the Davis case ( and the primary suspect was a MEMBER of LE).

[JustMyOpinion]

QUOTE DORA:Reference to post by Lavinder
and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's -

Of course they weren't. Why would friends of the Medinas be stealing their safe. Diane J. was to testify that the 3 dark skinned men with a safe in the Medinas front yard. Those are the unidentified males.

How can you possibly claim to know what Diane Jackson would have said under oath when questioned by both sides? This is your opinion, is that right?

[adnoid]

I didn't mean to ignore your post adnoid..please keep in mind, that sometimes one NG would be debating with a number of SIGs..so it is not that easy to keep track and address each and every post...in addition, I have my own personal affairs to attend to.. so I don't have unlimited time..sometimes when I'm interrupted by a phone call or whatever I might not go back to where I left off...so I would probably miss some of the posts that are addressed to me..

I completely understand, but I once got banned for not answering a poster's question.

[frydaddy]

I didn't mean to ignore your post adnoid..please keep in mind, that sometimes one NG would be debating with a number of SIGs..so it is not that easy to keep track and address each and every post...in addition, I have my own personal affairs to attend to.. so I don't have unlimited time..sometimes when I'm interrupted by a phone call or whatever I might not go back to where I left off...so I would probably miss some of the posts that are addressed to me..

In my opinion, I think you read every word on this forum. I think you likely read every word on every Scott forum. Speaking only for myself, it appears that you have no problem responding to posts where you feel you have an adequate argument with links or testimony to back up your view. It seems quite odd to me that the majority of the posts you miss when are attending personal affairs or interrupted by a phone call are questions about you personally or ones you can't answer regarding the case with any real facts.

No one expects you to respond to every post, but it doesn't take a real genius to pick out the three or four tough questions you seem to sidestep each day. I also notice how swiftly you catch each and every mistake by the SIG's, but you "overlook" many of their tough questions due to life away from here. I guess my point is, what I see, is not what is described in your post.

[frydaddy]

Oh pooey!! These numbers are fodder for court TS. You know very well who the players in this case were!!

Do you think Justin Falconer's opinion of this case mattered when he was on TV, saying the state had no case?

[frydaddy]

Thanks for the additional diagram.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

According to the testimony you provided - Nava said Laci instructed her to put the mop outside the door next to the washer and dryer.

68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.


The location of the washer and dryer is much clearer in the diagram you provided. Using both diagrams - you will see that this door Nava is referring to - is also on the south side of the living room - just as the washer and dryer are (the diagram I provided shows which direction is north) - which according to Evers Pre-lim testimony - is the door where the mop and bucket were found.

Q. You were shown several photographs, Officer Evers, last Friday. I believe among them was Number 48, which is a mop and bucket; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, where was that located when you saw it?

A. Outside the door south of the family room, the garage that was converted into a family room.


Amy Rocha testified as to which door was considered the front door. It is the door that leads to the dining room - the red writing that says "front door" is Amy Rocha's handwriting - she was asked to label it during her testimony. It is also the same door that the modbee labeled "Front Door" - so I disagree that there are two doors that can be considered the front door. It is not the door that is located next to the washer and drawer - nor is it the door that is on the south side of the living room (which are the same door).

No, I have never read anywhere that Laci told Scott to put the mop and bucket there either. But I would say it's a valid assumption that she had at one time or another - since he put it in the exact same place that we know she told Nava to put the mop when she was done with it.

So, why do you think the rags were found where they were?

[Lavindar]

Why don't you have your doctor adjust your meds! You really need to.

Your spewing of accusations about others is ridiculous. I don't quote others as my opinions. But you might be wise to do so because your own opinions and accusations are silly and childish. You act like a little kid trying to get attention.
IMO From reading your posts, it's obvious how very little you know.


reread your post 1191, You said that the brown van renfroes were living at the homeless encampment we were talking about in East LA Loma Park. I provided proof that your statement was wrong.

Everyone is waiting for your three women story source. No one has heard that before

[Lavindar]

How can you possibly claim to know what Diane Jackson would have said under oath when questioned by both sides? This is your opinion, is that right?
I believe I said I "thought" and that Pacific Islanders are not usually short of stature - they are large people. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't "thinking" something an opinion?

[Lavindar]

Sorry, this is just the second time I have seen this addressed to me. I didn’t respond the first time because I figured it was simply bait. And bait is not debate.
However, I don’t have a pat answer for you. If I could answer that Scott Peterson wouldn’t be in prison IMO. But you are asking me where I think the body was stored for 4 months. I don’t think she was dead for 4 months. I don’t believe she was killed on December 24th.

I do believe the truth to her abduction, murder, & subsequent disposal involves several in the HIG, the burglary at the Medinas by Todd & Pearce, the encampment close by the park, & certain individuals who resided there.
Remember the dog trailing incident when the deputy wanted to follow the dog's lead to an area, and Brocchini stopped her? IIRC it was Brocchini. In all fairness, (which was not given to Scott,) it could have been another officer that ordered the stop.

I do believe she was in Tracy, CA at one time. I think she was held there for a period of time while still alive. No doubt in my mind.

And even though the "Longview siting" was discredited, I don't believe that tip was fully investigated. I don't know why Scott was not allowed to view those tapes. And if you read the TS of those telephone conversations between Scott & an officer in Longview, he says "it wasn't her."[/B] [B] So does that mean there WAS a pregnant woman resembling Laci in the store and not just the imagination of the clerk? One that was dismissed as not Laci? And dismissed by who?

Remember that all the searches of the bay ended at dusk. There was no night searching. And they were looking for something already there. Not something being put there. And we know there can be mysterious travel via watercraft at night because of the "Zodiac Man" being seen there but not really investigated.

Boggles the mind. So many unanswered questions. And I'm aware that I have not answered yours. But there's no way IMO, to date, that anyone can do that. The trial sure didnt do it for me.

What is an HIG, please?

Woman in the video in Longview came to the police and said it was a game she and her husband played about "kidnapping." So that is how Longview Police KNEW it wasn't laci. The actual person came forward.

The parks are closed at night at the shoreline. So anyone seen there at night would have been really suspicious. The park cops patrol through there frequently. Besides, who would go to an unknown area in the dark to frame someone they didn't know. The Berkeley Marina as the NG's like to say has boats with people living on them 24/7. But, of course, the bodies were not found at the Berkeley Marina - they were found on the shoreline