Scott Peterson's appeal

[deputydi]

Umm.. thats exactly how I take it. It makes sense to me, what would be the difference if it was on her bones, or her cloths?? I don't get it... do you guys think that someone soaked her cloths in the bay, until barnicles grew on them, and then put them on her decomposed body before "Planting" her by the bay?? :shrug:
Im not trying to be rude, but I dont understand the big deal between the two.. but who knows, maybe im missing the point your trying to make.:confused:

I can't tell you how happy I am that others don't get the point of this detail. Do we have a jumping up and down icon?

[Lavindar]

So what y'all are sayin is the fact that I have barnacles on my person after a 4 month bath means that Scott was framed?
By the way is this still the homeless guy theory holding her in a tub for months or what? I must admit the homeless guy that I know runs from commitment and responsibility constantly. Trust me, keeping a dead girl in a tub for 4 months would be a HUGE commitment and responsibility! And where in the park, under the freeway or by the river could this tub be placed? It certainly wouldn't fit in his backpack.
I'm soooo confused! :D

There are no tubs at the homeless shelter in Modesto and the shelter is only open from 7p to the morning.

Carting that tub around is on a par with towing and launching a boat 90 miles away - close to an impossibility.

[Miss Bootsie]

I can't tell you how happy I am that others don't get the point of this detail. Do we have a jumping up and down icon?

Here ya go.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/frog13.gif

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B - I know I'm coming into this discussion a bit late, but technically you're saying Dr. Peterson lied under oath. Why do you believe he'd risk destroying his professional reputation, and being held in contempt of court? What was in it for him?

Have you read the comments about Dr. Wecht changing his opinion after the defense hired him?...in other words, he was accused of changing his opinion to fit the defense theory..IMO, in general, the ME was tailoring his testimony to fit best the prosecution theory.. in regards to the barnacles issue..he didn't mention barnacles in his autopsy report at all..he testified at the prelim that there weren't any barnacles on her BODY...the prelim took place 5 months after the autopsy..I would say that his recollection would have been better then...not only did he change his testimony but he was very specific as to where the barnacles were on her body..he testified at the trial that they were on her femur...
"risk of being held in contempt of court?" ??? Well, he wasn't held in contempt of court..was he?

[enlightenme]

Have you read the comments about Dr. Wecht changing his opinion after the defense hired him?...in other words, he was accused of changing his opinion to fit the defense theory..IMO, in general, the ME was tailoring his testimony to fit best the prosecution theory.. in regards to the barnacles issue..he didn't mention barnacles in his autopsy report at all..he testified at the prelim that there weren't any barnacles on her BODY...the prelim took place 5 months after the autopsy..I would say that his recollection would have been better then...not only did he change his testimony but he was very specific as to where the barnacles were on her body..he testified at the trial that they were on her femur...
"risk of being held in contempt of court?" ??? Well, he wasn't held in contempt of court..was he?


The trouble with your arguement is that there are actual PHOTOS of barnacles on the femur bone, correct? So obviously he's not making it up, he just either forgot or didn't think it was relevant enough to remember in the prelim.

MOO

[attorneywan2be]

lol, would you expect Dr. P. at that time to sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail as he did with the Jury?

Conner's body never progressed to the stage of decomposition.

I believe now you are only trying to discredit Dr. P's opinion because he was trying to make a long story short. He saved the long story for the 12 people that counted the most ;)


"The ME would not sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail" ??? and I'm trying to discredit the ME because he was trying to make a long story short???

hmmm.. so you used what Geragos said in his question and ignored the ME's testimony, you ignored his reply.....;)

Geragos: 2 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Detective Grogan -- and it
3 looks like he interviewed you on Monday, April 14th, at
4 about 3:15. Is that -- I know you probably talked to a
5 number of people regarding this case. But did you ever tell
6 him that the baby was a full-term male infant with advanced
7 stages of decomposition?

The ME: 8 A. That's just what I described in the report..

Bottom line is:

He testified that he did describe in his AUTOPSY REPORT that Conner was a full-term baby with ADVANCED stages of DECOMPOSITION..

[cookiewench]

Have you read the comments about Dr. Wecht changing his opinion after the defense hired him?...in other words, he was accused of changing his opinion to fit the defense theory..IMO, in general, the ME was tailoring his testimony to fit best the prosecution theory.. in regards to the barnacles issue..he didn't mention barnacles in his autopsy report at all..he testified at the prelim that there weren't any barnacles on her BODY...the prelim took place 5 months after the autopsy..I would say that his recollection would have been better then...not only did he change his testimony but he was very specific as to where the barnacles were on her body..he testified at the trial that they were on her femur...
"risk of being held in contempt of court?" ??? Well, he wasn't held in contempt of court..was he?


Cyril Wecht was PAID and was paid BIG BUCKS to join Scott's team.

The ME has no dog in the fight, and he gets paid the same salary no matter what.

He has no reason to be on anyone's "side" or to change his testimony intentionally.

[attorneywan2be]

The trouble with your arguement is that there are actual PHOTOS of barnacles on the femur bone, correct? So obviously he's not making it up, he just either forgot or didn't think it was relevant enough to remember in the prelim.

MOO


What is your opinion on the fact that the ME DIDN'T mention anything about barnacles in his autopsy report??

[attorneywan2be]

Cyril Wecht was PAID and was paid BIG BUCKS to join Scott's team.

The ME has no dog in the fight, and he gets paid the same salary no matter what.

He has no reason to be on anyone's "side" or to change his testimony intentionally.


He's not an employee of the county..he is in a private Co...they get hired by counties to perform autopsies and testify about them if need be..IMO, he does have a motive to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's theory...

David Harris: Now, in your capacity with the professional group that you are associated with, do you, is your group hired by different counties to perform these services for them?
Brian Peterson: We are.
David Harris: And is one of the counties that you are contracted with Contra Costa County?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it is.

[Otter]

He's not an employee of the county..he is in a private Co...they get hired by counties to perform autopsies and testify about them if need be..IMO, he does have a motive to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's theory...

David Harris: Now, in your capacity with the professional group that you are associated with, do you, is your group hired by different counties to perform these services for them?
Brian Peterson: We are.
David Harris: And is one of the counties that you are contracted with Contra Costa County?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it is.

Okay, then his professional group is paid the same thing as was contracted for. That's quite an allegation AW2B. Dr. P. testified under oath along with certifying his report (or whatever its called). Dr. W. did no such thing, he was able to give his opinions unchallenged on tv shows.

You are accusing him of perjury and tampering. Those are felonies, and you think he's motivated by money that his group gets in a contract? Yikes.

[cookiewench]

He's not an employee of the county..he is in a private Co...they get hired by counties to perform autopsies and testify about them if need be..IMO, he does have a motive to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's theory...

David Harris: Now, in your capacity with the professional group that you are associated with, do you, is your group hired by different counties to perform these services for them?
Brian Peterson: We are.
David Harris: And is one of the counties that you are contracted with Contra Costa County?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it is.

And I say that's nonsense. He's a salaried employee, and the prosecution has no power to fire him if he doesn't change his autopsy results to fit their theory.

This is really grasping at straws, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Okay, then his professional group is paid the same thing as was contracted for. That's quite an allegation AW2B. Dr. P. testified under oath along with certifying his report (or whatever its called). Dr. W. did no such thing, he was able to give his opinions unchallenged on tv shows.

You are accusing him of perjury and tampering. Those are felonies, and you think he's motivated by money that his group gets in a contract? Yikes.

That's my opinion..that he is motivated to tailor his testimony to help the side that hired him so that his group keeps getting those contracts...


http://www.fmg-inc.com/autopsy.htm

[Lavindar]

Okay, then his professional group is paid the same thing as was contracted for. That's quite an allegation AW2B. Dr. P. testified under oath along with certifying his report (or whatever its called). Dr. W. did no such thing, he was able to give his opinions unchallenged on tv shows.

You are accusing him of perjury and tampering. Those are felonies, and you think he's motivated by money that his group gets in a contract? Yikes.
Wasn't part of the allegations on Wecht's endictment that he accepted money for things he already got in his position with the county in PA? I know money was a big issue in the endictment

[Lavindar]

And I say that's nonsense. He's a salaried employee, and the prosecution has no power to fire him if he doesn't change his autopsy results to fit their theory.

This is really grasping at straws, IMO.

You are correct and he is NOT under endictment either.

[enlightenme]

What is your opinion on the fact that the ME DIDN'T mention anything about barnacles in his autopsy report??

I certainly don't think it was malicious or there was ANY motive for him to excise something from his report. My opinion is he either overlooked it, forgot it, or didn't think it was relavant to the manner or possible cause of Laci's death.

[Miss Bootsie]

I certainly don't think it was malicious or there was ANY motive for him to excise something from his report. My opinion is he either overlooked it, forgot it, or didn't think it was relavant to the manner or possible cause of Laci's death.

imo, it was the latter - not documented because it wasn't relevant.

[Miss Bootsie]

That's my opinion..that he is motivated to tailor his testimony to help the side that hired him so that his group keeps getting those contracts...


http://www.fmg-inc.com/autopsy.htm

Can you prove Dr. P tailored his testimony?

[Otter]

That's my opinion..that he is motivated to tailor his testimony to help the side that hired him so that his group keeps getting those contracts...


http://www.fmg-inc.com/autopsy.htm

Really, so when this group is "found out", not only would they lose all these contracts, they would be subject to civil and criminal proceedings. All to frame a fertilizer salesman yet.

Because you opine that Dr. P. is a liar, under oath yet, but Dr. W. is a truthteller on tv, why don't you research other testimony and autopsies that this group of pathologists have given and performed? Maybe there's lots of instances of the falsity of their findings and innocent people are incarcerated because of them.

Otherwise, your opinion is simply that, baseless allegations that are very serious. MOO.

[Hey Paula]

The issue is, he testified at the prelim that there were NO BARABCLES on the body just on the clothing...he testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone...!!!!

Hi AW2B!

The barnacles found were on exposed bones. When he said there were no barnacles on her "body", perhaps he was referring to the parts of her body which were still covered with flesh??

IMO

[Wearing A Halo]

Photo 257D out of People's 257 A-K: Autopsy photos of Laci (sealed).

AW2B-your assertions would have worked better for you that at the pre-lim , ["the testimony of Bruce Peterson, who was the Coroner? I think it was Bruce, or Brian Peterson?";"Brian? I think Brian; but Dr. Peterson, yes, sir."], had been "BARABCLES," then at the trial no "BARABCLES."

That is your confusion-BARabcles and BARnacles are very similar sounding and you are mistaken.

[TopGunner]

Have you read the comments about Dr. Wecht changing his opinion after the defense hired him?...in other words, he was accused of changing his opinion to fit the defense theory..IMO, in general, the ME was tailoring his testimony to fit best the prosecution theory.. in regards to the barnacles issue..he didn't mention barnacles in his autopsy report at all..he testified at the prelim that there weren't any barnacles on her BODY...the prelim took place 5 months after the autopsy..I would say that his recollection would have been better then...not only did he change his testimony but he was very specific as to where the barnacles were on her body..he testified at the trial that they were on her femur...
"risk of being held in contempt of court?" ??? Well, he wasn't held in contempt of court..was he?


Right, I totally agree with you AW2B - he wasn't held in contempt of court because he didn't lie, he did nothing wrong, and all of this - once again, is a moot point. It meant nothing then, it'll have no effect on the appeal. The entire argument is for absolutely nothing.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

The barnacles found were on exposed bones. When he said there were no barnacles on her "body", perhaps he was referring to the parts of her body which were still covered with flesh??

IMO

Hi Paula..

IMO, he made it clear, he stated that there were no barnacles on her body, there was some on her clothing, "but not on her". his last comment left no doubt in my mind that he meant that the barnacles were ONLY on her clothing..

[attorneywan2be]

I certainly don't think it was malicious or there was ANY motive for him to excise something from his report. My opinion is he either overlooked it, forgot it, or didn't think it was relavant to the manner or possible cause of Laci's death.

But he noted the mineral deposits that were found on Laci's pants ..so why didn't he document in his autopsy report that there were barnacles on her body and clothing? was he picking and choosing what to report as he was examining the bodies?

[enlightenme]

Right, I totally agree with you AW2B - he wasn't held in contempt of court because he didn't lie, he did nothing wrong, and all of this - once again, is a moot point. It meant nothing then, it'll have no effect on the appeal. The entire argument is for absolutely nothing.


It's an exercise in futility. You're right, it isn't going to amount to a hill of beans anywhere but here.

I don't get the big deal about it either. :shrug:

[ekg]

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here. We know barnacles were found on the lower part of Laci Peterson's remains in the area of the femur bone.

the point she was making was that in the Prelim Dr Peterson said there weren't any barnacles on the body......

but in the trial he changed that to there was some on her femur....

[ekg]

This is a perfect example of why I sometimes get so frustrated when discussing this case.

May I ask, in your haste, did you just not read what immediately followed.

Yes, he did absolutely state "there were no barnacles", but immediately following that statement he said this.


So the conclusion after processing all is - There were barnacles on the remains.
Right? Yes? No?

In your haste, did you just not read the posts before mine so you could see what I was talking about and what the discussion was about?

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8901924&postcount=1579

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8901941&postcount=1590

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8901950&postcount=1596

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8903217&postcount=1672


as you can see aw2b said Dr. Peterson gave 2 conflicting stories on the barnacles...... Lavindar asked for proof of that..... aw2b showed her when Dr. Peterson said there were no barnacles on the body at the prelim, only to say there were some on the femur in trial.

Lavindar then went on to say that Dr. Peterson never said "there were NO barnacles.", which is where my post comes in showing he actually said that exactly...

regardless of anything else........ aw2b was correct when she said he gave two conflicting accounts....

hth....:seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

Right, I totally agree with you AW2B - he wasn't held in contempt of court because he didn't lie, he did nothing wrong, and all of this - once again, is a moot point. It meant nothing then, it'll have no effect on the appeal. The entire argument is for absolutely nothing.

IMO, he wasn't held in contempt of court because no one investigated the contradiction in his testimony..so how would anyone determine that he was not lying? they didn't even look into it...anyhow, Brocchini lied about what Espidia told him regarding the so called murder plan, he added the use of duct tape which Espidia never mentioned...was he held in contempt of court? NO!!

[ekg]

Miss Bootsie..you get frustrated??..well, ekg is right...if you read what the discussion was about.. you wouldn't have gotten frustrated....it started out when I posted that the ME testified at the prelim that there were no barnacles ON HER BODY and that the barnacles were ONLY on her clothing...however, at the trial he testified that there were barnacles on HER BONE (FEMUR)....he changed his testimony!!!


thank you.... that is exactly what I was talking about in my post...... which was obvious to those who had been reading the discussion b/t you and Lavindar... or just to Lavindar who I directed my post to when I quoted her..

and yes, it's very frustrating....
:patriot:

[ekg]

Sorry Bootsie - but if the barnacles were on her clothing and the clothing was on her body, doesn't that make the barnacles on her body????

not according to Dr. P

8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

[cookiewench]

the point she was making was that in the Prelim Dr Peterson said there weren't any barnacles on the body......

but in the trial he changed that to there was some on her femur....

Maybe you'd like to talk about what you think the significance of this is.

It's not an appeal issue, so it can't be that.

He said at first that there were barnacles on her clothing, but not that they were ONLY on her clothing - just that he noted them on her clothing.

It's hard to understand why you think this is significant at all.

Do you actually believe that an appeals court would be interested in or bothered with something like this?

[cookiewench]

He's not an employee of the county..he is in a private Co...they get hired by counties to perform autopsies and testify about them if need be..IMO, he does have a motive to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's theory...

David Harris: Now, in your capacity with the professional group that you are associated with, do you, is your group hired by different counties to perform these services for them?
Brian Peterson: We are.
David Harris: And is one of the counties that you are contracted with Contra Costa County?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it is.


First of all, it is absolutely pure speculation on your part that the prosecution could have any effect at all on the future of this particular ME's job.

Since you've made this accusation, maybe you'd like to research and come back with a link to the who has jurisdiction over the hiring of ME professional groups for the county, and if the prosecutors in this case have any say at all in the hiring/firing of professional groups in Contra Costa County.

[deputydi]

IMO, he wasn't held in contempt of court because no one investigated the contradiction in his testimony..so how would anyone determine that he was not lying? they didn't even look into it...anyhow, Brocchini lied about what Espidia told him regarding the so called murder plan, he added the use of duct tape which Espidia never mentioned...was he held in contempt of court? NO!!
A lie is an untruth that is told deliberately. Brocchini simply misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally. Really big difference.

[deputydi]

Maybe you'd like to talk about what you think the significance of this is.

It's not an appeal issue, so it can't be that.

He said at first that there were barnacles on her clothing, but not that they were ONLY on her clothing - just that he noted them on her clothing.

It's hard to understand why you think this is significant at all.

Do you actually believe that an appeals court would be interested in or bothered with something like this?
I would also like to know why anyone thinks this is a significant detail. It is absolutely nothing that an appeal could be based on so what's the deal?

[Lavindar]

Right, I totally agree with you AW2B - he wasn't held in contempt of court because he didn't lie, he did nothing wrong, and all of this - once again, is a moot point. It meant nothing then, it'll have no effect on the appeal. The entire argument is for absolutely nothing.It woudl seem that Dr. Wecht has a rather checkered past at best .


Wecht's tenure as Allegheny County Coroner was not without controversy. While he was responsible for significant upgrades in the professionalism and technology of the coroner's office during his service in that office from 1970 to 1980, making the Allegheny County Coroner's office one of the best in the nation, Wecht's political career proved as controversial as many of his forensic findings. In 1979, Wecht was accused of depositing autopsy fees into a personal account rather than the Coroner's office account. He argued that the charges were politically motivated as he was running for Allegheny County Commissioner at the time. He faced criminal charges for the incident but was acquitted when the case went to trial in 1981. The county then sued him seeking $390,000. After losing the case in 1983, he appealed and after a nine year battle, the case was finally settled out of court in 1992 after Wecht agreed to pay $200,000 in damages.[7]

Most innocent people don't pay damages imo

[Lavindar]

A lie is an untruth that is told deliberately. Brocchini simply misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally. Really big difference.
who would tape a body with scotch tape, for example. Tape in water would logically be duct tape. And it was only to establish the reasonableness for the search anyway. Brocchini had to give it from memory I believe.
Judy admonished the jury I believe, making it a non-appealable issue

Also, Geragos had that information, yet he didn't object at the time - but saved it to move for a mistrial. iirc

[PsychNurse;~)]

"The ME would not sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail" ??? and I'm trying to discredit the ME because he was trying to make a long story short???

hmmm.. so you used what Geragos said in his question and ignored the ME's testimony, you ignored his reply.....;)

Geragos: 2 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Detective Grogan -- and it
3 looks like he interviewed you on Monday, April 14th, at
4 about 3:15. Is that -- I know you probably talked to a
5 number of people regarding this case. But did you ever tell
6 him that the baby was a full-term male infant with advanced
7 stages of decomposition?

The ME: 8 A. That's just what I described in the report..

Bottom line is:

He testified that he did describe in his AUTOPSY REPORT that Conner was a full-term baby with ADVANCED stages of DECOMPOSITION..


YES OR NO, PLEASE, aw2b

wasn't conner's decomposition described as being internal with his exterior being swollen and macerated?

didn't the medical examiner state that while conner APPEARED to be a full term infant, he knew that based on the swelling of the body that he couldn't make any such determination? and it was ultimately left up to dr. galloway?

btw he NEVER stated that conner WAS a full term infant, but that he APPEARED to be a full term infant.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

A lie is an untruth that is told deliberately. Brocchini simply misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally. Really big difference.

especially when you consider that the testimony was not being given as truth or evidence against the double murderer, but was admitted to show that when that particular tip came in it was given no credence.

cyn

[Miss Bootsie]

thank you.... that is exactly what I was talking about in my post...... which was obvious to those who had been reading the discussion b/t you and Lavindar... or just to Lavindar who I directed my post to when I quoted her..

and yes, it's very frustrating....
:patriot:

ekg, I was very well aware of what the discussion was all about that started on pg. 40.

Now, someone new, just reading on the forum, might pick up on the discussion - pg 42, and interpret your post to mean....just what you stated.
originally posted by ekg
I think he absolutely said "there were NO barnacles"

Perhaps, had you stated - "I think he said "there were barnacles on her clothing, but absolutely none on the body" - your meaning would not be misinterpreted by people other than myself who may not have read the entire discussion.

[cookiewench]

I would really like to see some evidence that this particular prosecutor had any kind of power or influence over this particular ME's hiring or firing.

I'd like to see even a hint of some type of evidence that this prosecutor asked the ME to change his testimony (why would he? any sane person can see that Laci & Conner had been in the bay - barnacles or no barnacles).

I'd like to see some evidence that the prosecutor even sits down with the ME and discusses his testimony beforehand. I know that the pros reads the autopsy results - but do they actually interview the ME? I've never heard of this.

If you're going to throw out an accusation that an ME EVER has an agenda in a trial, I'd like to see SOMETHING to back that up.

[Miss Bootsie]

In your haste, did you just not read the posts before mine so you could see what I was talking about and what the discussion was about?

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8901924&postcount=1579

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8901941&postcount=1590

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8901950&postcount=1596

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8903217&postcount=1672


as you can see aw2b said Dr. Peterson gave 2 conflicting stories on the barnacles...... Lavindar asked for proof of that..... aw2b showed her when Dr. Peterson said there were no barnacles on the body at the prelim, only to say there were some on the femur in trial.

Lavindar then went on to say that Dr. Peterson never said "there were NO barnacles.", which is where my post comes in showing he actually said that exactly...

regardless of anything else........ aw2b was correct when she said he gave two conflicting accounts....

hth....:seeya:

ekg, perhaps you should think about people unfamiliar with the details of this case, who may not read the entire discussion and rely on the statement in your post.

The statement, imo - " I think he absolutely said there were NO barnacles" is misleading when someone is relying solely on your post.

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=cookiewench;8905967]I would really like to see some evidence that this particular prosecutor had any kind of power or influence over this particular ME's hiring or firing.

I'd like to see even a hint of some type of evidence that this prosecutor asked the ME to change his testimony (why would he? any sane person can see that Laci & Conner had been in the bay - barnacles or no barnacles).

I'd like to see some evidence that the prosecutor even sits down with the ME and discusses his testimony beforehand. I know that the pros reads the autopsy results - but do they actually interview the ME? I've never heard of this.


Dr. Peterson was the ME for the Contra Costa County. As the County in which the bodies were found, eh would be the ME to do the examination. He was NOT hired as a private ME.



Detective of death relies on wits, humor
Contra Costa Times, November, 2006 by Cassandra Braun
Content provided
in partnership with

When death arrives, Dr. Brian Peterson is there to greet it and determine why and how it came calling. As Contra Costa's chief forensic pathologist, Peterson has been the go-to guy for autopsies of the county's deceased. Over the past two decades the veteran medical examiner has conducted postmortems on the some of Contra Costa's highest profile murder victims, from Laci and Conner Peterson to Felix Polk and Pamela Vitale

HE was NOT a "hired gun." He was an employee of Contra Costa County, NOT Stanislaus County. I could find NOTHING Negative about him on the internet either.

[Lavindar]

YES OR NO, PLEASE, aw2b

wasn't conner's decomposition described as being internal with his exterior being swollen and macerated?

didn't the medical examiner state that while conner APPEARED to be a full term infant, he knew that based on the swelling of the body that he couldn't make any such determination? and it was ultimately left up to dr. galloway?

btw he NEVER stated that conner WAS a full term infant, but that he APPEARED to be a full term infant.

cyn


He described him in the autopsy report as a FETUS not an infant

[attorneywan2be]

A lie is an untruth that is told deliberately. Brocchini simply misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally. Really big difference.

What? Brocchini misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally??---> "Duct Tape"

So we'got the fact that duct tape was on Laci's remains..and we've got Brocchini adding the USE OF DUCT TAPE in the so called murder plan...but we are supposed to infer that he simply misspoke!! and his innocent mistake being about the use of duct tape was just pure coincidence...

Yeah right!

[Otter]

Let's see, Dr. Peterson is a liar, Al Brocchini is a liar, Amy Kingbaum is a liar. I'm sure I'm leaving people out. Dr. Wecht, not under oath, tells nothing but the truth.

In the immortal words of Dr. Lee, "Somthing wrong."

[frydaddy]

What? Brocchini misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally??---> "Duct Tape"

So we'got the fact that duct tape was on Laci's remains..and we've got Brocchini adding the USE OF DUCT TAPE in the so called murder plan...but we are supposed to infer that he simply misspoke!! and his innocent mistake being about the use of duct tape was just pure coincidence...

Yeah right!


I asked this question a while back. Brocchini added a word...fine. Now let me hear your thoughts on the actual story the gentleman told AB...do you dismiss it entirely?

[deputydi]

What? Brocchini misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally??---> "Duct Tape"

So we'got the fact that duct tape was on Laci's remains..and we've got Brocchini adding the USE OF DUCT TAPE in the so called murder plan...but we are supposed to infer that he simply misspoke!! and his innocent mistake being about the use of duct tape was just pure coincidence...

Yeah right!
Yes, I do believe the use of the word "duct" was unintentional. The words "duct" and "tape" were used together so often during the investigation and trial that I absolutely believe it was just a slip of the tongue.

I honestly and sincerely would like to know why you are so focused on all this meaningless stuff. None of this will have any bearing whatsoever on Scott's appeal. You seem to be picking apart every single word and phrase in the transcripts and if one single terminology is changed, you dub that person a liar. NO barnacles found on her body and barnacles WERE found on her bones and barnacles WERE found on her clothing -- who on earth cares? You've done the same thing with "crotch area" as opposed to "upper thigh" and called the dr a liar and accused him of changing his testimony. How about "golfing" vs "gone" -- do you really believe all these people were lying just because you firmly believe some great conspiracy was at work?

Tell me -- please -- do you use the EXACT same wording each and every time you relate the same event? I don't and I don't know anyone who does. That, to me, would seem like a rehearsed, memorized testimony.

Whether you believe it or not, not everyone was so anxious to see Scott convicted that they would deliberately lie under oath as a means to that end.

If you want to discuss valid appeals issues, fine. There are some. I don't happen to believe any of them will succeed, but there are some potential issues that warrant discussion. Barnacles, crotches and golfing/gone aren't among them.

[TopGunner]

IMO, he wasn't held in contempt of court because no one investigated the contradiction in his testimony..so how would anyone determine that he was not lying? they didn't even look into it...anyhow, Brocchini lied about what Espidia told him regarding the so called murder plan, he added the use of duct tape which Espidia never mentioned...was he held in contempt of court? NO!!



AW2B - you have to try and listen to yourself sometimes. Brocchini didn't LIE about the stupid duck tape. Out of (I forget exactly) 40 THOUSAND documents for him to memorize, it's (IMO) apparent the duck tape comment was just a mistake. If Brocchini was trying to LIE to convict ISP, I'm sure he could have come up with something a bit more profound. Besides, he wasn't even including ANY of that story in his report to begin with, since it was heresay - someone else brought it up. So why would he tell such an insignifigent lie to frame ISP in a report not even submitted as evidence?

It's all fluff. If ISP was REALLY being framed, surely there's something far more alarming than a duck tape statement.

I find it pretty funny that you believe the pathological liar to never had lied, but let a detective make a TINY error, and it's the end of the world, he's a liar, it's a conspiracy, etc., etc. Oye.

[frydaddy]

Let's see, Dr. Peterson is a liar, Al Brocchini is a liar, Amy Kingbaum is a liar. I'm sure I'm leaving people out. Dr. Wecht, not under oath, tells nothing but the truth.

In the immortal words of Dr. Lee, "Somthing wrong."

I tink you are on to someting here!

Scott lied all the time, but told the absolute truth about his wife. Most of the state's witnesses lied in unison to nail Scott. Many of the folks who've been presented here in Scott's defense always told the absolute truth, it's just that not a single one of them testified in the trial. And MG did a horrible job.

I'm gonna say this to myself about 1000 times tonight and see if I can't convert myself into an advocate. Good luck me!

[Miss Bootsie]

Yes, I do believe the use of the word "duct" was unintentional. The words "duct" and "tape" were used together so often during the investigation and trial that I absolutely believe it was just a slip of the tongue.

I honestly and sincerely would like to know why you are so focused on all this meaningless stuff. None of this will have any bearing whatsoever on Scott's appeal. You seem to be picking apart every single word and phrase in the transcripts and if one single terminology is changed, you dub that person a liar. NO barnacles found on her body and barnacles WERE found on her bones and barnacles WERE found on her clothing -- who on earth cares? You've done the same thing with "crotch area" as opposed to "upper thigh" and called the dr a liar and accused him of changing his testimony. How about "golfing" vs "gone" -- do you really believe all these people were lying just because you firmly believe some great conspiracy was at work?

Tell me -- please -- do you use the EXACT same wording each and every time you relate the same event? I don't and I don't know anyone who does. That, to me, would seem like a rehearsed, memorized testimony.

Whether you believe it or not, not everyone was so anxious to see Scott convicted that they would deliberately lie under oath as a means to that end.

If you want to discuss valid appeals issues, fine. There are some. I don't happen to believe any of them will succeed, but there are some potential issues that warrant discussion. Barnacles, crotches and golfing/gone aren't among them.

Thank-You DD:seeya:

[deputydi]

Thank-You DD:seeya:
YW. I hope I don't get infraction points for that post. If AW2B's theories and nitpicking are all the defense can come up with, Scott might as well settle into SQ for the long haul.

[Lavindar]

He's not an employee of the county..he is in a private Co...they get hired by counties to perform autopsies and testify about them if need be..IMO, he does have a motive to tailor his testimony to support the prosecution's theory...

David Harris: Now, in your capacity with the professional group that you are associated with, do you, is your group hired by different counties to perform these services for them?
Brian Peterson: We are.
David Harris: And is one of the counties that you are contracted with Contra Costa County?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it is.

then please explain this article:


Detective of death relies on wits, humor
Contra Costa Times, November, 2006 by Cassandra Braun
Content provided
in partnership with

When death arrives, Dr. Brian Peterson is there to greet it and determine why and how it came calling. As Contra Costa's chief forensic pathologist, Peterson has been the go-to guy for autopsies of the county's deceased. Over the past two decades the veteran medical examiner has conducted postmortems on the some of Contra Costa's highest profile murder victims, from Laci and Conner Peterson to Felix Polk and Pamela Vitale

[Otter]

I tink you are on to someting here!

Scott lied all the time, but told the absolute truth about his wife. Most of the state's witnesses lied in unison to nail Scott. Many of the folks who've been presented here in Scott's defense always told the absolute truth, it's just that not a single one of them testified in the trial. And MG did a horrible job.

I'm gonna say this to myself about 1000 times tonight and see if I can't convert myself into an advocate. Good luck me!

You'll get a headache with that conversion. :tongue:

Speaking of MG, there's so much of the testimony that I didn't recall, and all this cross posted that I've read back has changed my opinion about him. I still don't like him, but he's a very good defense lawyer IMO. He did his best to raise reasonable doubt and the only way he could do it was by spin. We can say he got away with a lot, which he did, but he used it as best he could. He was prepared and used good tactics.

Nothing worked, but he was limited by the word "reasonable" IMO. Anyway, the boat stunt was dispicable, not being there for the verdict was pathetic and saying he hadn't even considered putting on a penalty phase was lame, but I'll admit that he did a good job with SP, as good as could be expected considering the circumstances. Or circumstantial evidence. ;)

[deputydi]

You'll get a headache with that conversion. :tongue:

Speaking of MG, there's so much of the testimony that I didn't recall, and all this cross posted that I've read back has changed my opinion about him. I still don't like him, but he's a very good defense lawyer IMO. He did his best to raise reasonable doubt and the only way he could do it was by spin. We can say he got away with a lot, which he did, but he used it as best he could. He was prepared and used good tactics.

Nothing worked, but he was limited by the word "reasonable" IMO. Anyway, the boat stunt was dispicable, not being there for the verdict was pathetic and saying he hadn't even considered putting on a penalty phase was lame, but I'll admit that he did a good job with SP, as good as could be expected considering the circumstances. Or circumstantial evidence. ;)
I agree that his cross exams were masterful but I understand he is known as the master of spin. That's what makes him a good defense attorney. I think where he failed miserably was in his assumption that was all he needed. His CIC was non-existent and he made a huge strategic error.

[Lavindar]

I agree that his cross exams were masterful but I understand he is known as the master of spin. That's what makes him a good defense attorney. I think where he failed miserably was in his assumption that was all he needed. His CIC was non-existent and he made a huge strategic error.
Yes, he overstated what he could do. Still he had everyone waiting for his 'PROOF"

[ekg]

Me too. I'm trying to understand the point of this conversation. Barnacles on her bone, barnacles on her body, barnacles on her clothes -- what difference does it make where they were?

I have no doubt I'm missing an important clue here, but, for the life of me, I don't know what it is.


the point is the conflicting testimony..

would you be right in saying there were no barnacles on the body?

would be right in saying there were barnacles on the bone?

since both statements were made you would be right if you said both....... problem is they totally contradict each other...

the problem with saying 'the remains' is Dr. P was very specific... he said there were none on the body, on the clothes yes, but none on her.....he made the distinction b/c the body and the clothes... so 'on the remains' is not a viable argument when he explicitly said not on her.

look, it's not that hard to see that there was a mistake....do I think Dr. P and RD pulled a Nifong and DNA lab guy? No...no I don't...But IMO to kill the messenger when you asked for the message, or to ignore what the message clearly says, or just plain deny it, is ridiculous and not worthy many of you guys....

Dr. P made the distinction b/t the body and the clothes and what was and wasn't on them......... be mad at him for saying both had barnacles on them and one didn't have anything on it...:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

YES OR NO, PLEASE, aw2b

wasn't conner's decomposition described as being internal with his exterior being swollen and macerated?

Snip




My interpretation of the ME's testimomy is that Conner was macerated but he was also decomposed internally and externally

[ekg]

AW2B - I know I'm coming into this discussion a bit late, but technically you're saying Dr. Peterson lied under oath. Why do you believe he'd risk destroying his professional reputation, and being held in contempt of court? What was in it for him?

why would the head of the DNA lab agree with Nifong in keeping the favorable DNA results from the Defense?


did Dr. P lie or was he just mistaken? only he knows..... but what WE know is he gave 2 totally opposite accounts on the stand....

I think an acknowledgment of that is in order.....

[ekg]

I found Dr. Peterson to be clear and concise in his explanations. HE made perfect sense. snipped

so did I......

there were no barnacles on her body, only on her clothes...;)

[adnoid]

I asked this question a while back. Brocchini added a word...fine. Now let me hear your thoughts on the actual story the gentleman told AB...do you dismiss it entirely?

No, he did not. He didn't say "duct tape", he said "some tape". It is my opinion that everyone else misheard - including the court reporter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[ekg]

The trouble with your arguement is that there are actual PHOTOS of barnacles on the femur bone, correct? So obviously he's not making it up, he just either forgot or didn't think it was relevant enough to remember in the prelim.

MOO

but he thought it relevant enough to say they were not on her body...... not on her....

I ask this again..... last time I got a funny answer, so let's see if Cyn gives me another...:tongue:

so the G's can pick apart and completely discredit Wecht b/c he changed his statements and got more in depth and mentioned all things relevant or not...... but we SII/SNG can't pick apart the State's ME when he does the same thing on the stand during his sworn testimony?

:no:

[attorneywan2be]

then please explain this article:


Detective of death relies on wits, humor
Contra Costa Times, November, 2006 by Cassandra Braun
Content provided
in partnership with

When death arrives, Dr. Brian Peterson is there to greet it and determine why and how it came calling. As Contra Costa's chief forensic pathologist, Peterson has been the go-to guy for autopsies of the county's deceased. Over the past two decades the veteran medical examiner has conducted postmortems on the some of Contra Costa's highest profile murder victims, from Laci and Conner Peterson to Felix Polk and Pamela Vitale


Why would I explain this??

Dr. Peterson TESTIFIED that he is employed by a company called Forensic Medical Group...if you prefer to believe an article over the TS of the trial ..it's your choice!

[I'mSun]

so did I......

there were no barnacles on her body, only on her clothes...;)Fine. We'll disregard the photos of the barnacles on her femur that was presented in court. Who cares about details, right? The ones on her clothes were plenty, I suppose. :biggrin:

[frydaddy]

You'll get a headache with that conversion. :tongue:

Speaking of MG, there's so much of the testimony that I didn't recall, and all this cross posted that I've read back has changed my opinion about him. I still don't like him, but he's a very good defense lawyer IMO. He did his best to raise reasonable doubt and the only way he could do it was by spin. We can say he got away with a lot, which he did, but he used it as best he could. He was prepared and used good tactics.

Nothing worked, but he was limited by the word "reasonable" IMO. Anyway, the boat stunt was dispicable, not being there for the verdict was pathetic and saying he hadn't even considered putting on a penalty phase was lame, but I'll admit that he did a good job with SP, as good as could be expected considering the circumstances. Or circumstantial evidence. ;)

Okay, I'm done with the repetitions. I said it one extra time, to see if I believed it. No good - I was unable to force common sense from my noodle! Guess the SIG's are stuck with me. Pay no attention to that huge sigh of relief from advocate central, I still would have expected some reason had I joined their cause.

Yep, you and Di nailed it. I think it impossible for MG to be so good at cross, so good at wrestling momentary control of the courtroom, to then fall completely apart on his own case. His mistake was putting on a CIC, where he needed to leverage something tangible on Scott's behalf, but had absolutely nothing to hang his hat on. Sorry folks, IAC ain't gonna fly here, much to your chagrin.

[PsychNurse;~)]

but he thought it relevant enough to say they were not on her body...... not on her....

I ask this again..... last time I got a funny answer, so let's see if Cyn gives me another...:tongue:

so the G's can pick apart and completely discredit Wecht b/c he changed his statements and got more in depth and mentioned all things relevant or not...... but we SII/SNG can't pick apart the State's ME when he does the same thing on the stand during his sworn testimony?

:no:

i'm just glad you knew i was kidding, lol!

cyn

ps--if we weren't picking things apart 95% of our discussions wouldn't be taking place. imo.

however, regarding the barnacles i think the only reason the medical examiner's recall was different from the prelim to the trial was the presence of the actual pics at the trial.

[frydaddy]

No, he did not. He didn't say "duct tape", he said "some tape". It is my opinion that everyone else misheard - including the court reporter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I concede the above to be fact and bow humbly before you. Thank you sir, may I have another?!!

[Lavindar]

why would the head of the DNA lab agree with Nifong in keeping the favorable DNA results from the Defense?


did Dr. P lie or was he just mistaken? only he knows..... but what WE know is he gave 2 totally opposite accounts on the stand....

I think an acknowledgment of that is in order.....

what does Nifong have to do with this case. He is in another state entirely and it's a completely different case.


Different state, different DA, different DNA lab, different type case entirely

[frydaddy]

*SNIP*

so the G's can pick apart and completely discredit Wecht b/c he changed his statements and got more in depth and mentioned all things relevant or not...... but we SII/SNG can't pick apart the State's ME when he does the same thing on the stand during his sworn testimony?

:no:

Finally, you get it! :tongue: :D

[Lavindar]

I agree that his cross exams were masterful but I understand he is known as the master of spin. That's what makes him a good defense attorney. I think where he failed miserably was in his assumption that was all he needed. His CIC was non-existent and he made a huge strategic error. And he used his "spin doctors" to the max.

[aingael]

Please compare both testimonies...do you see anything different?

ME's prelim testimony: A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her

ME's trial testimony: Brian Peterson: Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one, I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess.

Perhaps a look at the lifecycle of barnacles would help?

When a barnacle is “born” it floats around in the larvae or nauplus stage and it floats around in the oceans currents, tides etc. takes it. This could take two weeks or more depending on the species, since there are many species of barnacle. Then this nauplus changes or grows into a cyprid larva, which doesn’t feed swims around until it finds a safe environment to attach itself to. When it does it cements itself firmly in place so that it may grow and feed. During this initial stage the barnacle grows its shell so to speak.

Now to Laci, since the barnacle was attached to her cloths and or femur we know it had to be after she was quite skeletonized, so to speak. This took time, and I’m sure we can all agree on this. To be on the safe side, say it took at least 2 to 2 ½ months for this to happen. The barnacle could have been attached to Laci or her cloths for about a month, a month and a half.

Since none of us know what type of barnacle attached itself to Laci and/or her cloths there is no way we could know the stage or size the barnacle was in. In fact some full grown adult barnacles are only 1-2 cm which converts to ½ to 1 inch. This is not that large and we don’t know how close to that the barnacles were.

It would be foolhardy to believe that Dr. Peterson lied about the barnacle since there are many stages to the barnacles’ life as well as species and size. In fact, there are parasitic barnacles which burrow into its host. If this were the case then the barnacle might not have been seen clearly if it were on her bone.

Nitpicking at words is not a great idea, imo, it can lead to many answers and if the barnacle issue made a hill of beans difference it would have been brought to the attention of the court, since it wasn’t chances are that the issue itself could very well have been detrimental to the defense. Chances are in the year from the prelim to the actual trial there was more testing on the bone if there was a barnacle found.

[Lavindar]

but he thought it relevant enough to say they were not on her body...... not on her....

I ask this again..... last time I got a funny answer, so let's see if Cyn gives me another...:tongue:

so the G's can pick apart and completely discredit Wecht b/c he changed his statements and got more in depth and mentioned all things relevant or not...... but we SII/SNG can't pick apart the State's ME when he does the same thing on the stand during his sworn testimony?

:no:

The problem is that Wecht was not under oath to tell the truth. He was spinning a tale IN THE MEDIA that everyone says convicted Scott. So many spin doctors spinning the defense line convicted Scott NOT

I watched every program on this case, and, including the Ted and Bernie show, and Dr. Wecht violating the gag order almost daily, yet you say the MEDIA convicted Scott? I don't recall the prosecution going before the camera daily spinning their spin. Was there one thing PRO PROSECUTION that was said by Cole, Horowitz (who claimed Conner was not Scott's baby AFTER the DNA tests already proved he was), and Cordoza who conducted a mock cross of Scott and talked about it publicly until he was gagged.? Not a word pro-prosecution ever escaped their lips. Cardoza even left CA when the case was over - guess Garegos's northern branch didn't work out for him.

I am curious what you think that the ME said - he did not say there were no barnacles at all - in fact he said there WERE barnacles.

[adnoid]

I concede the above to be fact and bow humbly before you. Thank you sir, may I have another?!!

No, you came here for an argument.

[Miss Bootsie]

"The ME would not sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail" ??? and I'm trying to discredit the ME because he was trying to make a long story short???

hmmm.. so you used what Geragos said in his question and ignored the ME's testimony, you ignored his reply.....;)

*Snipped*



Yes, I certainly did say that, along with the other comments you failed to add.


Q. Did you make any other notations or observations about the condition of Conner Peterson?

A. PETERSON: Conner was decomposing, in general terms.


THE WITNESS: In her report, Dr. Galloway said three to six months in the marine environment for Laci. In terms of Conner, her statement, and I'll read it from her report, is, "The postmortem interval of the infant is consistent with that of individual A," that was Laci, "however, the body of individual B," Conner, "was more protected from environmental degradation."

MR. HARRIS:

Q. And in lay people's terms, is that pretty much what you've already described about Conner being protected by being in the uterus?


lol, I never ignore Dr. Peterson's trial testimony that was heard before the Jury. IMO, he did an excellent job of explaining the condition of the body in Scientific detail. ;)
Dr. Galloway did an excellent job as well.


PETERSON: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.

GALLOWAY: Yes. There was -- on the femur, the thigh bone there is an area that was exposed. And there was a barnacle, couple of barnacles attached to that.

[cookiewench]

so the G's can pick apart and completely discredit Wecht b/c he changed his statements and got more in depth and mentioned all things relevant or not...... but we SII/SNG can't pick apart the State's ME when he does the same thing on the stand during his sworn testimony?

:no:


Wecht's changes in story were significant changes (the type that could change the outcome of the case).

The ME's were not. Barnacles here, there or wherever made little difference when combined with his other observations. They were miniscule differences, probably based on him checking over his notes and refreshing his memory when before he went to court.

Don't forget that whatever he said, the notes he took at autopsy are public information and can't be "changed".

[cookiewench]

This took time, and I’m sure we can all agree on this.


Hah! Not on this board.

Someone's been claiming that since a barnacle starts its growth 12 hours after attaching itself, that Laci could have been left on the rocks the night before and had barnacles on her the next morning!

[deputydi]

No, he did not. He didn't say "duct tape", he said "some tape". It is my opinion that everyone else misheard - including the court reporter.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.
That's it, by George! "Duct tape", "Some tape" sounds similar -- I think everyone was mistaken in what they think they heard.

[cookiewench]

What? Brocchini misspoke and added ONE word unintentionally??---> "Duct Tape"

So we'got the fact that duct tape was on Laci's remains..and we've got Brocchini adding the USE OF DUCT TAPE in the so called murder plan...but we are supposed to infer that he simply misspoke!! and his innocent mistake being about the use of duct tape was just pure coincidence...

Yeah right!

As someone else pointed out, whether or not he said "tape" or "duct tape", everyone was going to think the same thing - you're not going to tape up a dead body with Scotch Tape - you would use duct tape.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

lol, I never ignore Dr. Peterson's trial testimony that was heard before the Jury. IMO, he did an excellent job of explaining the condition of the body in Scientific detail. ;)
Dr. Galloway did an excellent job as well.


PETERSON: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



What is the point you are trying to make about Conner's condition being more along the lines of autolysis?

TIA

[ekg]

Really, so when this group is "found out", not only would they lose all these contracts, they would be subject to civil and criminal proceedings. All to frame a fertilizer salesman yet.

Because you opine that Dr. P. is a liar, under oath yet, but Dr. W. is a truthteller on tv, why don't you research other testimony and autopsies that this group of pathologists have given and performed? Maybe there's lots of instances of the falsity of their findings and innocent people are incarcerated because of them.

Otherwise, your opinion is simply that, baseless allegations that are very serious. MOO.

but Dr. P did lie under oath....... either there were barnacles on her body or there weren't...

either he was under oath when he gave both answers or he wasn't..

either he was right when he said there were no barnacle on the body or he was wrong..

and here's the important question...... if he was wrong about that, if he missed that.... if he didn't think that was relevant..... what else did he miss,forget, or withhold?

[PsychNurse;~)]

What is the point you are trying to make about Conner's condition being more along the lines of autolysis?

TIA

before you go off on picking out a single word, i'd highly recommend you check the TYPE of autolysis referred to.

cyn

[ekg]

Photo 257D out of People's 257 A-K: Autopsy photos of Laci (sealed).

AW2B-your assertions would have worked better for you that at the pre-lim , ["the testimony of Bruce Peterson, who was the Coroner? I think it was Bruce, or Brian Peterson?";"Brian? I think Brian; but Dr. Peterson, yes, sir."], had been "BARABCLES," then at the trial no "BARABCLES."

That is your confusion-BARabcles and BARnacles are very similar sounding and you are mistaken.


we're going to start mocking spelling errors now?

well then, I'm going to be in a whole lot of trouble....:tongue:

[PsychNurse;~)]

but Dr. P did lie under oath....... either there were barnacles on her body or there weren't...

either he was under oath when he gave both answers or he wasn't..

either he was right when he said there were no barnacle on the body or he was wrong..

and here's the important question...... if he was wrong about that, if he missed that.... if he didn't think that was relevant..... what else did he miss,forget, or withhold?

it obviously wasn't missed since there were pics of it. if it wasn't felt to be relevant i don't think there would be pics, do you?

i'll need to go re-check my transcripts but were the pics and his notes/reports present during the prelim and trial?

iirc he stated initially the barnacle(s) noted on her clothes (shredded pants) and then at trial on the bone. wasn't she strictly bone beneath those shredded pants? couldn't the barnacle have been attached to both the pants and the bone?

cyn

[ekg]

Maybe you'd like to talk about what you think the significance of this is.

It's not an appeal issue, so it can't be that.

He said at first that there were barnacles on her clothing, but not that they were ONLY on her clothing - just that he noted them on her clothing.

It's hard to understand why you think this is significant at all.

Do you actually believe that an appeals court would be interested in or bothered with something like this?

nope..... I don't think they'll care...

but it does make ME wonder what else he missed, left out, changed, or just forgot about...

[ekg]

it obviously wasn't missed since there were pics of it. if it wasn't felt to be relevant i don't think there would be pics, do you?

i'll need to go re-check my transcripts but were the pics and his notes/reports present during the prelim and trial?

iirc he stated initially the barnacle(s) noted on her clothes (shredded pants) and then at trial on the bone. wasn't she strictly bone beneath those shredded pants? couldn't the barnacle have been attached to both the pants and the bone?

cyn

it could be...... but IMO he was pretty clear when he said there weren't any on her body..... not any on her.. I can only take that to mean he meant they weren't on her body in any way.. only on the clothes...:shrug:

[PsychNurse;~)]

nope..... I don't think they'll care...

but it does make ME wonder what else he missed, left out, changed, or just forgot about...

do you really think he changed anything in his reports?

i doubt he missed anything based on his decades of experience. however, since (according to aw2b) both wecht and lee were allowed to perform full autopsies on laci and conner, then i'm sure they'd have been called to testify if their findings didn't match dr. peterson's.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

As someone else pointed out, whether or not he said "tape" or "duct tape", everyone was going to think the same thing - you're not going to tape up a dead body with Scotch Tape - you would use duct tape.

As far as I know, Espidia DIDN'T mention tape at all..duct tape or otherwise..

Do you have a link to show that Espidia mentioned the use of tape to Brocchini?

[PsychNurse;~)]

As far as I know, Espidia DIDN'T mention tape at all..duct tape or otherwise..

Do you have a link to show that Espidia mentioned the use of tape to Brocchini?

didn't he say he taped a bag or something over laci's head?

again, the testimony was NOT offered for truthfulness. in fact, it was given to show that a tip came in that directly incriminated isp but was given no credence by law enforcement.

cyn

[deputydi]

<snip>and here's the important question...... if he was wrong about that, if he missed that.... if he didn't think that was relevant..... what else did he miss,forget, or withhold?
I don't know but I have no doubt AW2B will find someplace in the transcripts where someone used "the" instead of "these" and obsess over it for days. :) Don't you guys understand that these picky things have absolutely, positively nothing to do with Scott's appeal?

[Lavindar]

Hah! Not on this board.

Someone's been claiming that since a barnacle starts its growth 12 hours after attaching itself, that Laci could have been left on the rocks the night before and had barnacles on her the next morning! Her headless, neckless forearmess, handless, footless and calfless body was left there with no tool marks
Oh yes, fleshless but with adipocere. Can you imagine the smell. Bodies smell BAD and many people cannot stand the smell. Adipocere alone is supposed to smell rancid - yet people kept this body and placed it on the ground and there was no evidence of any insect feeding either.

[Hey Paula]

but he thought it relevant enough to say they were not on her body...... not on her....

I ask this again..... last time I got a funny answer, so let's see if Cyn gives me another...:tongue:

so the G's can pick apart and completely discredit Wecht b/c he changed his statements and got more in depth and mentioned all things relevant or not...... but we SII/SNG can't pick apart the State's ME when he does the same thing on the stand during his sworn testimony?

:no:

Hi Ekg!

In checking several sources of dictionary meanings of the word "body" as it applies to humans and animals, it includes only the torso or trunk and excludes extremities, head and neck.



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
bod·y /ˈbɒdi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural bod·ies, verb, bod·ied, bod·y·ing, adjective
–noun
1. the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.
2. a corpse; carcass.
3. the trunk or main mass of a thing: the body of a tree.
4. [B]Anatomy, Zoology. the physical structure of a human being or animal, not including the head, limbs, and tail; trunk; torso.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=body&x=0&y=0

Definitions of body on the Web:

* the entire structure of an organism (especially an animal or human being); "he felt as if his whole body were on fire"
* a natural object consisting of a dead animal or person; "they found the body in the lake"
* a group of persons associated by some common tie or occupation and regarded as an entity; "the whole body filed out of the auditorium"
* torso: the body excluding the head and neck and limbs;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=6H&defl=en&q=define:body&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Free Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Thesaurus and much more

bod·y (bŏd'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ies.

1.
1. The entire material or physical structure of an organism, especially of a human or animal.
2. The physical part of a person.
3. A corpse or carcass.
2.
1. The trunk or torso of a human or animal.

http://www.answers.com/topic/body?cat=biz-fin

[cookiewench]

nope..... I don't think they'll care...

but it does make ME wonder what else he missed, left out, changed, or just forgot about...


As far as I know, the ME records (on tape) autopsy notes throughout the entire autopsy. These records are afterwards officially transcribed.

There's no way he could leave out or change anything.

Of course, unless he has a photographic memory he's going to forget some details.

Mark G. would have had a transcription of the autopsy notes, and if there was any significant difference from the testimony he would have noted it in court (the pivotal word here being "significant").

[ekg]

ekg, I was very well aware of what the discussion was all about that started on pg. 40.

Now, someone new, just reading on the forum, might pick up on the discussion - pg 42, and interpret your post to mean....just what you stated.


Perhaps, had you stated - "I think he said "there were barnacles on her clothing, but absolutely none on the body" - your meaning would not be misinterpreted by people other than myself who may not have read the entire discussion.

just like someone could have come along right when Lavindar said

He said there were barnacles. He didn't say there were NO barnacles

and then interpreted that to mean...... well, he never said she didn't have barnacles on her or her body?

I see what you're saying......but it is something we are all guilty of tho when we're in the middle of a reply/quote conversation..wouldn't you agree?

[ekg]

I would really like to see some evidence that this particular prosecutor had any kind of power or influence over this particular ME's hiring or firing.

I'd like to see even a hint of some type of evidence that this prosecutor asked the ME to change his testimony (why would he? any sane person can see that Laci & Conner had been in the bay - barnacles or no barnacles).

I'd like to see some evidence that the prosecutor even sits down with the ME and discusses his testimony beforehand. I know that the pros reads the autopsy results - but do they actually interview the ME? I've never heard of this.

If you're going to throw out an accusation that an ME EVER has an agenda in a trial, I'd like to see SOMETHING to back that up.


well, we don't have to prove why he did it...

we just have to prove that 2 different stories were given, and who gave those 2 stories:tongue: :biggrin:

[ekg]

I asked this question a while back. Brocchini added a word...fine. Now let me hear your thoughts on the actual story the gentleman told AB...do you dismiss it entirely?

Hi Fry :seeya:


I dismiss it just as I dismiss the crazy man who said he killed Laci and only the dog saw it...

[ekg]

snipped
Tell me -- please -- do you use the EXACT same wording each and every time you relate the same event? I don't and I don't know anyone who does. That, to me, would seem like a rehearsed, memorized testimony.





does that apply to everyone........ or just everyone except Scott, Jackie and Lee Peterson?

[ekg]

Fine. We'll disregard the photos of the barnacles on her femur that was presented in court. Who cares about details, right? The ones on her clothes were plenty, I suppose. :biggrin:

:lol:

that seems about right....

[ekg]

i'm just glad you knew i was kidding, lol!

cyn

ps--if we weren't picking things apart 95% of our discussions wouldn't be taking place. imo.

however, regarding the barnacles i think the only reason the medical examiner's recall was different from the prelim to the trial was the presence of the actual pics at the trial.


OH I totally got the joke... :D

and yes, you took the words out of my mouth..... if we didn't find stuff to pick apart and discuss this board would have 7 posts on it....:tongue:


and you are probably right in why he forgot... I like to believe ppl like Nifong and the head of the DNA lab are very far and very few between... but it does make one ask, what else did he miss...

[ekg]

what does Nifong have to do with this case. He is in another state entirely and it's a completely different case.


b/c TopGunner asked


Why do you believe he'd risk destroying his professional reputation, and being held in contempt of court? What was in it for him?

and my answer was... why would Nifong and the Lab guy do it?

why would they risk the same things TG mentioned?

who knows why.......... but they did..

[ekg]

Finally, you get it! :tongue: :D


well..... ppppppbbbbbttttt http://dvcreators.net/discuss/images/smilies/Raspberry.gif on that...




:lol: :tongue:

[cookiewench]

well, we don't have to prove why he did it...

we just have to prove that 2 different stories were given, and who gave those 2 stories:tongue: :biggrin:

Prove to who? An appelate court? Do you think there might be some cuckoo-birds on the court who think the ME would lie about some barnacles - or that his minor mistake is an acceptable appelate issue?

[ekg]

The problem is that Wecht was not under oath to tell the truth. He was spinning a tale IN THE MEDIA that everyone says convicted Scott. So many spin doctors spinning the defense line convicted Scott NOT

you're right..... what Dr. P did was way worse b/c he swore to tell the truth.. and b/c he's on the stand he's held to a higher standard... he shouldn't be mistaking things,forgetting things, or leaving things out that he might not find relevant..... it's not up to him to do that, it's up to him to testify to the facts... and he either missed that in the trial or the prelim...

snipped


I am curious what you think that the ME said - he did not say there were no barnacles at all - in fact he said there WERE barnacles.

but L, he did say there weren't any at all on her body... on her..

that can only mean there weren't any on her....... it certainly doesn't mean there were some on her femur bone....

[ekg]

do you really think he changed anything in his reports?

i doubt he missed anything based on his decades of experience. however, since (according to aw2b) both wecht and lee were allowed to perform full autopsies on laci and conner, then i'm sure they'd have been called to testify if their findings didn't match dr. peterson's.

cyn


I don't know if he changed it or he was just incompetent... or just forgetful...

but it is one of those things....

and none of them instill 100% faith in anything else he may or may not have said or done...

[ekg]

Hi Ekg!

In checking several sources of dictionary meanings of the word "body" as it applies to humans and animals, it includes only the torso or trunk and excludes extremities, head and neck.



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
bod·y /ˈbɒdi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural bod·ies, verb, bod·ied, bod·y·ing, adjective
–noun
1. the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.
2. a corpse; carcass.
3. the trunk or main mass of a thing: the body of a tree.
4. [B]Anatomy, Zoology. the physical structure of a human being or animal, not including the head, limbs, and tail; trunk; torso.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=body&x=0&y=0

Definitions of body on the Web:

* the entire structure of an organism (especially an animal or human being); "he felt as if his whole body were on fire"
* a natural object consisting of a dead animal or person; "they found the body in the lake"
* a group of persons associated by some common tie or occupation and regarded as an entity; "the whole body filed out of the auditorium"
* torso: the body excluding the head and neck and limbs;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=6H&defl=en&q=define:body&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Free Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Thesaurus and much more

bod·y (bŏd'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ies.

1.
1. The entire material or physical structure of an organism, especially of a human or animal.
2. The physical part of a person.
3. A corpse or carcass.
2.
1. The trunk or torso of a human or animal.

http://www.answers.com/topic/body?cat=biz-fin

Hi Paula:seeya:

so you think Dr. P was using the word 'body' by definition and that's why he didn't include the barnacles on her thigh?

ok, but what did he mean when he said they weren't on her?

b/c he said both.....

[Lavindar]

didn't he say he taped a bag or something over laci's head?

again, the testimony was NOT offered for truthfulness. in fact, it was given to show that a tip came in that directly incriminated isp but was given no credence by law enforcement.

cyn

Here's the testimony:

200) Rick Distaso: Now, did you receive a tip from a man named Michael Espidia?
201) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
202) Rick Distaso: What did he say, what did he tell you?
203) Allen Brocchini: He said he had known Scott and Laci Peterson since 1995. He went to college with Scott at San Luis Obispo. His, he knew then after Laci and Scott Peterson got married. He played racketball with them two or three times a week. He called and said he had a conversation with Scott Peterson in 1995 where Peterson told him how he could get rid of a body if he killed somebody.
204) Rick Distaso: And what did he say that Scott Peterson told him?
205) Allen Brocchini: He said that he would tie a bag around the neck, the neck with duct tape, put weights on the hands, throw it in the sea and the fish activity would eventually eat, the body would float up, the fish activity would eat away from the head and the hands and the body would float up, no fingers, no feet, so there could be no identification.
206) Rick Distaso: And that was a tape-recorded interview also, right?
207) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
208) Rick Distaso: So we have a transcript of that particular interview and we have a tape recording of it, right?
209) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
210) Rick Distaso: And so as far as you know Michael Espidia is a real person?
211) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
212) Rick Distaso: And as far as you know if we wanted to hear from him he could be subpoenaed to court?


157) Rick Distaso: Espidia's, right. I'll be quite frank with you, did you find the information credible?
158) Allen Brocchini: No.

your recollection is correct

[cookiewench]

and none of them instill 100% faith in anything else he may or may not have said or done...


To who? You?

That's one............

[TopGunner]

why would the head of the DNA lab agree with Nifong in keeping the favorable DNA results from the Defense?


did Dr. P lie or was he just mistaken? only he knows..... but what WE know is he gave 2 totally opposite accounts on the stand....

I think an acknowledgment of that is in order.....


OK, I acknowledge that he apparently made a mistake. Shoot him already.:D

[attorneywan2be]

it could be...... but IMO he was pretty clear when he said there weren't any on her body..... not any on her.. I can only take that to mean he meant they weren't on her body in any way.. only on the clothes...:shrug:

And I find it curious that he didn't even mention barnacles in his autopsy report..he didn't even say that he found barnacles on her clothing...however, he did mention the things he found on her clothing such as ..duct tape..mineral deposits..so why not the barnacles?

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Ekg!

In checking several sources of dictionary meanings of the word "body" as it applies to humans and animals, it includes only the torso or trunk and excludes extremities, head and neck.

Snip



Hi Paula..

He testified that there were some barnacles on her clothing BUT not on her..it's clear that he was referring to her entire body!

[One2Snoop]

Hi Paula..

He testified that there were some barnacles on her clothing BUT not on her..it's clear that he was referring to her entire body!

Are you saying the photo of the barnacles on the bone aren't credible? :shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Are you saying the photo of the barnacles on the bone aren't credible? :shrug:

The credibility and integrity of the evidence is a vital issue in reaching a conclusion as to someone's guilt..IMO, if in doubt, that evidence should not be given any weight..let's talk about the barnacles for example....

1-We've got the ME not mentioning anything about barnacles in his autopsy report..not a word about them being on her body or clothing..yet he did mention other things associated with her clothing..

2-We've got the ME testifying at the prelim that they were no barnacles on her body but there were some on her clothing

3-We've got the ME testifying at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone..

4-We've got photos depicting barnacles.. I think those photos were taken by Pin Kyo in May of 2003..who testified that there were a lot of barnacles on Laci's pants..which makes me question how was it possible for the ME to miss a lot of barnacles?

IMO, It could be the result of an innocent mistake but it could also be the result of evidence tampering...can we be sure that this evidence is 100% credible..not IMO...

[TopGunner]

The credibility and integrity of the evidence is a vital issue in reaching a conclusion as to someone's guilt..IMO, if in doubt, that evidence should not be given any weight..let's talk about the barnacles for example....

1-We've got the ME not mentioning anything about barnacles in his autopsy report..not a word about them being on her body or clothing..yet he did mention other things associated with her clothing..

2-We've got the ME testifying at the prelim that they were no barnacles on her body but there were some on her clothing

3-We've got the ME testifying at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone..

4-We've got photos depicting barnacles.. I think those photos were taken by Pin Kyo in May of 2003..who testified that there were a lot of barnacles on Laci's pants..which makes me question how was it possible for the ME to miss a lot of barnacles?

IMO, It could be the result of an innocent mistake but it could also be the result of evidence tampering...can we be sure that this evidence is 100% credible..not IMO...



Can we be sure there was evidence tampering??? Nope.:no:

[attorneywan2be]

Can we be sure there was evidence tampering??? Nope.:no:


That's exactly my point..we cannot be sure it was an honest mistake and we cannot be sure it was evidence tampering..so IMO, this evidence should not be given any weight..!

[adnoid]

That's exactly my point..we cannot be sure it was an honest mistake and we cannot be sure it was evidence tampering..so IMO, this evidence should not be given any weight..!

So, the problem boils down to the fact that evidence has to be looked at and judged credible - or not.

I've come up with an idea! Perhaps we set up a system where we chose a bunch of citizens - say, 12 of them - let them see the evidence, and we go with their decision. It's got to be worth a try!

[I'mSun]

So, the problem boils down to the fact that evidence has to be looked at and judged credible - or not.

I've come up with an idea! Perhaps we set up a system where we chose a bunch of citizens - say, 12 of them - let them see the evidence, and we go with their decision. It's got to be worth a try!Interesting idea, Adnoid, but what if they make the wrong decision? :biggrin:

[One2Snoop]

So, the problem boils down to the fact that evidence has to be looked at and judged credible - or not.

I've come up with an idea! Perhaps we set up a system where we chose a bunch of citizens - say, 12 of them - let them see the evidence, and we go with their decision. It's got to be worth a try!

:seeya: I'll do it!:biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

So, the problem boils down to the fact that evidence has to be looked at and judged credible - or not.

I've come up with an idea! Perhaps we set up a system where we chose a bunch of citizens - say, 12 of them - let them see the evidence, and we go with their decision. It's got to be worth a try!


Great! but what if they don't agree? :D

[One2Snoop]

IMO, there was evidence tampering or ignored evidence of Scott's innocence.


What would that ignored evidence be? :shrug:

[Miss Bootsie]

just like someone could have come along right when Lavindar said



and then interpreted that to mean...... well, he never said she didn't have barnacles on her or her body?

I see what you're saying......but it is something we are all guilty of tho when we're in the middle of a reply/quote conversation..wouldn't you agree?

Hmmm, not when a discussion starts on pg. 40, skips a pg and is resumed on pg. 42.

I think you know what I mean.

[cookiewench]

That's exactly my point..we cannot be sure it was an honest mistake and we cannot be sure it was evidence tampering..so IMO, this evidence should not be given any weight..!

What makes you think the jury gave this evidence any weight?

It's not as if barnacles were the only evidence of her having been in the bay for four months.

Do you think that Scott wouldn't have been convicted without those barnacles?

[attorneywan2be]

What would that ignored evidence be? :shrug:

IMO, they ignored this evidence:

1-The mineral deposits found on Laci's pants were never analyzed

2-one pubic hair was found on the duct tape that was on Laci and one pubic hair with root was from the autopsy..they were never tested for DNA or mtDNA..

3-The item that was on Conner's ear was discarded.. this item should have been retained..the defense contended that it could have been an electric tape..so no one knows what that item was..

4-The draw cords of Laci's pants..the ME didn't mention the measurement of the draw cords...he should have measured the length of the loop (the tied part) that would have given them Laci's waist right before she died..if she died or was handled AFTER Conner was removed.. the measurement would have been too small for a 7 1/2 months pregnant woman....

5-The Medina's safe was destroyed..they didn't even dust it for fingerprints..

6-They didn't take any fingerprints at Laci's house..

ekg..is there anything else to add to the list?

[attorneywan2be]

What makes you think the jury gave this evidence any weight?

It's not as if barnacles were the only evidence of her having been in the bay for four months.

Do you think that Scott wouldn't have been convicted without those barnacles?


I wonder why the prosecution asked several witnesses about barnacles..and Distaso brought it up in his closing argument telling the jury that the presence of barnacles on Laci's body was consistent with Laci being in a marine environment...!

What other evidence points to Laci being in a marine environment? she was FOUND on the shore..that's it! that doesn't prove BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months and washed ashore..

[TopGunner]

:no: I wonder why the prosecution asked several witnesses about barnacles..and Distaso brought it up in his closing argument telling the jury that the presence of barnacles on Laci's body was consistent with Laci being in a marine environment...!

What other evidence points to Laci being in a marine environment? she was FOUND on the shore..that's it! that doesn't prove BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months and washed ashore..


AW2B..........*sigh.

Good morning too.

You aren't even remotely serious here are you? What PROOF was there that she was in the bay for 4 months?

I can't be reading this right..............

[Lavindar]

:no:


AW2B..........*sigh.

Good morning too.

You aren't even remotely serious here are you? What PROOF was there that she was in the bay for 4 months?

I can't be reading this right.............. I fear you are.

this has been talked about ad nausem. Qualified experts testified to it. all her soft tissue was either missing or turned to adipocere. No insect feeding. marine animals eat soft tissue. disarticulated bones - reaed what Grogran testified that Dr. Stephens THE WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON BAY BODIES PER RICHARD COLE'S ARTICLE SAID. Everything in Ladci's condition was consistent with being in the bay for 3-6 months.
I posted it - those of you who don't believe it, find it. I have done enough reserach that I shouldn't have to prove and reprove it over and over again.

[TopGunner]

IMO, there was evidence tampering or ignored evidence of Scott's innocence.



Link......? :D

[enlightenme]

I fear you are.

this has been talked about ad nausem. Qualified experts testified to it. all her soft tissue was either missing or turned to adipocere. No insect feeding. marine animals eat soft tissue. disarticulated bones - reaed what Grogran testified that Dr. Stephens THE WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON BAY BODIES PER RICHARD COLE'S ARTICLE SAID. Everything in Ladci's condition was consistent with being in the bay for 3-6 months.
I posted it - those of you who don't believe it, find it. I have done enough reserach that I shouldn't have to prove and reprove it over and over again.

Good point! Also the fact the Dr. Peterson, Dr. Wecht and Dr. Lee examined the bodies and NOT ONE of them even remotely suggested they were anywhere else or "planted on the shore."

[deputydi]

IMO, there was evidence tampering or ignored evidence of Scott's innocence.
Other than these stupid barnacles, got a link to anything else?

[Otter]

Other than these stupid barnacles, got a link to anything else?

DD, don't hold your breath. On another thread we're still waiting for any sort of a link to red boots and Kim McG never being without a coffee mug. :shrug:

[rachelslaw]

:no:


AW2B..........*sigh.

Good morning too.

You aren't even remotely serious here are you? What PROOF was there that she was in the bay for 4 months?

I can't be reading this right..............

I hear ya!

*shakes head in total bewilderment*

IMO

:seeya:

[ekg]

OK, I acknowledge that he apparently made a mistake. Shoot him already.:D

nah....... no need to shoot him...

can I just point and laugh instead..:D

[ekg]

To who? You?

That's one............


to anyone who genuinely cares about finding out if what was told to them was the truth and/or the whole story.

[attorneywan2be]

:no:


AW2B..........*sigh.

Good morning too.

You aren't even remotely serious here are you? What PROOF was there that she was in the bay for 4 months?

I can't be reading this right..............


Good morning TopGunner...:seeya:

Yes..you are reading it right..what is the evidence that proves BARD that Laci was in the bay for 4 months?

[attorneywan2be]

to anyone who genuinely cares about finding out if what was told to them was the truth and/or the whole story.

Exactly!..:beer:

[Lavindar]

Good morning TopGunner...:seeya:

Yes..you are reading it right..what is the evidence that proves BARD that Laci was in the bay for 4 months?


I posted this earlier. You must have missed it:

this has been talked about ad nausem. Qualified experts testified to it. all her soft tissue was either missing or turned to adipocere. No insect feeding. marine animals eat soft tissue. disarticulated bones - reaed what Grogran testified that Dr. Stephens THE WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON BAY BODIES PER RICHARD COLE'S ARTICLE SAID. Everything in Ladci's condition was consistent with being in the bay for 3-6 months.
I posted it - those of you who don't believe it, find it. I have done enough reserach that I shouldn't have to prove and reprove it over and over again.
I suggest you start with Galloway's testimony, Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony and Grogans testimony to what Dr. Stephens told him.

[cookiewench]

to anyone who genuinely cares about finding out if what was told to them was the truth and/or the whole story.

I don't understand why you can't get it.

The ME records his findings as he does the autopsy, and he doesn't do it alone. There are police witnesses to the autopsies in a criminal case.

An ME sitting there testifying without his notes in front of him making a very, very minor mistake that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the outcome of the does not mean that he's lying, nor is it significant.


The jury didn't think so, and they were there for every word of months of testimony.

[enlightenme]

I don't understand why you can't get it.

The ME records his findings as he does the autopsy, and he doesn't do it alone. There are police witnesses to the autopsies in a criminal case.

An ME sitting there testifying without his notes in front of him making a very, very minor mistake that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the outcome of the does not mean that he's lying, nor is it significant.


The jury didn't think so, and they were there for every word of months of testimony.

They also don't seem to get that between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Wecht there is about 40 years experience doing autopsies and examiniations of remains. What qualifications do any of us here have?

The jury also saw the autopsy photos, which NONE of us here have.

Oh well, I give up on the discussion of the bodies being planted on the shore because, IMO, it's about the most implossible thing I've ever heard. Ergo, NOT REASONABLE.

[Wearing A Halo]

to anyone who genuinely cares about finding out if what was told to them was the truth and/or the whole story.

It is clear from the original post (#1853) that you were speaking for yourself and yourself only. Now you want to change it to "anyone."

[deputydi]

to anyone who genuinely cares about finding out if what was told to them was the truth and/or the whole story.
None of us are ever going to know the whole story. I do not believe all these people are lying just to frame an inconsequential fertilizer salesman. What on earth would be the point?

Forgot to add: FYI, I do genuinely care about finding out the truth. I just don't think we ever will. I'd like to know why Scott murdered his wife and child, I'd like to know exactly how he did it and when he did it. These are things I'd like answered for my own curiosity -- I don't need to have them answered to believe Scott is guilty of the crime.

[ekg]

It is clear from the original post (#1853) that you were speaking for yourself and yourself only. Now you want to change it to "anyone."



some of the things that get questioned amaze me...

yes... to me and anyone else...


CW asked "to who"? and then asked "you"?... the "you" part was already answered since it's clear from my original post that I was speaking for myself and only myself..... but the "to who" wasn't answered...

so I answered with "anyone"

[TopGunner]

Good morning TopGunner...:seeya:

Yes..you are reading it right..what is the evidence that proves BARD that Laci was in the bay for 4 months?

3 things proved it to me, personally, AW2B:

1. Common sense (a rarity these days).

2. The condition (the horrid condition) of her body.

3. Her baby was a mile away. Had he been right next to her, or never found at all, it would add an element of what if, but a mile away? Nope...nobody would come up with that.

And I'm sorry Aw2B, but the appeal judges would laugh this one right out of the court, I sincerely hope ISP's lawyers don't travel down this road. It'll never fly.

[thinkaboutit]

She told more than one person that she was tired a lot and that she had been feeling dizzy lately. She told Karen Servas several weeks before she was murdered that she almost fell into the pool when she was in the yard, because of dizziness.

She also told people that she had stopped walking the dog.

Do you think that Laci was lying to people?

This is an interesting point.

Laci told Karen Servas that she almost fell into the pool when she was in the yard because of dizziness.

According to Karen Servas - she found MacKenzie in the street with his leash on at 10:18.

Laci's car was in the drive-way.

At the trial she testified that she tried the front gate and felt a little "panicked" because it was locked.

She saw a package in the mailbox at 11:45 when returning from her errands. She saw the package again when she was leaving her home at 4:05 - almost 6 hours after she found MacKenzie.

Yet - she never knocked on the Peterson door out of concern for Laci. Or picked up the phone to call Scott or Laci to make sure everything was alright. Or peaked into the yard to see if MacKenzie was still back there with his leash on?

But it's suspicious that Scott didn't immediately get concerned when Laci wasn't home between 2:15 when he first called her and 4:45 when he returned home and he found MacKenzie in the backyard with his leash on?

[TopGunner]

None of us are ever going to know the whole story. I do not believe all these people are lying just to frame an inconsequential fertilizer salesman. What on earth would be the point?

Forgot to add: FYI, I do genuinely care about finding out the truth. I just don't think we ever will. I'd like to know why Scott murdered his wife and child, I'd like to know exactly how he did it and when he did it. These are things I'd like answered for my own curiosity -- I don't need to have them answered to believe Scott is guilty of the crime.


ITA DD. I don't care to know "the truth", as I am convinced ISP committed this crime, and planned it out well in advance.

I would like to know why. How. I'd love to understand the workings of his mind.

I'd love for the Rocha's to know, to have that final closure.

The evil side of me would love for the P's to hear it from him, and own up to it. Not to stir the emotional pot here, but I've always believed they knew, and they just can't stand to lose. It puts my hinkey meter into the RED thinking about all the things they've done, knowing full well he committed this murder. :flamemad:

[attorneywan2be]

3 things proved it to me, personally, AW2B:

1. Common sense (a rarity these days).

I agree that common sense is a rarity these days..don't forget that the majority of the public believes that Laci was in the bay for 4 months...;)

2. The condition (the horrid condition) of her body.

That doesn't prove to me BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months..

3. Her baby was a mile away. Had he been right next to her, or never found at all, it would add an element of what if, but a mile away? Nope...nobody would come up with that.

The evidence surrounding the baby's location doesn't prove to me BARD that he washed ashore..in fact, it indicates to me that he didn't wash ashore..so again, this evidence doesn't prove BARD that Laci was in the bay for 4 months..

And I'm sorry Aw2B, but the appeal judges would laugh this one right out of the court, I sincerely hope ISP's lawyers don't travel down this road. It'll never fly.

It might be part of the appeal issue that is based on "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" I would say that appellate judges are too professional to laugh anything out of court..IMO, they might even reverse the conviction based on that appeal issue..

[cookiewench]

This is an interesting point.

Laci told Karen Servas that she almost fell into the pool when she was in the yard because of dizziness.

According to Karen Servas - she found MacKenzie in the street with his leash on at 10:18.

Laci's car was in the drive-way.

At the trial she testified that she tried the front gate and felt a little "panicked" because it was locked.

She saw a package in the mailbox at 11:45 when returning from her errands. She saw the package again when she was leaving her home at 4:05 - almost 6 hours after she found MacKenzie.

Yet - she never knocked on the Peterson door out of concern for Laci. Or picked up the phone to call Scott or Laci to make sure everything was alright. Or peaked into the yard to see if MacKenzie was still back there with his leash on?

But it's suspicious that Scott didn't immediately get concerned when Laci wasn't home between 2:15 when he first called her and 4:45 when he returned home and he found MacKenzie in the backyard with his leash on?


Yep, it's suspicious all right. I would expect my spouse/mate be be more concerned about me than a casual neighbor would be.


Scott & Laci could have gone away for a few days, for all the neighbor knew. Scott KNEW that Laci was supposed to be home that day and what her schedule was.

Servas felt a little panicked because she didn't know what she would do with the dog if she couldn't put him in the yard.

[thinkaboutit]

Yep, it's suspicious all right. I would expect my spouse/mate be be more concerned about me than a casual neighbor would be.


Scott & Laci could have gone away for a few days, for all the neighbor knew. Scott KNEW that Laci was supposed to be home that day and what her schedule was.

Servas felt a little panicked because she didn't know what she would do with the dog if she couldn't put him in the yard.

Scott also knew that Laci had things to do that day. And those things required her to leave the house.

Is this your interpretation of Servas' testimony about feeling panicked? What is your interpretation of her having no recollection of this feeling of panick months earlier at pre-lim? She insisted at pre-lim that she did not know if the front gate was locked because she did not try the gate.

So she told Buehler on the 25th that the front gate was locked.
She testified at pre-lim that she had no idea if the front gate was locked because she never tried it.
Then she testified at trial that she tried the front gate, it was locked and she felt panicked.

Doesn't sound like a very reliable witness to me. Yet the MPD revolved their investigation around her 10:18 timeline.

[ekg]

This is an interesting point.

Laci told Karen Servas that she almost fell into the pool when she was in the yard because of dizziness.

According to Karen Servas - she found MacKenzie in the street with his leash on at 10:18.

Laci's car was in the drive-way.

At the trial she testified that she tried the front gate and felt a little "panicked" because it was locked.

She saw a package in the mailbox at 11:45 when returning from her errands. She saw the package again when she was leaving her home at 4:05 - almost 6 hours after she found MacKenzie.

Yet - she never knocked on the Peterson door out of concern for Laci. Or picked up the phone to call Scott or Laci to make sure everything was alright. Or peaked into the yard to see if MacKenzie was still back there with his leash on?

But it's suspicious that Scott didn't immediately get concerned when Laci wasn't home between 2:15 when he first called her and 4:45 when he returned home and he found MacKenzie in the backyard with his leash on?

hi TAI:seeya:

yes, that's always bothered me also and it's why I just can't put 100% faith into KS 'dizzy' story..

at the very least you'd think she'd knock on the door.... when my neighbors dog gets out I don't just walk into their backyard and put him up, I knock on the door to see if someones home 1st..

but that's just me..... and I know my neighbors pretty well, but not well enough to go prancing into the backyard without knocking on their door 1st..

[One2Snoop]

well..... ppppppbbbbbttttt http://dvcreators.net/discuss/images/smilies/Raspberry.gif on that...




:lol: :tongue:

OH my this made me laugh! :lol: Thanks for sharing that "raspberry" with us ekg.

[thinkaboutit]

hi TAI:seeya:

yes, that's always bothered me also and it's why I just can't put 100% faith into KS 'dizzy' story..

at the very least you'd think she'd knock on the door.... when my neighbors dog gets out I don't just walk into their backyard and put him up, I knock on the door to see if someones home 1st..

but that's just me..... and I know my neighbors pretty well, but not well enough to go prancing into the backyard without knocking on their door 1st..

Hi EKG! :)

I know what you mean. Her changing story about the locked or was it unlocked front gate - and her changing the time that she left her home that evening causes me to question her order of the events that day also.

[cookiewench]

Scott also knew that Laci had things to do that day. And those things required her to leave the house.

Is this your interpretation of Servas' testimony about feeling panicked? What is your interpretation of her having no recollection of this feeling of panick months earlier at pre-lim? She insisted at pre-lim that she did not know if the front gate was locked because she did not try the gate.

So she told Buehler on the 25th that the front gate was locked.
She testified at pre-lim that she had no idea if the front gate was locked because she never tried it.
Then she testified at trial that she tried the front gate, it was locked and she felt panicked.

Doesn't sound like a very reliable witness to me. Yet the MPD revolved their investigation around her 10:18 timeline.

Mopping and baking gingerbread cookies would require her to leave the house?

What else would the neighbor have to feel panicked about when she thought the gate was locked? She was in a hurry to do her errands, she had found her neighbor's dog and wanted to put him in the yard.

She would have been stuck keeping the dog if the gate was locked.

Scott and Laci were known to go away for several days at a time.

I, personally, would find it to be creepy if a casual neighbor found my dog, put it in the yard, and then started calling all over the place because I wasn't home. I would also find it strange if they remembered, a year later, every little detail of how they felt about it. Sounds stalkery.

Her timeline is backed up by her receipt and the other errands she did that morning.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by TopGunner
2. The condition (the horrid condition) of her body.
That doesn't prove to me BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months..

Yet, you do believe in your bathtub theory? IMO, that is the most unlikely scenario you could have come up with. There was a mountain of evidence to prove BARD she was submerged in a body of water for several months. The word "reasonable" is the key here. Almost anyone else given the information we know about will reasonably conclude that Laci was in the bay for 4 months and washed ashore. I honestly don't know what other reasonable explanation there is for the condition of the body.

[deputydi]

<snip>Doesn't sound like a very reliable witness to me. Yet the MPD revolved their investigation around her 10:18 timeline.
Because she had time-stamped receipts to back it up. That's how they pinpointed her time.

[thinkaboutit]

Mopping and baking gingerbread cookies would require her to leave the house?

What else would the neighbor have to feel panicked about when she thought the gate was locked? She was in a hurry to do her errands, she had found her neighbor's dog and wanted to put him in the yard.

She would have been stuck keeping the dog if the gate was locked.

Scott and Laci were known to go away for several days at a time.

I, personally, would find it to be creepy if a casual neighbor found my dog, put it in the yard, and then started calling all over the place because I wasn't home. I would also find it strange if they remembered, a year later, every little detail of how they felt about it. Sounds stalkery.

Her timeline is backed up by her receipt and the other errands she did that morning.

No - walking the dog and some last minute shopping for the Christmas breakfast would have required her to leave the house:

PETERSON: Ah, she was gonna finish cleanin up, like I said she was moppin’ the kitchen Floor, ah, take the dog for a walk and then she was going to the store to buy For Christmas morning breakfast tomorrow and that was gonna be an involved prep so that was prepping the breakfast and she was gonna make gingerbread cookies for tonight.



What is your definition of casual neighbor? Servas and her son had been to the Peterson home several times, which included swimming in their pool. Scott often helped Servas with things she needed done at her house. And Servas testified that she communicated with Scott and Laci via e-mail also.

I'm not clear on what your saying. You say you'd find it creepy if Servas had remembered every little detail of how she felt a year later. Yet she did testify, a year later that she felt panicked. I don't find it creepy that she felt panicked at the front gate being locked and remembered it a year later. But I find it strange that such a strong emotion was not recalled 6 months earlier, when the events of the day should have been fresher in her mind. Not only did she not remember the panick - she said she had no idea whether or not that gate was locked.

The only thing Servas receipts prove is that she was at Austin's somewhere around 10:34 and she made a cell phone call at 10:37. No one bothered to find out her location when she made that call, from cell records. Even though she made purchases at 3 other places that day and a bank deposit - those receipts were never provided as evidence to back up what she says she did, in the order that she says she did them. I think it's possible that Austin's receipt could have been off by a few minutes. And I think it's possible she made that phone call before she went into Austin's.

[Otter]

TAI said:

No - walking the dog and some last minute shopping for the Christmas breakfast would have required her to leave the house:


Quote:
PETERSON: Ah, she was gonna finish cleanin up, like I said she was moppin’ the kitchen Floor, ah, take the dog for a walk and then she was going to the store to buy For Christmas morning breakfast tomorrow and that was gonna be an involved prep so that was prepping the breakfast and she was gonna make gingerbread cookies for tonight.

A proven liar. IMO Laci was planning to bake and shop for what she needed for breakfast. Tragically, her husband murdered her, so his tale of what she was doing that morning mean nothing to me.

[thinkaboutit]

TAI said:



A proven liar. IMO Laci was planning to bake and shop for what she needed for breakfast. Tragically, her husband murdered her, so his tale of what she was doing that morning mean nothing to me.

HI Otter. Are you saying you believe that Laci was planning on shopping?

[ekg]

Mopping and baking gingerbread cookies would require her to leave the house?

What else would the neighbor have to feel panicked about when she thought the gate was locked? She was in a hurry to do her errands, she had found her neighbor's dog and wanted to put him in the yard.

She would have been stuck keeping the dog if the gate was locked.

Scott and Laci were known to go away for several days at a time.

I, personally, would find it to be creepy if a casual neighbor found my dog, put it in the yard, and then started calling all over the place because I wasn't home. I would also find it strange if they remembered, a year later, every little detail of how they felt about it. Sounds stalkery.

Her timeline is backed up by her receipt and the other errands she did that morning.

why would she have been stuck with the dog? he had a leash, she could have tied him up and put a bowl of water there for him or she could have put him in her backyard until she got home and then would have had time to decide what to do with him...

It's been moo from the start that KS only saw Mac when she left the 1st time and for whatever reason she left him there and went about her day..... but when she saw him later on in the day, either when she returned home or whenever, then she put him up...

and when she got the news that Laci was missing she was ashamed or afraid of what ppl would think if they knew she didn't do anything the 1st time she noticed the dog out... the dog of the pregnant neighbor who she knew to be having problems with dizzy spells....which is why her story changed so much, why she didn't knock on the door... etc etc. it's hard to keep lies straight right? But when it's the unembellished truth there should be no reason for conflicting accounts...

I don't think she did this out of malice towards Scott, I think it was to save her from any embarrassment of being asked "why didn't you do something"..

[ekg]

Because she had time-stamped receipts to back it up. That's how they pinpointed her time.

that only pin points her time of when she left that morning.... it doesn't prove that is when she really put the dog up...

[Otter]

HI Otter. Are you saying you believe that Laci was planning on shopping?

Hi tai. Why not? She was still going to the store, although I've never formed a firm opinion as to whether she was still walking Mac or not (don't think she was). She was planning on hosting Christimas breakfast with her family.

She wasn't planning on being murdered.

[PsychNurse;~)]

They also don't seem to get that between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Wecht there is about 40 years experience doing autopsies and examiniations of remains. What qualifications do any of us here have?

The jury also saw the autopsy photos, which NONE of us here have.

Oh well, I give up on the discussion of the bodies being planted on the shore because, IMO, it's about the most implossible thing I've ever heard. Ergo, NOT REASONABLE.

dr. peterson, with decades of experience, believes laci (with conner in utero) was in the bay for months. dr. galloway believes the same. wecht and lee never testified and had they thought for one second that there was a different scenerio you know geragos would have had them on the stand! but because of the barnacle being found 1st on her clothes and then on her bone (despite prelim vs trial testimony backed with reports and pictures and the months long interim between the autopsy and testimony), that's cause to believe peterson's testimony is suspect and might even be indicative of evidence tampering....

yet it's easier to believe that laci's remains were kept in some bathtub or other water filled appliance for months--the smell of decompositon growing with each passing day--allowing her limbs to disarticulate, allowing adipocere to form. that's supposed to be at least as reasonable as the prosecution's case?

it's easier to believe that someone performed a c-section by cutting well above her belly button; at the base of the rib cage! then reached their hands and arms into her abdominal cavity and then reached their hands and arms down into her uterus, grasped conner, pulled him up and out of the uterus without tearing it wide open, and then pulled him out at a 90 degree angle. that's supposed to be at least as reasonable as the prosecution's case?

it's easier to believe that someone then placed conner's body into a sterile plastic bag and sealed it completely airtight, thus allowing conner's body to undergo advanced decomposition internally while his exterior body was macerated and so swollen. (but what fluid was used to cushion his body in this sterile plastic bag, since it had to be floating in fluid to undergo the swelling and maceration. it can't be any fluids that 'leaked' from conner during decomp since such fluids wouldn't be sterile and would lead to exterior decomposition to match his interior--it wouldn't lead to the maceration of his body.) that's supposed to be at least as reasonable as the prosecution's case?

it's easier to believe that someone then, 4 months after kidnapping laci, transported the bodies back to the bay--in their advanced stages of decomposition. and they just happened to do it right after that storm that churned up the waters of the bay. and they placed the bodies a mile apart. wanted to make sure that the blame was solely on isp but placed the bodies a mile apart, risking that especially conner's body would never be found! and placing laci's body in a spot where they hoped (?) the water wouldn't pull her out into the bay? carrying conner's body would have been hard enough, but to carry laci's remains all that way??? that's supposed to be at least as reasonable as the prosecution's case?

there are always going to be 'well it could have happened' this way scenerios in this case and thousands of others, but 'it could have happened' does not make it reasonable.

jmo

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

This is an interesting point.

Laci told Karen Servas that she almost fell into the pool when she was in the yard because of dizziness.

According to Karen Servas - she found MacKenzie in the street with his leash on at 10:18.

Laci's car was in the drive-way.

At the trial she testified that she tried the front gate and felt a little "panicked" because it was locked.

She saw a package in the mailbox at 11:45 when returning from her errands. She saw the package again when she was leaving her home at 4:05 - almost 6 hours after she found MacKenzie.

Yet - she never knocked on the Peterson door out of concern for Laci. Or picked up the phone to call Scott or Laci to make sure everything was alright. Or peaked into the yard to see if MacKenzie was still back there with his leash on?

But it's suspicious that Scott didn't immediately get concerned when Laci wasn't home between 2:15 when he first called her and 4:45 when he returned home and he found MacKenzie in the backyard with his leash on?

yes, because isp knew laci's plans for the day. karen servas did not.

cyn

[deputydi]

that only pin points her time of when she left that morning.... it doesn't prove that is when she really put the dog up...
No. IIRC, she was backing out of her driveway when she saw MacKenzie. She stopped her car, got the dog and returned him to the Peterson's backyard. She then went on about her business. She also said she checked the time on the receipts and clocked the distance from her home to the first stop (I think it was the ATM). Her actions pretty accurately pinpointed the time she first saw the dog.

She has been criticized and called a liar and accused of changing her time to join in the "let's all frame Scott" brigade. When she was first asked about finding the dog, she estimated her time and discovered that it was incorrect. She called LE with the correct time. For this she has been accused of all kinds of things by the SII people. Just another example of how unreasonable some can be when the testimony doesn't exonerate Scott.

[TopGunner]

I agree that common sense is a rarity these days..don't forget that the majority of the public believes that Laci was in the bay for 4 months...;)



That doesn't prove to me BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months..



The evidence surrounding the baby's location doesn't prove to me BARD that he washed ashore..in fact, it indicates to me that he didn't wash ashore..so again, this evidence doesn't prove BARD that Laci was in the bay for 4 months..



It might be part of the appeal issue that is based on "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" I would say that appellate judges are too professional to laugh anything out of court..IMO, they might even reverse the conviction based on that appeal issue..


AW2B, what is this word BARD that you keep using? It's driving me nutz. :eek: I believe there wouldn't be any BARD in any case ANYWHERE in the world unless the entire crime was filmed from the minute the criminal started thinking about it, all the way till he carried it out. So, BARD is pointless.

I said those 3 things were what convinced me, common sense, Laci's conditon, and Conner a mile away. It's OK if they didn't convince you. :)

As for the location where Conner washed up...yes, I said WASHED up. I believe the experts in the case over you and I. I also believe there was a random, unprofessional experiment w/kermit the frog, who FUNNY ENOUGH, washed up just a few feet from where Conner was found. :biggrin:

[deputydi]

why would she have been stuck with the dog? he had a leash, she could have tied him up and put a bowl of water there for him or she could have put him in her backyard until she got home and then would have had time to decide what to do with him...

It's been moo from the start that KS only saw Mac when she left the 1st time and for whatever reason she left him there and went about her day..... but when she saw him later on in the day, either when she returned home or whenever, then she put him up...

and when she got the news that Laci was missing she was ashamed or afraid of what ppl would think if they knew she didn't do anything the 1st time she noticed the dog out... the dog of the pregnant neighbor who she knew to be having problems with dizzy spells....which is why her story changed so much, why she didn't knock on the door... etc etc. it's hard to keep lies straight right? But when it's the unembellished truth there should be no reason for conflicting accounts...

I don't think she did this out of malice towards Scott, I think it was to save her from any embarrassment of being asked "why didn't you do something"..
You guys always amaze me with your imagination. This may be YOO, but it flies in the face of her sworn testimony. I guess you can add her to your liar's list.

[PsychNurse;~)]

It might be part of the appeal issue that is based on "insufficient evidence to support the verdict" I would say that appellate judges are too professional to laugh anything out of court..IMO, they might even reverse the conviction based on that appeal issue..

SNIPPED (hope you don't mind)!

there's no way an appeal will be won or the convictions reversed based on insufficient evidence to support the verdicts.

bottom line--without everything else thrown in:

after amber confronted isp regarding his marital status, isp told amber he'd LOST his wife, it would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with her in january.

the VERY NEXT DAY he's looking for a boat to buy. he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci were together.

shortly thereafter he acquires a boat that not one single person could testify to knowing about; that no one else had ever seen; that had never been registered nor insured.

less than two weeks after his "lost" story to amber, laci actually is lost! and she ends up lost on the very day isp takes that boat out, driving over 4 hours round-trip in holiday traffic for less than one hour on the water.

four months later, after a storm, the bodies of laci and conner are found along the shore in the vicinity isp went 'fishing/trolling/just getting the boat in the water'.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

Scott also knew that Laci had things to do that day. And those things required her to leave the house.

Is this your interpretation of Servas' testimony about feeling panicked? What is your interpretation of her having no recollection of this feeling of panick months earlier at pre-lim? She insisted at pre-lim that she did not know if the front gate was locked because she did not try the gate.

So she told Buehler on the 25th that the front gate was locked.
She testified at pre-lim that she had no idea if the front gate was locked because she never tried it.
Then she testified at trial that she tried the front gate, it was locked and she felt panicked.

Doesn't sound like a very reliable witness to me. Yet the MPD revolved their investigation around her 10:18 timeline.

that 10:18 timeline was refined based on cell phone records and receipts, not just her word.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

and why did isp claim he'd been calling laci all day when we all know that isn't true?

cyn

[cookiewench]

Laci had done the shopping for the Christmas brunch the day before, on the 23rd. We've all seen the receipts to prove it.

That was just another one of Scott's lies.

[woohoo]

You'll get a headache with that conversion. :tongue:

Speaking of MG, there's so much of the testimony that I didn't recall, and all this cross posted that I've read back has changed my opinion about him. I still don't like him, but he's a very good defense lawyer IMO. He did his best to raise reasonable doubt and the only way he could do it was by spin. We can say he got away with a lot, which he did, but he used it as best he could. He was prepared and used good tactics.

Nothing worked, but he was limited by the word "reasonable" IMO. Anyway, the boat stunt was dispicable, not being there for the verdict was pathetic and saying he hadn't even considered putting on a penalty phase was lame, but I'll admit that he did a good job with SP, as good as could be expected considering the circumstances. Or circumstantial evidence. ;)

I agree and disagree with this opinion of Mark Geragos. I think he did a brilliant job with his cross exams of the state's witnesses, but he failed miserably when he put on his case.

I got the feeling he was convinced he had done such a good job discrediting so much of the testimony presented, and those testifying to the facts, that he didn't feel he needed more. And I think he was wrong in doing that.

[woohoo]

Scott also knew that Laci had things to do that day. And those things required her to leave the house.

Is this your interpretation of Servas' testimony about feeling panicked? What is your interpretation of her having no recollection of this feeling of panick months earlier at pre-lim? She insisted at pre-lim that she did not know if the front gate was locked because she did not try the gate.

So she told Buehler on the 25th that the front gate was locked.
She testified at pre-lim that she had no idea if the front gate was locked because she never tried it.
Then she testified at trial that she tried the front gate, it was locked and she felt panicked.

Doesn't sound like a very reliable witness to me. Yet the MPD revolved their investigation around her 10:18 timeline.

IMO there is no way to rely on Karen S. testimony completely because it did change so much. I don't think she was lying, I think she was very confused and it showed. Her testimony from the pre-lims when compared to her trial testimony was like trying to put humpty dumpty back together again.

Has there been any news of her post trial?

[TopGunner]

I agree and disagree with this opinion of Mark Geragos. I think he did a brilliant job with his cross exams of the state's witnesses, but he failed miserably when he put on his case.

I got the feeling he was convinced he had done such a good job discrediting so much of the testimony presented, and those testifying to the facts, that he didn't feel he needed more. And I think he was wrong in doing that.


Great post WH, and I completely agree. MG came out of the gate like a madman, chewing up and spitting out everyone that took the stand. Quite a performance, he's not called Hollywood for nothing. However, IMO, it doesn't matter how gifted, clever, creative, and colorful you are when you're going up against the truth. The LE should be applauded. They didn't back down, didn't get caught up in the theatrics, nor were they intimidated. I personally believe that's because they knew they had an arsenal of TRUTH against ISP.

[Lavindar]

This is an interesting point.

Laci told Karen Servas that she almost fell into the pool when she was in the yard because of dizziness.

According to Karen Servas - she found MacKenzie in the street with his leash on at 10:18.

Laci's car was in the drive-way.

At the trial she testified that she tried the front gate and felt a little "panicked" because it was locked.

She saw a package in the mailbox at 11:45 when returning from her errands. She saw the package again when she was leaving her home at 4:05 - almost 6 hours after she found MacKenzie.

Yet - she never knocked on the Peterson door out of concern for Laci. Or picked up the phone to call Scott or Laci to make sure everything was alright. Or peaked into the yard to see if MacKenzie was still back there with his leash on?

But it's suspicious that Scott didn't immediately get concerned when Laci wasn't home between 2:15 when he first called her and 4:45 when he returned home and he found MacKenzie in the backyard with his leash on?

The back gate however, WAS wide open, and if you look at a satellite of the yard, the pool is on that side of the yard. IT would seem to me that youa re blaming Karen Servas for the fact that laci was missing, that she wasn't SNOOPY enough.

It is illegal to fool with someone else's mail.

Scott, however, returns home - NOTHING he said LACI TOLD HIM she was going to do were done. The bucket of water he got for her was in the same place he left it, her purse was there, the door was unlocked, the dog was in teh yard ON A LEASH, and he doesn't even think there is anything out of the ordinary? There were no notes left for him, he hadn't been able to reach her by phone and he doesn't even check the messages until AFTER he showers.

He doesn't even call hospitals in the area to see if there was an accident. He eats. I don't know about Scott, but I eat and talk on the phone all the time. I guess he's incapable of multi-tasking. He takes obviously dirty towels out of the washer to put his clean dry clothes in.

His behavior is anything but a concerned husband imo

[Miss Bootsie]

The back gate however, WAS wide open, and if you look at a satellite of the yard, the pool is on that side of the yard. IT would seem to me that youa re blaming Karen Servas for the fact that laci was missing, that she wasn't SNOOPY enough.

It is illegal to fool with someone else's mail.

Scott, however, returns home - NOTHING he said LACI TOLD HIM she was going to do were done. The bucket of water he got for her was in the same place he left it, her purse was there, the door was unlocked, the dog was in teh yard ON A LEASH, and he doesn't even think there is anything out of the ordinary? There were no notes left for him, he hadn't been able to reach her by phone and he doesn't even check the messages until AFTER he showers.

He doesn't even call hospitals in the area to see if there was an accident. He eats. I don't know about Scott, but I eat and talk on the phone all the time. I guess he's incapable of multi-tasking. He takes obviously dirty towels out of the washer to put his clean dry clothes in.

His behavior is anything but a concerned husband imo

Not to mention, Laci's Land-Rover was in the driveway.

[Otter]

Great post WH, and I completely agree. MG came out of the gate like a madman, chewing up and spitting out everyone that took the stand. Quite a performance, he's not called Hollywood for nothing. However, IMO, it doesn't matter how gifted, clever, creative, and colorful you are when you're going up against the truth. The LE should be applauded. They didn't back down, didn't get caught up in the theatrics, nor were they intimidated. I personally believe that's because they knew they had an arsenal of TRUTH against ISP.


Welcome WH! Between you and TG, MG is sized up perfectly. This trial wasn't televised but I've never gotten beyond Winona Ryder's, little thief, trial out of my mind -- waving a piece of paper that he said was a recept. It wasn't.

Didn't work for her, didn't work for him. More's the pity. No one wanted him guilty. He was her husband, and he killed her and Conner. I so hoped he didn't do it.

[I'mSun]

*snip* what is this word BARD that you keep using? It's driving me nutz. BARD: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
- of course this doesn't apply to the Kermit swimming lesson... that was just plain stupid, IMO. :biggrin:

[ekg]

No. IIRC, she was backing out of her driveway when she saw MacKenzie. She stopped her car, got the dog and returned him to the Peterson's backyard. She then went on about her business. She also said she checked the time on the receipts and clocked the distance from her home to the first stop (I think it was the ATM). Her actions pretty accurately pinpointed the time she first saw the dog.

none of that proves she put the dog up at that time tho...



She has been criticized and called a liar and accused of changing her time to join in the "let's all frame Scott" brigade. When she was first asked about finding the dog, she estimated her time and discovered that it was incorrect. She called LE with the correct time. For this she has been accused of all kinds of things by the SII people. Just another example of how unreasonable some can be when the testimony doesn't exonerate Scott.

please..... if a witness gave 3-4 different stories that showed him to be innocent the G's would shred that person for not being able to tell the same story twice and you know it...

the fact is she did tell numerous versions of the story.... which was the truth?

[Otter]

C'mon EKG, SP sealed his own fate with his own words and actions. MOO.

If her story stayed exactly the same you'd have a point. Put yourself in her shoes -- trying to remember everything. A memory here and a memory there, nothing nefarious about it. She's being human. And she had receipts!

[ekg]

C'mon EKG, SP sealed his own fate with his own words and actions. MOO.

If her story stayed exactly the same you'd have a point. Put yourself in her shoes -- trying to remember everything. A memory here and a memory there, nothing nefarious about it. She's being human. And she had receipts!

I don't believe she was being nefarious at all.... I think she was trying to help... and I think she didn't want ppl to ask or think "why didn't you do something' when she saw and left Mac in the road the 1st time she saw him:D


as for a memory here, memory there.... well, you just remember you said that otter....:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

hi TAI:seeya:

yes, that's always bothered me also and it's why I just can't put 100% faith into KS 'dizzy' story..

at the very least you'd think she'd knock on the door.... when my neighbors dog gets out I don't just walk into their backyard and put him up, I knock on the door to see if someones home 1st..

but that's just me..... and I know my neighbors pretty well, but not well enough to go prancing into the backyard without knocking on their door 1st..


She DID go into the back yard looking to see if anyone was there. There was not. Karen was on her way to do things. Maybe she's not a window-peeping kind of person.

[woohoo]

I wonder why the prosecution asked several witnesses about barnacles..and Distaso brought it up in his closing argument telling the jury that the presence of barnacles on Laci's body was consistent with Laci being in a marine environment...!

What other evidence points to Laci being in a marine environment? she was FOUND on the shore..that's it! that doesn't prove BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months and washed ashore..

If she was really in the bay It doesn't prove who put here there or when. Lot of people were on the waters of the bay after this news event went national.

[Lavindar]

none of that proves she put the dog up at that time tho...




please..... if a witness gave 3-4 different stories that showed him to be innocent the G's would shred that person for not being able to tell the same story twice and you know it...

the fact is she did tell numerous versions of the story.... which was the truth?


She changed the time when she checked her receipt from Austins - she then timed a trip doing EVERYTHING she did that morningL:

SERVAS: Yeah, first I found my receipt from Austin Christmas Store, and then I received my cell phone records when my cell phone bill came.

DISTASO: Okay.

JUDGE: Do you want that marked next in order?

DISTASO: Yes, Your Honor, this is People's 28. It's a receipt from Austin's Christmas Store.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: And when did you find this particular receipt?

SERVAS: I found it in my jeans pocket on December 28th when I went to do my laundry.

DISTASO: And I showed you People's 28 there, is that a, is that the actual receipt that you found?

SERVAS: That's my receipt.

DISTASO: Okay. What time was it that it shows you made a purchase at Austin's Christmas Store?

SERVAS: It says 10:34 am.

DISTASO: Ms. Servas, this is so faint that I don't think that it's going to show up on the document camera, so can you just read where it's from and the date and the time.

SERVAS: It says Austin's Christmas Store, 12/24/2003, 10:34 a.m., Clerk No. 1.

DISTASO: Let me see the date, I think you said 2003.

SERVAS: I said, oh, no, I said, did I say 2003?

DISTASO: That's what I heard.

SERVAS: 2002. 12/24/2002.

DISTASO: The date on there is 12/24/2002?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: The, after you found that receipt, and then did you also get your cell phone bill and did you look up the call where you called, you said Tom Egan?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: I'll have this marked next in order, Your Honor. It's a cell phone bill.

JUDGE: 29, cell phone bill

DISTASO: And do you remember calling Mr. Egan after you left of the Austin's Christmas Store?

SERVAS: Right. I called him after I left Austin's and he returned my call after I got out of the car wash.


DISTASO: Okay. Do you see that phone call, let me just ask you, is People's 29 a copy of your cell phone records?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And do you see that phone call that you just told us about on those records?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And what time was that phone call?

SERVAS: The phone call that I made after I got out of Austin's?

DISTASO: Yes.

SERVAS: Is at 10:38 a.m.

DISTASO: Can you just take this highlighter and highlight that on the bill.

SERVAS: Okay.

DISTASO: Just highlight where that call is.

SERVAS: (marking the bill.)

DISTASO: Did you then at some point after getting these documents and looking at the times, did you then try to recreate the events that you did that morning in order to try to backtrack the time to when you think you found the dog?

SERVAS: I recreated the events after I found this receipt, but before I got my cell phone records.

DISTASO: Okay. And can you tell, just tell the jury what you did.

SERVAS: Well, what I did was basically went through the motions of that morning. I opened the door out of my house. I went into my car, backed out of the driveway in the same direction that I did. And at the same time that I imagined finding McKenzie, I started my stopwatch. And then I pulled my car to the side of the road and went through the exact motions that I went through, including going into my house, getting back into my car, driving around the Bank of America twice, pulling up in front of Austin's, and that's the point that I stopped my watch.

DISTASO: Okay. And based on that recreation that you did, is that how you were able to determine that you found the dog approximately 10:18 in the morning?



That is CLARIFYING, not changing.
SERVAS: Correct.

[cookiewench]

I don't believe she was being nefarious at all.... I think she was trying to help... and I think she didn't want ppl to ask or think "why didn't you do something' when she saw and left Mac in the road the 1st time she saw him:D


as for a memory here, memory there.... well, you just remember you said that otter....:biggrin:

I seriously don't think that any sane person would ask "why didn't you do something". That's just a fantasy, IMO.

She was a neighbor, not Laci's best friend. What she did with the dog was perfectly normal. She had not a reason in the world to thing that some terrible thing had happened.

I'll never understand this bashing of and questioning the motives of every collateral person in this case. They are not the criminals or muderers - Scott is.

[cookiewench]

If my neighbor knocked on my door and I didn't answer (because I was asleep or in the shower, etc.), and then I walked into the living room and found them peeping in my window, I'd be totally freaked out.

I'd think it was creepy, and I'd politely distance myself from the person after that.

[Lavindar]

none of that proves she put the dog up at that time tho...




please..... if a witness gave 3-4 different stories that showed him to be innocent the G's would shred that person for not being able to tell the same story twice and you know it...

the fact is she did tell numerous versions of the story.... which was the truth?


Her time was verified through an Austin's receipt and cell phone records and not just "memories"

[Hey Paula]

Hi Lavindar!

Ironically, IIRC, it was Scott who asked Karen Servas to check her timeline again, and like the meringue harangue, it was to his detriment.

IMO

[Lavindar]

If she was really in the bay It doesn't prove who put here there or when. Lot of people were on the waters of the bay after this news event went national.
Yeah, lots of law enforcement too

[I'mSun]

I wonder why the prosecution asked several witnesses about barnacles..and Distaso brought it up in his closing argument telling the jury that the presence of barnacles on Laci's body was consistent with Laci being in a marine environment...!

What other evidence points to Laci being in a marine environment? she was FOUND on the shore..that's it! that doesn't prove BARD that she was in the bay for 4 months and washed ashore..Dr's Lee, Wecht and Peterson agreed on this too. What more proof do you need? OK, just for fun - can you prove that she was NOT in a marine environment while the condition of her body gives the impression she was?

[woohoo]

I don't believe she was being nefarious at all.... I think she was trying to help... and I think she didn't want ppl to ask or think "why didn't you do something' when she saw and left Mac in the road the 1st time she saw him:D


as for a memory here, memory there.... well, you just remember you said that otter....:biggrin:

I do agree with this. IMO I don't think a little here and a little there should apply under oath. If you don't know or don't remember...then say so. That's hard for people to do when on the stand. They think if they're asked a question, they should have an answer or an opinion etc and that's not true and is in fact detrimental to the whole procedure.

I don't think she had any intentions of "framing" Scott. I think her first "memory" of when she left home was probably the best. There must have been more than we know to cause her to change her mind.

I don't know how she got away with so many changes.

[Lavindar]

I do agree with this. IMO I don't think a little here and a little there should apply under oath. If you don't know or don't remember...then say so. That's hard for people to do when on the stand. They think if they're asked a question, they should have an answer or an opinion etc and that's not true and is in fact detrimental to the whole procedure.

I don't think she had any intentions of "framing" Scott. I think her first "memory" of when she left home was probably the best. There must have been more than we know to cause her to change her mind.

I don't know how she got away with so many changes.

She did NOT change - she clarified. Did she ever say that she didn't go to Austins. She found the receipt from there and timed how long it took her to make the trip. A change is a significant difference. SCOTT ASKED HER TO DOUBLE CHECK HER STORY, Based on the time on the receipt, there was no way she put the dog in the yard at 1030 - she would have been in Austins at that time. She was being HONEST

[woohoo]

She did NOT change - she clarified. Did she ever say that she didn't go to Austins. She found the receipt from there and timed how long it took her to make the trip. A change is a significant difference. SCOTT ASKED HER TO DOUBLE CHECK HER STORY, Based on the time on the receipt, there was no way she put the dog in the yard at 1030 - she would have been in Austins at that time. She was being HONEST

I still feel she was confused. Example, she says she found the receipt from Austins on December 28th when she went to do her laundry.
But she also says she was in Sante Fe New Mexico visiting friends.

Hum. Well maybe she took her laundry to Sante Fe with her??:shrug:

DISTASO: And when did you find this particular receipt?

SERVAS: I found it in my jeans pocket on December 28th when I went to do my laundry.

Later in testimony....

DISTASO: The, you said that you have received a phone call on the 28th from Scott Peterson asking you if you could kind of narrow your time frame down or kind of find by minute when you actually found the dog?

SERVAS: Yes, he left a cell phone message for me.

DISTASO: And is that call also reflected on those phone records in front of you?

DISTASO: Okay. And where were you at the time?

SERVAS: I was in Sante Fe, New Mexico.

DISTASO: And what date was it that you called him back?

SERVAS: December 28th.

[Lavindar]

I still feel she was confused. Example, she says she found the receipt from Austins on December 28th when she went to do her laundry.
But she also says she was in Sante Fe New Mexico visiting friends.

Hum. Well maybe she took her laundry to Sante Fe with her??:shrug:

DISTASO: And when did you find this particular receipt?

SERVAS: I found it in my jeans pocket on December 28th when I went to do my laundry.

Later in testimony....

DISTASO: The, you said that you have received a phone call on the 28th from Scott Peterson asking you if you could kind of narrow your time frame down or kind of find by minute when you actually found the dog?

SERVAS: Yes, he left a cell phone message for me.

DISTASO: And is that call also reflected on those phone records in front of you?

DISTASO: Okay. And where were you at the time?

SERVAS: I was in Sante Fe, New Mexico.

DISTASO: And what date was it that you called him back?

SERVAS: December 28th.


Maybe she was doing her laundry in Sante Fe. Or she was doing her laundry to prepare for the trip to Santa Fe. It doesn't say a time of day. She's an executive. If you tear apart every witness allow me to do the same. Nit picking isn't gonna change anything. Her cell phone records for the 24 back up her receipt time also.

[Lavindar]

223) Karen Servas: In general, yes.
224) Mark Geragos: Then you returned, you told him that you recall returning home at about noon?
225) Karen Servas: It was between 11:45 and noon that I returned home.
226

Yet Karen saw no van in front of the Medinas and she lived directly across the street from them.

Diane Jackson reported seeing the van at 11:40. They sure got out of their fast after seeing Jackson, didn't they - no time to put laci in the van.

[Lavindar]

250) Mark Geragos: Yeah.
251) Karen Servas: No, I had found the receipt earlier that day on the 28th when I went to do my laundry. I found it in my pants pocket as I was cleaning my pants out.
252) Mark Geragos: And the receipt says 10:34?
255) Karen Servas: Yes.
256) Mark Geragos: Right. So at that point you tried to reconstruct exactly what you had done between the time of finding McKenzie and getting over to Austin's, based on your assumption that Austin's receipt or the time line was accurate?
257) Karen Servas: Right. I recreated it when I got back to Modesto.
258) Mark Geragos: Right. So you started with that suggestion that the receipt says 10:34. If that's accurate, an accurate time, then you worked backwards in terms of, I think you said you had a stopwatch timing yourself?
259) Karen Servas: Right.
260) Mark Geragos: Now, when you did that you came up with approximately, I think the next time you said the interview, you told the police you thought it was about 10:20; is that correct?
261) Karen Servas: No, I wrote it, I wrote a note to Detective Buehler that outlined specifically. My next contact with them was when I turned it, the actual, physical receipt over and I handwrote a note that detailed exactly what I did that morning, and so my next report to them was that it was 10:18.
262) Mark Geragos: 10:18, based on the receipt and working backwards, correct?
263) Karen Servas: Correct.
264) Mark Geragos: Okay. Now the, you told the officers, so you wrote the, you wrote the officers a note, told them that you worked backwards, it took you about, your estimate was 16 minutes to do this?
265) Karen Servas: Yeah, 11 minutes to drive from my house after finding, you know, finding the dog, going through the motions, driving and getting to Austin's, to the point of finding the dog, to the point of getting to Austin's was 11 minutes, and I spent, what I approximated as about five minutes in Austin's making my purchase.
266) Mark Geragos: Then you, and so all of those are based on the, what the estimate of Austin's for five minutes, that's your best guess as you were sitting there recreating it in your head?
267) Karen Servas: Yeah, I mean 10:18 is the latest I could have found the dog because there is no way I could have left any later and did what I did and made the calls that I made and gotten home by the time I had gotten home if it had been later than 10:18. That's the latest that I approximated.
268) Mark Geragos: Now, at the preliminary hearing, when I went through and you and I went through the time line and you had, I had asked you how long you were at home, and you said you got there at about 11:45 or 12:00 and you said right, do you remember that?

Note that the note to Buehler with the 10:18 time WRITTEN ON IT was entered into evidence. So Geragos was doing his little word play when he said 10:20

[deputydi]

<snip>I don't know how she got away with so many changes.

Other than clarifying her time, what significant changes did she make in her story?

[Lavindar]

IMO, if Laci was not abducted, then she might have been able to finish all of the things Scott said she was going to do.

Girls and guys are quite different from each other. Most guys I know don't like talking on the phone, let alone do other things while on the phone. There were no notes for Scott because the abductors did not allow her to leave a note.
Scott was in the process of calling the hospitals and the police, but this was interupted by Sharon's call. This information comes from Grogans testimony. Scott told Grogan he was looking the numbers up in the phone book. After a while of being in the evidence, Grogan took out the phone book and realized that no matter what page of the phone book you are in, it automattically opened to the page that was shown when they saw it on the counter.

Sharon is the one that told Scott to meet her at the park and that Ron would call 911. This was not a time for Scott to argue and say he wanted to call. Then this was used against him later. In fact, it was one of Grogan's 41 reasons.

I don't know about Laci, but most people do not take their purses with them for a walk in the park.
McKenzie was found in the road going towards his home. This tells me he and Laci was walking in the park when Laci was abducted and he went home not knowing what else to do. There is an entrance/exit not even a block from Laci's house. I would guess McKenzie come out this direction.
As for the time of 10:18, this was the second time she gave to the police and it was also from her back tracking. The owner of the store where she went had to cash register machines. The one Karen used was old and it did not keep time right.They tested it and it showed that it could not be counted on for the right time.

Your fallacious thinking is incredible imo and not backed up by facts in testiomny.

1. Where were the cookies she baked? Where were the grocieries she was goine to by?

2. Scott sure LOVED talking to Amber for HOURS at a time. The transcripts of some of the calls he made to her are 60 pages long. Guess, talking to Amber was different, huh? You sure can't say that a man, who walked around with a cell phone in his ear all the time, didn't like to talk on the phone.

3. Scott called Sharon FIRST. She told him to call the hospitals There were only two hospitals in Modesto at that time. It wouldn't take long to call them.

4. You are saying that she would leave thousands of dollars worth of jewelry in plain site and not lock her house. A woman who carries pepper spray in her purse is someone who would DEFINITELY take it with her walking a dog. She also was not wearing a coat in 41 degree weather - cold, clammy winter Modesto.

5. Karen saw the dog STANDING in the middle of the street, not walking home. The gate to the back yard was open. Mac was not dirty like the leash.

6. The cash register was tested YEARS AFTER the receipt. The receipt time was backed up with a cell phone call (records) and an ATM receipt. Are you trying to claim all three times were wrong? The resister time was reset every year when put into use. Why do you quote Geragos and not testimony? IT's like Geragos said it so it's the truth.

As for abductors, who were these abductors. They did NOT enter the home as nothing was disturbed PER SCOTT. IF you are referring to the white van people, they would have had to take her, subdue her, and get her into the van and be gone in less than 5 minutes.. If you are referring to Todd and Pearce, they were not seen that morning. Laci could not have seen the Medina front lawn from inside her house and she was NOT seen outside by ANYONE,. As a member of neighborhood watch (which she was), you are specifically told to call the police, NOT CONFRONT ANYONE. Laci wanted this child badly. She would not endanger her baby like that.

Laci never made it to the park. She was not seen there by anyone - in fact, the one pregnant woman seen in the park at close enough range to be seen during the time frame was seen by Chris Van Sant. Read his testimony - IT WAS NOT LACI. NO ONE ELSE TESTIFIED to her being in the park at all. You are basing your information on MEDIA reports and they cannot be considered in an appeal. Grogan also discounts them one by one in his testimony

[Lavindar]

snipped
As for the time of 10:18, this was the second time she gave to the police and it was also from her back tracking.
The owner of the store where she went had to cash register machines. The one Karen used was old and it did not keep time right.
They tested it and it showed that it could not be counted on for the right time.

What a BLATANT LIE. Karen testified that she found the receipt, backtracked, wrote the information on the receipt and gave it to the police. IT WAS ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE with her writing on it. It was Geragos who tried to get the other time into testimony but Karen would not say she ever said that and they had the information to back her up.

HARRIS: And the register that you're talking about, that primary register, did that receipt come from that primary register for the Christmas shop?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

HARRIS: Do you make sure that the time is set on those registers?

AUSTIN: Yeah. We program the register at the start of the season. It's part of the programming procedure. Date and time has to be accurate.

HARRIS: How is that done?

AUSTIN: The young gentleman that sets them up goes to the phone line, picks up the time off the phone and coordinates that with the register.

HARRIS:. From your personal experience, do you confirm at some point in time that they're using it or checking it later that the time is accurate?

AUSTIN: Yes.

HARRIS: And from looking at that receipt, was that an accurate time on that receipt?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

SEE HOW GERAGOS TRIES TO GET HIS INFORMATION IN:

GERAGOS: There's actually four cash registers in the store on December 24th of 2002, correct?

AUSTIN: No, sir.

GERAGOS: You had,

AUSTIN: Three. GERAGOS: Three, you had four cash registers.


Here's what you are relying on:

GERAGOS: Okay. Isn't it true that those two, even though they show approximately being 50 minutes apart, or 49 minutes apart, were actually run up just ten minutes apart?

AUSTIN: I have no recollection of how far apart those were rung up.

Geragos enters those into evidence



HARRIS: Mr. Austin, just so we're clear about this, the date, you were asked about the time on these particular exhibits.

AUSTIN: Uh-huh.

HARRIS: I'll let you look at it. This was done in 2004; is that correct?

AUSTIN: Yes.

HARRIS: And that was done in January?

AUSTIN: Oh, according to this one was on the 14th, one was on the 20th.

HARRIS: Of January of 2004?

Those times were not 10 minutes apart, they were 6 days apart.!!!!!!!!

[woohoo]

Maybe she was doing her laundry in Sante Fe. Or she was doing her laundry to prepare for the trip to Santa Fe. It doesn't say a time of day. She's an executive. If you tear apart every witness allow me to do the same. Nit picking isn't gonna change anything. Her cell phone records for the 24 back up her receipt time also.

I'm not nit picking Karen Servas. Back when it seemed they were basing so much on her timeline, I read her testimony at length trying to figure out in my own mind, for my own purposes, not trying to convict or clear anyone. And there were so many changes, or corrections, as some say, it was curious to me. And there were quite a few differences in her testimony so I was left with "what is her real testimony.

[woohoo]

She DID go into the back yard looking to see if anyone was there. There was not. Karen was on her way to do things. Maybe she's not a window-peeping kind of person.

This reminds me - when she was walking to the back yard she said she heard a "raking sound." Did anyone ever follow up on that? Is there anything further on it?

[woohoo]

If you tear apart every witness allow me to do the same. Nit picking isn't gonna change anything. Her cell phone records for the 24 back up her receipt time also.

My point was if there are so many "curiosities" for lack of a better word, in her stories, how can we accept her calculations of time to be correct? Based on her "leaving time."

[ekg]

If my neighbor knocked on my door and I didn't answer (because I was asleep or in the shower, etc.), and then I walked into the living room and found them peeping in my window, I'd be totally freaked out.

I'd think it was creepy, and I'd politely distance myself from the person after that.

but you wouldn't mind if they didn't knock and you looked out your window and found them in your backyard??


see, I'd find that creepier than peeping...

[woohoo]

Other than clarifying her time, what significant changes did she make in her story?

It all depends on a person's opinion of "significant." The way the changes were significant to me had STRICTLY to do with wondering if she was a reliable witness. PLUS I don't believe there was full disclosure about that receipt from Austins.

But the changes she made seem to reflect on her as a witness were:

At trial she said:
SERVAS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. All right. Now you said you went and tried the front gate?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And is that the gate right here (pointing)?
TRIAL TESTIMONY
SERVAS: Yeah. Right there.

DISTASO: Okay. So you walk across your lawn here (pointing) and you tried the front gate, is that right?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.
But her preliminary testimony had been:
Q. Which gate was locked? If you could just put an "L" for "locked" on there.
A. Now, whether or not it was locked, I don't know.
Q. But you tried it and --
A. But --
Q. -- you couldn't get in?
A. No. As I walked and got in front of this gate, I heard something in the backyard, so I did not actually go like this and try to open the gate. I figured to go in, to try the side. I normally would go in the side anyway. But it would have been this gate.

Same gate:
SERVAS: Yes, I noticed that Laci's car was there, so I went, and as I came around the corner, the side gate, which is located right here, was open, it was ajar, and so I figured she must be in the backyard so I walked into the backyard with the dog.
and later: SERVAS: I can't remember if it was flat against the fence, but it was wide open. It wasn't, it was at least 90 degrees. It was wide open. - not very significant but a change in what she was remembering.

But the time she left her house the second time was significant to me. Even though you say she "corrected" it - her reasons for giving the time under oath are questionable. She said she looked at a clock!!
GERAGOS: Then I asked, when did you next leave your home. And you told me I left my home at 5:05.

SERVAS: Right. I did say that at the prelim.

GERAGOS: And I said, how do you know the exact time?

SERVAS: And you said, because as I pulled out of my driveway, I looked at the clock in my car because I was late. And I did, yeah.

But her reason for changing that time was:
DISTASO: So using that Daytimer entry, did that refresh your memory that at the time you left was exactly 4:05?

Think about it. If she looked at her clock - rushing around because she was late-thinking it was 5:05 - when she got to the appointment wouldn't it become clear that she was not late? That the time was 4 and not 5? Why would an entry found later in a daytimer jog her memory? And it did make a lot of difference in what time she left because if she DID leave at 5:05 she would not have been able to see the package at the Petersons.

So for these and other reasons I was doubtful of her testimony. I dont think she was trying to purposely hurt or frame Scott, I think she was confused, coerced, and maybe afraid. It was a scary time for all concerned.

[ekg]

Her time was verified through an Austin's receipt and cell phone records and not just "memories"


maybe you should tell otter that then since she's the one who said "A memory here and a memory there"

and none of that proves she didn't just leave the dog there that morning and then get him later on in the day when she saw he was still out..

[woohoo]

But while on Karen Servas's testimony which leads to Bill Austin and HIS testimony. He has been known not to always tell the truth.
First consider the address of his store:
Austin’s Pool & Deck Furniture/Christmas Store
701 I St
Modesto, CA 95354
Then consider a story which ran early in the trial when all the "cult" crapola was flying around:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125146
ABC news report:
Modesto authorities aren't talking about the satanic cult theory, but early on in the investigation police briefly looked into the idea after receiving an anonymous tip, according to a man who was questioned in the case.
Modesto furniture store owner Bill Austin says police investigating Laci Peterson's disappearance contacted him in January and asked him about a possible cult connection. Store Owner: Police Responded to Cult Call
"Early in the investigation, one of the detectives called me on the phone. He said he had received a phone tip about a cult that was operating out of my building," Austin said. Austin says he told the detective he knows nothing about cults and doesn't believe one is operating out of his building. He said he never heard anything more about the cult from police after that initial phone call.
Now consider this address:
Order of the Silver Crescent 701 I Street, Modesto, CA The whole address links are located here:
http://www.geocities.com/slvrphoenix/states.html

I wonder why Austin knows nothing about The Silver Crescent Order that is housed in his building at the same address as his store?
It may not be a "cult" I don't know but he denied any knowledge of anything. I would like to know who called in that tip to detectives and why. If they know.

[ekg]

Not to mention, Laci's Land-Rover was in the driveway.




I'm re-reading her cross in the trial... and she had more of a meltdown that whatshisname from the defense did...

she all of a sudden for the 1st time testifies that she saw the pkg at 11:45.. she says she told MPD on the phone when she called to say she was wrong in her pre-lim testimony..... but her saying that is no where in anyone report..when asked she insists she told him on the phone.... finally she admits she didn't tell him...

and she said she wanted to file a complaint against MG b/c she got a visit from someone with The Globe on the same day MG mentioned 'mysterious woman' in the press..... but she didn't say that either in her report... she said in her report to LE that it had something to do with MG since both MG and the Globe guy were from LA..so she wanted to file a complaint against MG b/c the globe was coming to see her..

she knows she didn't see the pkg at 5:05 b/c it would have been dark...and she knows she had to be in Ripon at 4:05 and she was 5 minutes late when she left at 4:05...... if she had to be there by 4pm and was leaving her house at 4:05pm she was very way more than 5 minutes late..



her whole testimony is convoluted and messed up....not too mention she completely melted down and when confronted with her LE reports to refresh her memory still wouldn't give..... so either MPD totally messed up everything she told them....... or :shrug:

[ekg]

I seriously don't think that any sane person would ask "why didn't you do something". That's just a fantasy, IMO.

She was a neighbor, not Laci's best friend. What she did with the dog was perfectly normal. She had not a reason in the world to thing that some terrible thing had happened.

I'll never understand this bashing of and questioning the motives of every collateral person in this case. They are not the criminals or muderers - Scott is.

I'll never understand the bashing of his parents either... so we're even...:biggrin:

I can totally believe everyone in this case would ask themselves "what if" and "Of only I had" or even "why didn't I..."

[woohoo]

she knows she didn't see the pkg at 5:05 b/c it would have been dark...and she knows she had to be in Ripon at 4:05 and she was 5 minutes late when she left at 4:05...... if she had to be there by 4pm and was leaving her house at 4:05pm she was very way more than 5 minutes late..

hi ekg,
I don't know if you read my earlier post but We're talking about the same part of her testimony. The important part to me was she had testified under oath that she knew it was 5:05 BECAUSE SHE LOOKED AT HER CLOCK IN THE CAR. (not yelling-just emphasis)That was important to me, because even if given the benefit of the doubt and you say she hadn't changed her clock in the car for DST, surely as she was getting dressed in the house she would have done so by a clock with the correct time, then when she got in her car would have realized that something was off!!

[enlightenme]

maybe you should tell otter that then since she's the one who said "A memory here and a memory there"

and none of that proves she didn't just leave the dog there that morning and then get him later on in the day when she saw he was still out..

What??? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean about later on in the day when she saw he was STILL out.

[woohoo]

her whole testimony is convoluted and messed up....not too mention she completely melted down and when confronted with her LE reports to refresh her memory still wouldn't give..... so either MPD totally messed up everything she told them....... or :shrug:

So my question is: if the judge would not allow the boat demonstration based on not being able to recreate everything exactly as it was or whatever terminology he used, why would Servas's testimony of "backtracking" be allowed. Granted, she had receipts for when she was at Austin's and when she got the phone call, but who is to say where she was in between, and the time it took her to get there EXCEPT HER?

Her "stopwatch" documentation was also a demonstration of sorts and there was no way she could re-create the traffic etc exactly as it was on that day IMO. I can't see where the prosecutors could be allowed to use that testimony with no "documentation" other than her say so. Sometimes, in court cases, videos of events are kept out because the author of it cannot be authenticated in such a way as to be deemed reliable.

Couldn't that possibly be used in an appeal?

[ekg]

Other than clarifying her time, what significant changes did she make in her story?

that not only did she see the pkg at 11:45 that day, but that she told LE she saw it...

but then changes her mind to she didn't tell anyone.. or doesn't know who she told...



801. I saw the package twice that day.



802. I asked you if you told him



803. When?



804. I told him that when I called him back. I said I couldn't have seen -- what I'm saying is, the reason I know that I left later is that it would have been too dark for me to see the package at 5:05, so I went back and checked my records and knew that I had left five minutes late because I was supposed to be there now at 4:00.



805. Can you read this report and tell me anywhere in that report where it says you saw the package at 11:45?



806. THE COURT: Just read it to yourself.



807. MR. GERAGOS: Read it to yourself.



808. No, there's nothing in here, but I saw the package at 11:45.



809. You just testified, you told this jury that you told the investigator that you saw the package at 11:45.



810. Which investigator?



811. Bertalotto. Isn't that what you just testified to?



812. No, that's not what I just said.



813. THE COURT You didn't say that?



814. I didn't say --



815. Okay. Let me --



816. I may have said that to him. You want to know the fact, the fact is I saw the package at 11:45. That is the fact. No matter who I told it to, that is the fact that I saw it when I came home and I saw it when I left.



817. When you talked to Bertalotto did you tell him that it was currently getting near Christmas time and the time of year that Laci Peterson went missing. She noticed it's getting dark before 5:00. That caused her to reflect more closely on the time she left her house on the evening of 12/24. Is that what you told him?



818. That probably is a fair representation, yes. It's probably not verbatim.



819. Did you tell him that Servas is sure that she could see a package in the Peterson mailbox as she was leaving to go to Ripon. And as dark as it is at 5:00, she said to me she doesn't think she can see the package and doesn't remember it being dark when she left.



820. It wasn't dark when I left that, that afternoon, that's correct.



821. Right. And I'm asking you, is that what you told him?



822. Yeah.



823. Did you tell him that you had seen that same package at 11:45 in this same conversation?



824. No, I didn't say that at that time.



825. Did you --



826. But I saw the package.



827. When did you tell him?



828. Tell Bertalotto that I saw the package?



829. Yeah.



830. At 11:45 or that the time that I left the house?



831. When did you tell him that you saw the package at 11:45?



832. I don't know when I specifically told him that



and here is the convoluted filing of the complaint






833. Now, the -- you also at one point had tried to file a complaint with the Modesto PD on me, didn't you? Didn't you call up the police and tell them that you wanted to file a complaint against me?



834. Yes, I did.



835. Okay. Did you tell them that a National Enquirer reporter had come to someplace where you were and that the person gave you a card, and because they were from Los Angeles, you assumed I must have sent them?



836. No, that's not true.



837. You didn't tell them that, you didn't tell the police that?



838. No. What happened was somebody -- I was at work, somebody said that there is a Bob Smith or Bob White or whatever, waiting to see you. And I went out, he introduced me as a person from the Globe magazine and that he wanted to talk to me. The assumption I made was because you had made a statement during the day about some mystery woman, that he was assuming that I was the mystery woman that had information about Laci's disappearance, and so that's how I tied that together and that is why I called the detective. I was very upset that somebody had come to my workplace to speak to me.



839. That's not what you told the police, though, is it?



840. That is what I told them.



841. Didn't you tell the police that specifically because the guy gave you a card and he's from Los Angeles and I'm from Los Angeles that, therefore, you think I sent him there?



842. No, that's not true because he never gave me a business card.



843. So you never told the police that?



844. No.

snipped for space


856. MR. GERAGOS: Yeah. Servas advised she wants to file a complaint against Mark Geragos believing this visit was possibly tied to his involvement in the case since the Globe reporter admittedly came from Los Angeles. Is that what you told the officer?



857. THE WITNESS: Can I see that, please?



858. Yes, you can. Right there. Is that what you told him?



859. Wait a minute. I haven't finished reading the sentence. Can I read it again, please.



860. THE COURT: Can you let the witness finish reading it.



861. THE WITNESS: Can you just leave it here while I mac my statement. Thank you. I don't believe that it was tied to your involvement in the case because the person was from Los Angeles, but it was because of the statement you made to the press.



862. MR. GERAGOS: Did you tell the officer that you believe that because the Globe reporter is from the Los Angeles bureau that, and I was from Los Angeles, that you believe there was a connection?



863. No, I believed it was because of the statement you made to the press.



864. Did you tell that to the officer to Detective Buehler?



865. I told him that I was aware that a statement had been made earlier in the day and that there was some mystery woman out there and I felt that it was tied to that.



866. And so that's why you wanted to file the complaint?



867. Yes, absolutely

[attorneywan2be]

none of that proves she put the dog up at that time tho...




please..... if a witness gave 3-4 different stories that showed him to be innocent the G's would shred that person for not being able to tell the same story twice and you know it...

the fact is she did tell numerous versions of the story.... which was the truth?


Hey..that reminds me of the witnesses who reported seeing Laci...their timeline was held against them BIG TIME...no one here wanted to cut them some slack..LOL
Obviously, you do not expect the witnesses to look at their watches when they saw Laci..on the other hand, you would think that Karen would know what time she left the house to take care of her errands..

[Lavindar]

none of that proves she put the dog up at that time tho...




please..... if a witness gave 3-4 different stories that showed him to be innocent the G's would shred that person for not being able to tell the same story twice and you know it...

the fact is she did tell numerous versions of the story.... which was the truth?

She told only one version of the story. The time changed. She originally told the police she put the dog in at 1030, but her receipt from Austins said she checked out at 1034 so she could not have put the dog in the yard. She found the receipt, retraced her steps exactly and timed them. The LATEST (in the testimony) is that she put the dog in at 1018. Also, she wrote all this down on then receipt and submitted it to the police. Garegos tried to say in cross that she said 1020 which she denied. Prosecution wound up putting the original receipt in evidence proving that she only changed the time once.

Geragos tried to prove the register was inaccurate by providing two separate receipt from two separate days and saying they were taken 10 minutes apart. They were also over 2 years later. He also tried to say that Austins had four registeres when Austin testified to 3.

Karen only changed her time once. And this was also backed up by her cell phone records and an atm receipt.

What I question is that Geragos accepts her returning home time of 1145-noon, yet she never saw a safe or body or a van across the street. So the "safe" and the burglers would have had to load the safe, and a struggling, kidnapped woman into their van and left in a very short window of time. Another case of Geragos shooting himself in the foot with meringe

[woohoo]

I still feel ths dialog concerning her memory of what she did that day are important:

DISTASO: Okay. So you walk across your lawn here (pointing) and you tried the front gate, is that right?
SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: And what happened?

SERVAS: Well, I felt a little panic because the gate was locked, but then I heard some raking in the backyard and so I figured I'd go try and see if the side gate was unlocked or open.

BUT IN Earlier testimony:

DISTASO: Which gate was locked? If you could just put an "L" for "locked" on there.
SERVAS: Now, whether or not it was locked, I don't know.
DISTASO: But you tried it and --
SERVAS: But --
DISTASO: -- you couldn't get in?
SERVAS: No. As I walked and got in front of this gate, I heard something in the backyard, so I did not actually go like this and try to open the gate. I figured to go in, to try the side. I normally would go in the side anyway. But it would have been this gate.

[cookiewench]

Hey..that reminds me of the witnesses who reported seeing Laci...their timeline was held against them BIG TIME...no one here wanted to cut them some slack..LOL
Obviously, you do not expect the witnesses to look at their watches when they saw Laci..on the other hand, you would think that Karen would know what time she left the house to take care of her errands..

Did any of these witnesses testify in court? If not, why? Why didn't Geragos call them in?

[ekg]

hi ekg,
I don't know if you read my earlier post but We're talking about the same part of her testimony. The important part to me was she had testified under oath that she knew it was 5:05 BECAUSE SHE LOOKED AT HER CLOCK IN THE CAR. (not yelling-just emphasis)That was important to me, because even if given the benefit of the doubt and you say she hadn't changed her clock in the car for DST, surely as she was getting dressed in the house she would have done so by a clock with the correct time, then when she got in her car would have realized that something was off!!

yes I just read your post....... it just doesn't make any sense when added to "I knew I was going to be 5 minutes late" when she was going to have to drive for atleast 15 minutes to get to Ripon... that would make her alot more than 5 minutes late..

the whole thing is just bizarre.. and it makes me question whether she was hiding the fact that she didn't put the dog up that morning, but put him up later in the day...add that into to her hearing the rustling sounds and I can totally believe she'd be afraid ppl would look at her like she didn't help enough..


here's another 'weird' part




177. Okay. So you walk across your lawn here (indicating) and you tried the front gate, is that right?



178. Yes, I did.



179. And what happened?



180. Well, I felt a little panic because the gate was locked, but then I heard some raking in the backyard and so I figured I'd go try and see if the side gate was unlocked or open



snipped and jumped to cross.


681. And you heard some sounds, originally you said you heard a sound and you thought it was coming from the backyard; is that correct?



682. Right.



683. Okay. Then when you went back in there you didn't suspect anything unusual, correct?



684. Correct.



685. You didn't see any signs of any struggle or anything else in the backyard when you went back there, correct?



686. It was very quiet, so, no, I didn't see anything like that.

she heard raking, but it was very quiet???



I think she walked in on whatever was going on and I think she knows it.... but was embarrassed b/c she didn't help more, or alert anyone...look at what she's confronted with

she knows Laci is alone,pregnant and has issues with being dizzy
she finds the dog in the middle of the road
she finds the gate wide open
she hears raking noises from the backyard but doesn't look for the source, just leaves the dog and goes back on her way
she gets a call telling her something has happened to Laci..

IMO she was totally afraid someone would ask her why she didn't do something.... and that's why her testimony is so weird.. it's hard to keep the lies straight from what I've been told..I don't think she was doing it out of spite or b/c shes evil... I think she really wanted to help b/c she doesn't think she helped enough that day.

WH, do you know if Scott mentioned whether the leash was wet and muddy

[ekg]

What??? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean about later on in the day when she saw he was STILL out.

I have said for a few posts now that that I think she put him up when she either came home that morning at 11:45 or when she left that evening...but she did not put him up when she saw him that morning..

and nothing in her timeline or her receipts prove that's when she put him up..... sure it proves she was out at that time and where she was.... but you have to take her word that thats when she put him up.....

and after reading her testimony and all the problems with it..... I find her 'word' cloudy at best...

[Lavindar]

yes I just read your post....... it just doesn't make any sense when added to "I knew I was going to be 5 minutes late" when she was going to have to drive for atleast 15 minutes to get to Ripon... that would make her alot more than 5 minutes late..

the whole thing is just bizarre.. and it makes me question whether she was hiding the fact that she didn't put the dog up that morning, but put him up later in the day...add that into to her hearing the rustling sounds and I can totally believe she'd be afraid ppl would look at her like she didn't help enough..


here's another 'weird' part



she heard raking, but it was very quiet???



I think she walked in on whatever was going on and I think she knows it.... but was embarrassed b/c she didn't help more, or alert anyone...look at what she's confronted with

she knows Laci is alone,pregnant and has issues with being dizzy
she finds the dog in the middle of the road
she finds the gate wide open
she hears raking noises from the backyard but doesn't look for the source, just leaves the dog and goes back on her way
she gets a call telling her something has happened to Laci..

IMO she was totally afraid someone would ask her why she didn't do something.... and that's why her testimony is so weird.. it's hard to keep the lies straight from what I've been told..I don't think she was doing it out of spite or b/c shes evil... I think she really wanted to help b/c she doesn't think she helped enough that day.

WH, do you know if Scott mentioned whether the leash was wet and muddy


ekg, you left out the part of the testimony when she walked into the back yard and identified the raking sounds as coming from

SERVAS: Well, I felt a little panic because the gate was locked, but then I heard some raking in the backyard and so I figured I'd go try and see if the side gate was unlocked or open.

DISTASO: So you walk up there, try this gate, didn't get it, did you continue across the lawn?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: And you said you went to the side gate?

SERVAS: Yes, I noticed that Laci's car was there, so I went, and as I came around the corner, the side gate, which is located right here, was open, it was ajar, and so I figured she must be in the backyard so I walked into the backyard with the dog.

DISTASO: And where was Laci's car parked?

SERVAS: It was parked up in the drive-, I mean it was up in the driveway. I don't know if it was on the right or left side, but it was right about here.

DISTASO: And were you familiar with the defendant's truck?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And you recognize Scott Peterson as he sits here in court?

SERVAS: Yes, absolutely.

DISTASO: And so Laci's car parked in the drive?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And look at People's 12 behind you, the diagram there. And where you see not the pickup truck, but the one that's labeled 4M where you see that, is that the approximate place Laci's car was?

SERVAS: I don't know if that's the exact place, but that's how far up to the gate that the car was parked.

DISTASO: Okay. And where was Scott Peterson's truck?

SERVAS: It was not there. I didn't see it.

DISTASO: Did you ever see, did you see Scott Peterson leave at all that morning?

SERVAS: No, so.

DISTASO: So Laci's car is parked here and this gate is open you said?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: One more thing on this diagram, this diagram, People's 12 shows the gate that you're describing. Do you see it right here, gate No. 2?

SERVAS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: And the gate is swung open outwards towards the vehicles?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And is that the way you saw it on December 24th?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And that gate swings out toward the street?

SERVAS: It does, yes.

DISTASO: And this is just a little bit, this is People's 27F a little bit closer of these same areas; is that right?



SERVAS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. Can you do me a favor now. Take that blue marker that you were using. And on People's 12, can you write with a dash line where you went with the dog.

SERVAS: From the point that I started?

DISTASO: Yeah. This diagram doesn't really show where your house is or where you found the dog, right?

SERVAS: No, it doesn't.

DISTASO: And where you found the dog on People's 12 where you wrote, where you have "Servas home" it would be further to the left?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: Can you just write this, write "found dog" and put an arrow towards the
left.

SERVAS: (writing on diagram)

DISTASO: And then can you write, can you show us with like a dash line the route you took and what you did with the dog.

SERVAS: Okay. (writes on diagram) Okay. This is where I went to the front gate and the gate was looked and I heard the noise coming from the backyard so I went around, which is normally where I would go, through the gate. And then I walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to right here at the end of the house and I looked to the left, didn't see anything, but the noise that I originally heard when I was up here at the gate I determined was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's.

[ekg]

Hey..that reminds me of the witnesses who reported seeing Laci...their timeline was held against them BIG TIME...no one here wanted to cut them some slack..LOL
Obviously, you do not expect the witnesses to look at their watches when they saw Laci..on the other hand, you would think that Karen would know what time she left the house to take care of her errands..


well of course you can't give the witness any slack...b/c if someone did see her, then SII..:D

but think of it like this.......

say Laci did walk the dog and those ppl did see her around that time they said they saw her........

and JS timeline is off b/c she really didn't put Mac up when she left, but when she came back at 11:45. and when she puts Mac back up she hears noises coming from the yard..

what time was the van, safe and 3 men noticed?


it fits pretty nicely doesn't it?


just how many ppl said they saw her?

[Lavindar]

well of course you can't give the witness any slack...b/c if someone did see her, then SII..:D

but think of it like this.......

say Laci did walk the dog and those ppl did see her around that time they said they saw her........

and JS timeline is off b/c she really didn't put Mac up when she left, but when she came back at 11:45. and when she puts Mac back up she hears noises coming from the yard..


it fits pretty nicely doesn't it?


just how many ppl said they saw her?Half of those witnesses saw her when SCOTT WAS STILL HOME - how does that make them credible? Give me a name and a time and I'll discredit them - based on what SCOTT said alone. Karen only re-examined her timeline for SCOTT becuz he asked her to. If you use Karen's original timeline, it still doesn't fit. She had to return to her house to wash her hands after putting Mackensie in the yard. Her testimony is hard to dispute. Again, you assume ALL witnesses are wrong that testified, but the ones who did NOT testify are correct. Doesn't work that way.

[ekg]

ekg, you left out the part of the testimony when she walked into the back yard and identified the raking sounds as coming from

SERVAS: Well, I felt a little panic because the gate was locked, but then I heard some raking in the backyard and so I figured I'd go try and see if the side gate was unlocked or open.

DISTASO: So you walk up there, try this gate, didn't get it, did you continue across the lawn?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: And you said you went to the side gate?

SERVAS: Yes, I noticed that Laci's car was there, so I went, and as I came around the corner, the side gate, which is located right here, was open, it was ajar, and so I figured she must be in the backyard so I walked into the backyard with the dog.

DISTASO: And where was Laci's car parked?

SERVAS: It was parked up in the drive-, I mean it was up in the driveway. I don't know if it was on the right or left side, but it was right about here.

DISTASO: And were you familiar with the defendant's truck?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And you recognize Scott Peterson as he sits here in court?

SERVAS: Yes, absolutely.

DISTASO: And so Laci's car parked in the drive?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And look at People's 12 behind you, the diagram there. And where you see not the pickup truck, but the one that's labeled 4M where you see that, is that the approximate place Laci's car was?

SERVAS: I don't know if that's the exact place, but that's how far up to the gate that the car was parked.

DISTASO: Okay. And where was Scott Peterson's truck?

SERVAS: It was not there. I didn't see it.

DISTASO: Did you ever see, did you see Scott Peterson leave at all that morning?

SERVAS: No, so.

DISTASO: So Laci's car is parked here and this gate is open you said?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: One more thing on this diagram, this diagram, People's 12 shows the gate that you're describing. Do you see it right here, gate No. 2?

SERVAS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: And the gate is swung open outwards towards the vehicles?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And is that the way you saw it on December 24th?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And that gate swings out toward the street?

SERVAS: It does, yes.

DISTASO: And this is just a little bit, this is People's 27F a little bit closer of these same areas; is that right?



SERVAS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. Can you do me a favor now. Take that blue marker that you were using. And on People's 12, can you write with a dash line where you went with the dog.

SERVAS: From the point that I started?

DISTASO: Yeah. This diagram doesn't really show where your house is or where you found the dog, right?

SERVAS: No, it doesn't.

DISTASO: And where you found the dog on People's 12 where you wrote, where you have "Servas home" it would be further to the left?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: Can you just write this, write "found dog" and put an arrow towards the
left.

SERVAS: (writing on diagram)

DISTASO: And then can you write, can you show us with like a dash line the route you took and what you did with the dog.

SERVAS: Okay. (writes on diagram) Okay. This is where I went to the front gate and the gate was looked and I heard the noise coming from the backyard so I went around, which is normally where I would go, through the gate. And then I walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to right here at the end of the house and I looked to the left, didn't see anything, but the noise that I originally heard when I was up here at the gate I determined was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's.

Thanks L

how did she determine it?

did she determine it b/c when she went into Laci backyard it got quiet? like she said


"685. You didn't see any signs of any struggle or anything else in the backyard when you went back there, correct?



686. It was very quiet, so, no, I didn't see anything like that."


which one of those was the vacant house? Dunger or Hogan?

did anyone ask the Dunger or Hogan's if they were out raking that morning?

Thanks again L....

[Lavindar]

well of course you can't give the witness any slack...b/c if someone did see her, then SII..:D

but think of it like this.......

say Laci did walk the dog and those ppl did see her around that time they said they saw her........

and JS timeline is off b/c she really didn't put Mac up when she left, but when she came back at 11:45. and when she puts Mac back up she hears noises coming from the yard..

what time was the van, safe and 3 men noticed?


it fits pretty nicely doesn't it?


just how many ppl said they saw her? And another thing wrong with this theory is that if she returned at 1145, how did she miss the van directly across from her hosue with the three dark-complected men trying to put a heavy safe, not to mention a possible body of Laci into that van. Use some common sense.

[ekg]

snipped

What I question is that Geragos accepts her returning home time of 1145-noon, yet she never saw a safe or body or a van across the street.

no she saw a bald guy walking towards the park

58. There was just -- there was a gentleman that was walking down the street passed my car. It was a Caucasian gentleman, balding, he looked like he had been walking down in the park.



259. Is that unusual for people to come passed your house to get to that trail at the end of the park?



260. We have a lot of people that do that.



261. Okay. So that was not unusual?



262. It's not unusual.




....... did DJ see him? I don't remember..

besides it wouldn't be unusual for her to see someone.... so who knows if it even registered..



So the "safe" and the burglers would have had to load the safe, and a struggling, kidnapped woman into their van and left in a very short window of time. Another case of Geragos shooting himself in the foot with meringe


no she didn't see them........ but I think she heard them in the backyard when she put Mac up at 11:45:D

[ekg]

Half of those witnesses saw her when SCOTT WAS STILL HOME - how does that make them credible? Give me a name and a time and I'll discredit them - based on what SCOTT said alone. Karen only re-examined her timeline for SCOTT becuz he asked her to. If you use Karen's original timeline, it still doesn't fit. She had to return to her house to wash her hands after putting Mackensie in the yard. Her testimony is hard to dispute. Again, you assume ALL witnesses are wrong that testified, but the ones who did NOT testify are correct. Doesn't work that way.

I assume ppl who testify will tell the same story when asked 2 different times..... and so far we've found 2 witness who have changed their testimony to totally opposite statements...

you are assuming ALL of the witnesses who said they saw her have it wrong, and giving lee-way and mucho credit to the one who testifies just b/c she testified... even tho her testimony is a spinning, convoluted, mess..I think I have every right to question her just as you have the right to question the ones who said they saw Laci..

answer me this......... does it fit if KS timeline is 11:45? does that timeline fit with any Laci sightings? and does that timeline fit with what Diane Jackson saw?

[Lavindar]

no she saw a bald guy walking towards the park






....... did DJ see him? I don't remember.. besides it wouldn't be unusual for her to see someone.... so who knows if it even registered..





no she didn't see them........ but I think she heard them in the backyard when she put Mac up at 11:45:D

she heard "raking" sounds that she thought was coming from Laci's back yard. She went in the backyard and it was not coming from there as there was no one in LACI'S BACK YARD.

She did not see Mac when she returned home as she was heading NORTH to return home. She sawMac as she was pulling OUT of her driveway to head SOUTH to leave and pulled over to the curb to get him. HE was STANDING in the street, not walking anywhere when she saw him.

PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE READ THE TESTIMONY. Diane Jackson was headed north when she saw the van. You don't think Karen would notice an unusual vehicle parked directly across the street from her own home?

Also if you read the tesimony, the man was NOT walking TO the park. You are creating things that are not in the testimony, and mis-stating what is in the testimony.

[Lavindar]

I assume ppl who testify will tell the same story when asked 2 different times..... and so far we've found 2 witness who have changed their testimony to totally opposite statements...

you are assuming ALL of the witnesses who said they saw her have it wrong, and giving lee-way and mucho credit to the one who testifies just b/c she testified... even tho her testimony is a spinning, convoluted, mess..I think I have every right to question her just as you have the right to question the ones who said they saw Laci..

answer me this......... does it fit if KS timeline is 11:45? does that timeline fit with any Laci sightings? and does that timeline fit with what Diane Jackson saw?
Yes, DJ saw the van at 1140 - a short five minutes before Karen returned home. You don't think Karen knows the difference between leaving her home and returning to it?

The witness sitings were all over the place and even Diane Campos couldn't remember if she saw Laci at 9:45 or 10:45. Rather large difference, wouldn't you say? Not to mention that it was impossible for her to see what she said she saw. Anyone who has ever been in that park KNOWS that you can't see the park and the white on a dog's chest from a bluff overlooking it.

Karen DID not change her testimony to the opposite of what she originally said at all - she narrowed the time range only.

Karen was under oath. Were the witnesses? NO

[Lavindar]

11 A. It was approximately 10:18 that I found the dog.
12 Q. And what were you -- what were you doing or what
13 were the circumstances of you -- how you came in contact
14 with the dog?
15 A. I was leaving my home, backing out of my driveway,
16 and the dog was standing in the street.
17 Q. Okay. The -- if you can just look at this diagram
18 just quickly

s21 Q. And what happened when you found the dog? You said
22 you were backing out of your driveway. Let's just go back
23 to that.
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And then what happened? You saw the dog?
26 A. I saw the dog out of my driver's side window. He
27 was standing in the street staring at me.
28 Q. Okay. And what did you do then?

1219
1 A. I pulled my car over to the curb, got out of my
2 car, and walked to the back of the car, because now the dog
3 was standing off of my back left bumper.
4 Q. All right. And did you call the dog over?
5 A. No.
6 Q. All right. Did the dog come over to you?
7 A. I walked over to the dog.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. He was just standing there.
10 Q. All right. And did you somehow get ahold of the
11 dog?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. How did you do that?
14 A. I walked over to him, and he was standing there
15 staring at me, and so I walked over and looked at his tags
16 to make sure it was actually McKenzie and it was.
17 Q. And how did you then take possession of -- what I'm
18 trying to ask you, did you grab his collar? Did you grab
19 his fur? Did you grab a leash?
20 A. I grabbed his tags. I mean, he was standing there.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. He wasn't walking away, wandering. He was just
23 standing.
24 Q. Okay. What happened next?
25 A. I noticed that he had his leash on, and so I took
26 the leash and I walked over to Scott and Laci's house, and I
27 heard a noise in the backyard, thinking Laci was probably in
28 the backyard doing some yard work. So I walked to the

1220
1 driveway, and the side gate was wide open, so I walked
2 through the open gate onto the -- through the covered patio,
3 to approximately, I would say, a third to two-thirds of the
4 way -- can I use this diagram?
5 Q. Yeah, I was going to say --
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Just take that pen.
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. Here. I'll give it to you again. Just take that
10 pen. Just a mark. Write the word "gate" where you walked
11 through. You said "open gate."
12 A. Right here. (Indicating.)
13 Q. And then -- let me ask you this -- when you were
14 going in the backyard, were you holding onto the dog?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. By its leash?
17 A. By its leash.
18 Q. Okay. So the dog had a leash on?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. You walked him into the yard?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Just draw a little dotted line where you walked and
23 where you went in the gate.
24 A. You want me to start when I came on the property?
25 Q. Uh-huh.
26 A. I started like this. (Indicating dotted line.) I
27 started to going here, and then I decided to go to the gate
28 right about here and right to about here and then walked

1221
1 back.
2 Q. Okay. And did you keep the dog with you the whole
3 time?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Go ahead. Where did you end up?
6 A. I ended up here. Left the dog. Said, "Bye-bye."
20 Q. Did you see anybody in the yard?
21 A. No.
22 Q. When you said you saw a noise -- you heard a noise
23 from the backyard, how do you know it was coming from the
24 backyard and not from another -- not the house behind or the
25 house on the other side?
26 A. When I got to this point, I realized that the noise
27 I heard was in one of the other yards. It was somebody
28 raking.


1222
1 Q. Okay. So when you were in this area, I mean, in
2 this backyard, did you see any people?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you hear anything from that particular
5 backyard?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. Did you see anything in the house?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you notice -- you can have a seat again. I'm
10 sorry.
11 A. Okay. Thank you.
12 Q. Did you notice anyone inside the house?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So -- I mean, basically, after you went back and
15 put the dog and let it go, I mean, put the dog back in the
16 yard, your whole contact with the house and the dog, you
17 didn't have any contact with any people?
18 A. No contact with any people.
19 Q. Okay. Now, after you put the dog away, you said
20 you shut the gate?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. The dog barked once?
23 A. Barked once as I was shutting the gate. Just kind
24 of a bark.
25 Q. The dog's inside?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. You're shutting the gate --
28 A. Correct.

1223
1 Q. -- the dog barks one time?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. What happens next?
4 A. I retraced my steps, walked back across the lawn.
5 Probably about halfway across is when I looked at my hands
6 and decided to go back into my house to wash my hands.
20 Q. Okay. So after doing this, you went in the house,
21 washed your hands. Then where did you go?
22 A. I walked back out of my house, back down the
23 driveway, got into my car and drove to my first stop
24 downtown.
25 Q. And where was that?
26 A. My first stop was going to be Bank of America;
27 however, the parking lot was full, so I moved on to
28 Austin's.

1224
1 Q. Okay. And downtown, where is the downtown Bank of
2 America located?
3 A. It's located on the corner of I believe it's 17th
4 and I.
5 Q. Do you know how far the Bank of America is from
6 your house?
7 A. No, I do not.
8 Q. Okay. Okay. And then what happened when you got
9 to the Bank of America parking lot?
10 A. The parking lot and all the parking around it was
11 full. So I circled around the bank twice, couldn't find a
12 parking space, so I then drove down to Austin's.
13 (People's Exhibit 125 was marked for
14 identification.)
15 MR. DISTASO: This is 125.
16 MR. GERAGOS: 125.
17 MR. DISTASO: Q. So you circled around the lot twice.
18 I'm sorry.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Then what happened next?
21 A. Then I drove down to Austin's.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know where Austin's is located?
23 A. It's on the corner of Seventh and I.
24 Q. And how far approximately -- do you need some
25 water? I'm sorry.
26 A. Yes, please.
27 Q. How far approximately is the bank from Austin's?
28 A. It's exactly two miles. No, no, not the bank. I'm

1225
1 sorry.
2 Q. Go ahead.
3 A. My house to Austin's is exactly two miles.
4 Q. All right. Have you driven that route?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What? Did you use your odometer in your car or
7 something?
8 A. I clocked it in my car.
9 Q. Okay. What happened when you got to Austin's?
10 A. I went inside the store, bought two ornaments, and
11 paid for them and left.
12 Q. And do you have any idea how long you were in the
13 store?
14 A. Approximately five minutes.
15 Q. And you said you did make a purchase?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. And did you get a receipt for that purchase?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. I left a copy of People's 125. I actually left
20 People's 125 on the desk in front of you. Do you recognize
21 that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that a copy of the receipt of the purchase that
24 you -- that you -- the purchase that you made at Austin's
25 Christmas Store on 12/24 of 2002?
26 A. Yes, it is.
27 Q. All right. Now, after going to Austin's, what did
28 you do next?

[Lavindar]

1226
1 A. I got back into my car and made a phone call.
2 Q. And who'd you call?
3 A. Tom Eakin. I believe it was him.
4 Q. You think you called him?
5 A. Yeah, without my cell phone records in front of me,
6 I can't say for certain, but I know I made a call to him,
7 and I believe it was him.
8 Q. And after you made the call, what did you do? What
9 did you do next?
10 A. I went to Starbucks.
11 Q. And then where?
12 A. And then I went back to Bank of America and found a
13 parking space.
14 Q. Okay. So you did your business there?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Did you then go home?
17 A. No.
18 Q. What time did you get home? Is it fair to say you
19 were just doing a number of errands that morning?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what time did you then finish your errands and
22 go home?
23 A. I arrived home approximately -- to the best of my
24 recollection, 11 -- between 11:45 and noon.
25 Q. And how long -- did you stay at your home the rest
26 of the day and evening?


sounds the same to me where, pray tell is it different enough wo warrant being called a complete change?

[woohoo]

I'm trying to remember the testimony of the people who lived on the street and what all was happening that morning. Nobody seemed to have seen each other! Some of the testimony I still have saved and these "cell phone records of time" is becoming more of a mystery.

I don't know for sure - but was this "time" problem ever resolved involving Susan Medina's testimony?

HARRIS: And was there a phone call that came in or you made when Mr. Nickerson left?
MEDINA: Yes.
HARRIS: And do you need to look at your phone bill to see about what time that was?
MEDINA: It is 10:33 a.m.
HARRIS: Let's go back through this. So Bob Nickerson leaves; your husband's done. Does he come back into the house?
MEDINA: Mr. Nickerson?
HARRIS: No, your husband.
MEDINA: Oh, my husband? Yes, he did come inside the house.
HARRIS: And did you close up the house and, and leave for LA at that point in time?
MEDINA: Not yet. We still continued to, we took a shower, and he loaded the car with the groceries and meat and things we were bringing for the kids. And, you know, the vacuum cleaners and all that kind of things. And then went inside one more in the house, my husband, you know, just make sure that, that our, that we have brought what we need to bring, and then left.
HARRIS: And as you start to leave for LA, so you were in your car and you are starting to drive. Do you call your children to tell them that you're leaving at that time?
MEDINA: Not when we back off from our driveway. It's when we made, after we made the stop on Encina to make a right turn, that's when I started to dial his number. And that's the 10:33 a.m. call to my son.
HARRIS: Let me go back through this. I'll show it up here on the chart to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Now, this has been identified as your house here.
MEDINA: Okay.
HARRIS: So you say that you come out and you come to the stop sign on,
MEDINA: On Encina
HARRIS: , on Encina, right here?
MEDINA: Okay.
HARRIS: And as you start to make this turn, that's when you call your son?
MEDINA: Correct.
HARRIS: And that's what you're saying is the 10:33?
MEDINA: Correct.

How can the 10:33 call witnessed by cell phone records as the time the city employee left, then they go thru all the things they have yet to do, shower, pack, load up, check the mailbox, drive down the street and it is then that she calls her son AT 10:33 as per the cell phone records??
I can't 'splain that! Was it ever questioned? Did Susan Medina and Karen S. use the same cell service I wonder.

[Lavindar]

I assume ppl who testify will tell the same story when asked 2 different times..... and so far we've found 2 witness who have changed their testimony to totally opposite statements...

you are assuming ALL of the witnesses who said they saw her have it wrong, and giving lee-way and mucho credit to the one who testifies just b/c she testified... even tho her testimony is a spinning, convoluted, mess..I think I have every right to question her just as you have the right to question the ones who said they saw Laci..

answer me this......... does it fit if KS timeline is 11:45? does that timeline fit with any Laci sightings? and does that timeline fit with what Diane Jackson saw?
Only if Karen saw the van parked directly across the street. She would have been right behind Diane Jackson and her siting and she did not report anything suspicious or unusual

[Lavindar]

I'm trying to remember the testimony of the people who lived on the street and what all was happening that morning. Nobody seemed to have seen each other! Some of the testimony I still have saved and these "cell phone records of time" is becoming more of a mystery.

I don't know for sure - but was this "time" problem ever resolved involving Susan Medina's testimony?

HARRIS: And was there a phone call that came in or you made when Mr. Nickerson left?
MEDINA: Yes.
HARRIS: And do you need to look at your phone bill to see about what time that was?
MEDINA: It is 10:33 a.m.
HARRIS: Let's go back through this. So Bob Nickerson leaves; your husband's done. Does he come back into the house?
MEDINA: Mr. Nickerson?
HARRIS: No, your husband.
MEDINA: Oh, my husband? Yes, he did come inside the house.
HARRIS: And did you close up the house and, and leave for LA at that point in time?
MEDINA: Not yet. We still continued to, we took a shower, and he loaded the car with the groceries and meat and things we were bringing for the kids. And, you know, the vacuum cleaners and all that kind of things. And then went inside one more in the house, my husband, you know, just make sure that, that our, that we have brought what we need to bring, and then left.
HARRIS: And as you start to leave for LA, so you were in your car and you are starting to drive. Do you call your children to tell them that you're leaving at that time?
MEDINA: Not when we back off from our driveway. It's when we made, after we made the stop on Encina to make a right turn, that's when I started to dial his number. And that's the 10:33 a.m. call to my son.
HARRIS: Let me go back through this. I'll show it up here on the chart to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Now, this has been identified as your house here.
MEDINA: Okay.
HARRIS: So you say that you come out and you come to the stop sign on,
MEDINA: On Encina
HARRIS: , on Encina, right here?
MEDINA: Okay.
HARRIS: And as you start to make this turn, that's when you call your son?
MEDINA: Correct.
HARRIS: And that's what you're saying is the 10:33?
MEDINA: Correct.

How can the 10:33 call witnessed by cell phone records as the time the city employee left, then they go thru all the things they have yet to do, shower, pack, load up, check the mailbox, drive down the street and it is then that she calls her son AT 10:33 as per the cell phone records??
I can't 'splain that! Was it ever questioned? Did Susan Medina and Karen S. use the same cell service I wonder.
Of course, you must be correct - it's a conspiracy of cell phone companies that killed Scott. That's not even plausable. YOur straw hosue is tumbling down aroudn you.

[woohoo]

1226
1 A. I got back into my car and made a phone call.
2 Q. And who'd you call?
3 A. Tom Eakin. I believe it was him.
4 Q. You think you called him?
5 A. Yeah, without my cell phone records in front of me,
6 I can't say for certain, but I know I made a call to him,
7 and I believe it was him.
8 Q. And after you made the call, what did you do? What
9 did you do next?
10 A. I went to Starbucks.
11 Q. And then where?
12 A. And then I went back to Bank of America and found a
13 parking space.
14 Q. Okay. So you did your business there?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Did you then go home?
17 A. No.
18 Q. What time did you get home? Is it fair to say you
19 were just doing a number of errands that morning?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what time did you then finish your errands and
22 go home?
23 A. I arrived home approximately -- to the best of my
24 recollection, 11 -- between 11:45 and noon.
25 Q. And how long -- did you stay at your home the rest
26 of the day and evening?


sounds the same to me where, pray tell is it different enough wo warrant being called a complete change?

This was part of what seemed to me to be a "presentation." One that was of the likes as Geragos wanted to re-create involving the boat but was denied. How can that bedocumented as official timing based solely on what she said.
1 A. I got back into my car and made a phone call.
2 Q. And who'd you call?
3 A. Tom Eakin. I believe it was him.
4 Q. You think you called him?
5 A. Yeah, without my cell phone records in front of me,
6 I can't say for certain, but I know I made a call to him,
7 and I believe it was him.
Whose to say she was in the car when the call came in. No witness. I'm not saying it wasn't true on her part but I am surprised that it was allowed without some sort of documentation, since so much of the case was built around that timeline. A VERY LARGE PART OF THE CASE.

[Lavindar]

This was part of what seemed to me to be a "presentation." One that was of the likes as Geragos wanted to re-create involving the boat but was denied. How can that bedocumented as official timing based solely on what she said.
1 A. I got back into my car and made a phone call.
2 Q. And who'd you call?
3 A. Tom Eakin. I believe it was him.
4 Q. You think you called him?
5 A. Yeah, without my cell phone records in front of me,
6 I can't say for certain, but I know I made a call to him,
7 and I believe it was him.
Whose to say she was in the car when the call came in. No witness. I'm not saying it wasn't true on her part but I am surprised that it was allowed without some sort of documentation, since so much of the case was built around that timeline. A VERY LARGE PART OF THE CASE.


The cell phone records were presented at TRIAL - this is preliminary I believe she also had the ATM receipt from Bank of America where she went after Starbucks. I know the area - they are very close time wise - I believe Bof A is about 7 blocks from Starbucks which is where she went after Austins - one way street, timed lights

[Lavindar]

Thanks L

how did she determine it?

did she determine it b/c when she went into Laci backyard it got quiet? like she said




which one of those was the vacant house? Dunger or Hogan?

did anyone ask the Dunger or Hogan's if they were out raking that morning?

Thanks again L....

Neither. That was the Reed house. I am assuming since Servas was south and Reed was north that the houses she is referring to would be behind them

[ekg]

she heard "raking" sounds that she thought was coming from Laci's back yard. She went in the backyard and it was not coming from there as there was no one in LACI'S BACK YARD.

She did not see Mac when she returned home as she was heading NORTH to return home. She sawMac as she was pulling OUT of her driveway to head SOUTH to leave and pulled over to the curb to get him. HE was STANDING in the street, not walking anywhere when she saw him.

PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE READ THE TESTIMONY. Diane Jackson was headed north when she saw the van. You don't think Karen would notice an unusual vehicle parked directly across the street from her own home?

Also if you read the tesimony, the man was NOT walking TO the park. You are creating things that are not in the testimony, and mis-stating what is in the testimony.


258. There was just -- there was a gentleman that was walking down the street passed my car. It was a Caucasian gentleman, balding, he looked like he had been walking down in the park.



259. Is that unusual for people to come passed your house to get to that trail at the end of the park?



260. We have a lot of people that do that.



261. Okay. So that was not unusual?



262. It's not unusual.

you're right..... not to the park but from in the park......

geez my eyes are as bad as Amie K's....:tongue: :biggrin: :patriot:

I need a break...lol

its the gray background and red,blue and purple font of the TS that kill me everytime...

[ekg]

Yes, DJ saw the van at 1140 - a short five minutes before Karen returned home. You don't think Karen knows the difference between leaving her home and returning to it?

The witness sitings were all over the place and even Diane Campos couldn't remember if she saw Laci at 9:45 or 10:45. Rather large difference, wouldn't you say? Not to mention that it was impossible for her to see what she said she saw. Anyone who has ever been in that park KNOWS that you can't see the park and the white on a dog's chest from a bluff overlooking it.

Karen DID not change her testimony to the opposite of what she originally said at all - she narrowed the time range only.

Karen was under oath. Were the witnesses? NO

and under oath she said 4:05 and 5:05..... rather large difference wouldn't you say?

and I've already copied/pasted the other conflicting testimony..

[Lavindar]

and under oath she said 4:05 and 5:05..... rather large difference wouldn't you say?

and I've already copied/pasted the other conflicting testimony..

But that has NOTHING to do with the time she put Mackensie back in the yard. That has more to do with daylight savings time and changing clocks. That testimony has to do with seeing a package in the mailbox, NOT the timeline for Laci's disappearance.

[Lavindar]

and under oath she said 4:05 and 5:05..... rather large difference wouldn't you say?

and I've already copied/pasted the other conflicting testimony..

GERAGOS: Well, somebody asked you exactly what time you left home that day, that was me, wasn't it? I asked you exactly, how do you know the exact time? "Because as I was pulling out of my driveway, I looked at the clock in my car because I was late." Isn't that what you answered?

SERVAS: I was five minutes late to where I was supposed to be.

GERAGOS: You said "I left my house at 5:05." You didn't say I left my house at 4:05 or five minutes late. I asked, "When did you leave your home?" "Answer: I left my home at 5:05, correct?

SERVAS: Okay. But can we look down here?

GERAGOS: Trust me, we're going to go through every one of these.

SERVAS: Okay.

GERAGOS: Now you said, I was supposed to be somewhere at 5:00 right? Isn't that what you said?

SERVAS: That is what I said at the prelim, yes.

GERAGOS: And I said, you said you were late, you were supposed to be somewhere at a certain time, and you said 5:00 o'clock, right?

SERVAS: And I was incorrect.

GERAGOS: Okay.

SERVAS: I was incorrect.

GERAGOS: You were incorrect?

SERVAS: I was incorrect because I went back and checked my schedule.

GERAGOS: And Detective Bertalotto or Investigator Bertalotto did a report, what, a month later saying that your testimony at the preliminary hearing was wrong?

SERVAS: If that's when he did the report, that's correct, but I notified him less than 48 hours after that.

GERAGOS: Can you tell me when it says, see if that refreshes your recollection as to when you actually talked to him?

SERVAS: He called me back. I talked to him,

GERAGOS: A month later?

SERVAS: Can you let me explain it, please?

GERAGOS: No, I'm going to ask the questions.

JUDGE: Now, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

SERVAS: I would like to be able to explain.

GERAGOS: I will explain.

JUDGE: Wait a minute. Just a minute. He asked the question, you give the answer, then you can explain it. What's the question?

GERAGOS: The question is, did you talk to him a month later?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

JUDGE: All right. Do you want to explain that? Do you want to explain that?

SERVAS: Yes.

JUDGE: Explain that.

SERVAS: I called Detective Bertalotto two days after I testified at the preliminary hearing. And I said, I think I've got a problem. And he said what. And I said I reflected on my testimony at the prelim and I realized that there is no way that I could have seen the package at 5:05 because it would have been dark, so I went back to my Daytimer, looked to see when I was supposed to be at my friend's house, and I was supposed to be there at 4:00. I knew I was going to be five minutes late and I said, what do I need to do. He said I don't know. Let's wait until the prelim is over. Let's figure out what we're going to do. We may need to do a supplemental report. And then he called me back on that date in December to do the supplemental report. But I notified him within 48 hours that there was a problem that I think that I may have given the wrong time. I want to make sure things are accurate. That's all I want to do. GERAGOS: Did you ever tell him that I couldn't have seen the package at 5:05 because it would have been too dark?

SERVAS: Right.


Pretty obvious she hadn't changed the clock in her vehicle. I had a battery die in my car and was driving down the road and it said 2:05 and I had left the house at 10am and I almost hit someone trying to get my clock right. I can understand why she hadn't changed her car clock. She did NOT use that to figure her travel time to Austins, tho.

[Miss Bootsie]

sure there is...both sets were investigating....... she was doing investigation on her own..... the 'boat-rockers' were doing an investigation in front of everyone...... are jurors allowed to investigate?

besides... how did they know #7 investigated anything? B/c she told them.... well did her investigation taint them in anyway? If she was using those facts to deliberate then the whole jury was tainted at that point..

Boat Rockers???????

Do you perhaps mean the Jurors that examined the boat???;)

Nah, the Jurors weren't conducting an experiment nor were they doing an investigation.

I ran across a case that went before the Appeals Court with similar circumstances. One of the appeal issues had to do with the Jurors doing their own experiment.

I think the Appellate Judges opinion on the issue of the Jurors conducting an experiment is very interesting.

Going out right now, but later on tonight or tomorrow, I will find the case and post a link.

[adnoid]

Of course, you must be correct - it's a conspiracy of cell phone companies that killed Scott...

I had a long argument on the SII board with someone who believed AT&T executives were in on the conspiracy to frame Scott. Seriously, I did. It was surreal.

[ekg]

GERAGOS: Well, somebody asked you exactly what time you left home that day, that was me, wasn't it? I asked you exactly, how do you know the exact time? "Because as I was pulling out of my driveway, I looked at the clock in my car because I was late." Isn't that what you answered?

SERVAS: I was five minutes late to where I was supposed to be.

GERAGOS: You said "I left my house at 5:05." You didn't say I left my house at 4:05 or five minutes late. I asked, "When did you leave your home?" "Answer: I left my home at 5:05, correct?

SERVAS: Okay. But can we look down here?

GERAGOS: Trust me, we're going to go through every one of these.

SERVAS: Okay.

GERAGOS: Now you said, I was supposed to be somewhere at 5:00 right? Isn't that what you said?

SERVAS: That is what I said at the prelim, yes.

GERAGOS: And I said, you said you were late, you were supposed to be somewhere at a certain time, and you said 5:00 o'clock, right?

SERVAS: And I was incorrect.

GERAGOS: Okay.

SERVAS: I was incorrect.

GERAGOS: You were incorrect?

SERVAS: I was incorrect because I went back and checked my schedule.

GERAGOS: And Detective Bertalotto or Investigator Bertalotto did a report, what, a month later saying that your testimony at the preliminary hearing was wrong?

SERVAS: If that's when he did the report, that's correct, but I notified him less than 48 hours after that.

GERAGOS: Can you tell me when it says, see if that refreshes your recollection as to when you actually talked to him?

SERVAS: He called me back. I talked to him,

GERAGOS: A month later?

SERVAS: Can you let me explain it, please?

GERAGOS: No, I'm going to ask the questions.

JUDGE: Now, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

SERVAS: I would like to be able to explain.

GERAGOS: I will explain.

JUDGE: Wait a minute. Just a minute. He asked the question, you give the answer, then you can explain it. What's the question?

GERAGOS: The question is, did you talk to him a month later?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

JUDGE: All right. Do you want to explain that? Do you want to explain that?

SERVAS: Yes.

JUDGE: Explain that.

SERVAS: I called Detective Bertalotto two days after I testified at the preliminary hearing. And I said, I think I've got a problem. And he said what. And I said I reflected on my testimony at the prelim and I realized that there is no way that I could have seen the package at 5:05 because it would have been dark, so I went back to my Daytimer, looked to see when I was supposed to be at my friend's house, and I was supposed to be there at 4:00. I knew I was going to be five minutes late and I said, what do I need to do. He said I don't know. Let's wait until the prelim is over. Let's figure out what we're going to do. We may need to do a supplemental report. And then he called me back on that date in December to do the supplemental report. But I notified him within 48 hours that there was a problem that I think that I may have given the wrong time. I want to make sure things are accurate. That's all I want to do. GERAGOS: Did you ever tell him that I couldn't have seen the package at 5:05 because it would have been too dark?

SERVAS: Right.


Pretty obvious she hadn't changed the clock in her vehicle. I had a battery die in my car and was driving down the road and it said 2:05 and I had left the house at 10am and I almost hit someone trying to get my clock right. I can understand why she hadn't changed her car clock. She did NOT use that to figure her travel time to Austins, tho.


I"ve thought about that tho...... and if she hadn't changed it and didn't know she hadn't changed she would forever be arriving an hr early.....and eventually she'd realized that, wouldn't she? and once she realized that, then she'd know her clock was an hour off..... so why would she still make that mistake?

ya know what I mean?

or if she looked at the clock in the house and saw it was 1pm and she got in the car and saw it was 2pm.... she'd know the clock was off.... so why would she make that mistake again?

enough time had gone by DLT for her to know her clock was off and compensate for it....she went back with a stop watch to check her timeline...she reviewed receipts and called LE when she made a mistake.... this woman checked out every part of her story and IMO she would have checked the DST on the clock b/c she would have noticed it...

[Lavindar]

I"ve thought about that tho...... and if she hadn't changed it and didn't know she hadn't changed she would forever be arriving an hr early.....and eventually she'd realized that, wouldn't she? and once she realized that, then she'd know her clock was an hour off..... so why would she still make that mistake?

ya know what I mean?

or if she looked at the clock in the house and saw it was 1pm and she got in the car and saw it was 2pm.... she'd know the clock was off.... so why would she make that mistake again?

enough time had gone by DLT for her to know her clock was off and compensate for it....she went back with a stop watch to check her timeline...she reviewed receipts and called LE when she made a mistake.... this woman checked out every part of her story and IMO she would have checked the DST on the clock b/c she would have noticed it...

THIS is what bothers me about the whole thing.

SERVAS: I would like to be able to explain.

GERAGOS: I will explain.

JUDGE: Wait a minute. Just a minute. He asked the question, you give the answer, then you can explain it. What's the question?


Obviously, someone only wants HIS truth told.

[PsychNurse;~)]

and under oath she said 4:05 and 5:05..... rather large difference wouldn't you say?

and I've already copied/pasted the other conflicting testimony..

wasn't the 5:05 time she saw on her clock due to her not having turned the clock in her car back for dst?

cyn

[Lavindar]

wasn't the 5:05 time she saw on her clock due to her not having turned the clock in her car back for dst?

cyn
I believe that is what she tried to say, but Garegos wouldn't let her in the testimony

[One2Snoop]

Half of those witnesses saw her when SCOTT WAS STILL HOME - how does that make them credible? Give me a name and a time and I'll discredit them - based on what SCOTT said alone. Karen only re-examined her timeline for SCOTT becuz he asked her to. If you use Karen's original timeline, it still doesn't fit. She had to return to her house to wash her hands after putting Mackensie in the yard. Her testimony is hard to dispute. Again, you assume ALL witnesses are wrong that testified, but the ones who did NOT testify are correct. Doesn't work that way.

Excellent point Lavindar! :beer:

[Lavindar]

great post.:beer:

Originally Posted by Sassie
IMO, if Laci was not abducted, then she might have been able to finish all of the things Scott said she was going to do.

Girls and guys are quite different from each other. Most guys I know don't like talking on the phone, let alone do other things while on the phone.

There were no notes for Scott because the abductors did not allow her to leave a note.

Scott was in the process of calling the hospitals and the police, but this was interupted by Sharon's call. This information comes from Grogans testimony. Scott told Grogan he was looking the numbers up in the phone book. After a while of being in the evidence, Grogan took out the phone book and realized that no matter what page of the phone book you are in, it automattically opened to the page that was shown when they saw it on the counter.

Sharon is the one that told Scott to meet her at the park and that Ron would call 911. This was not a time for Scott to argue and say he wanted to call. Then this was used against him later. In fact, it was one of Grogan's 41 reasons.

I don't know about Laci, but most people do not take their purses with them for a walk in the park. But they do lock their doors and take their pepper spray if they have it.

McKenzie was found in the road going towards his home. Not according to the testimony - he was found STANDING in the roadThis tells me he and Laci was walking in the park when Laci was abducted and he went home not knowing what else to do. There is an entrance/exit not even a block from Laci's house. I would guess McKenzie come out this direction. of course, and just standing there looking stupid while the gate was wide open

As for the time of 10:18, this was the second time she gave to the police and it was also from her back tracking. The owner of the store where she went had to cash register machines. The one Karen used was old and it did not keep time right.
They tested it and it showed that it could not be counted on for the right time. Tesimony said they had THREE machines. This was the only electronic one. Test receipts were for two separate days - read the testimony and the testing was done over TWO YEARS AFTER the purchase

The time was also backed up in the trial by Karen's cell phone records.

She TESTIFIED to 10:18 in both the preliminary AND the trial. And the receipt with her noted time of 10:18 was entered into evidence. Don't get too congratulatory over false statements like that. I posted all this testimony - go read it.

[Lavindar]

Thanks for that jumbo font, its easy on the eyes. :lol:

You are most welcome

[One2Snoop]

Scott Peterson's appeal. He will win. JMO.

:beer:

Do you have a link that provides proof of that? :lol:

All joking aside saraliba - this is a discussion forum. Do you want to discuss his appeal and how you think he'll win or are you just here to post meaningless nonsense in big font? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

Scott Peterson's appeal. He will win. JMO.

:beer: The appeal is for JUDICIAL REVIEW - it's not about winning or losing.

[One2Snoop]

I'm here to discuss this case. Since I'm legally blind that jumbo font made it easy to read. Thanks. It helps to read in jumbo font.

Thanks for asking. I do have my computer set for the largest text. So thats helps also.
:beer:

Whether you're blind or not, you obviously were able to read my post in regular font and I've also noticed you've posted in regular font, so I'm not buying it. Are you here to discuss Scotts appeal and site why you think he'll win? If not, I guess I'll just have to put you on ignore if you're only here to play font games. Take care. :seeya:

[Lavindar]

I'm here to discuss this case. Since I'm legally blind that jumbo font made it easy to read. Thanks. It helps to read in jumbo font.

Thanks for asking. I do have my computer set for the largest text. So thats helps also.
:beer:

Why are none of your earlier posts in large font?

[I'mSun]

The appeal is for JUDICIAL REVIEW - it's not about winning or losing. ...its how you play the game :)

[Lavindar]

Whether you're blind or not, you obviously were able to read my post in regular font and I've also noticed you've posted in regular font, so I'm not buying it. Are you here to discuss Scotts appeal and site why you think he'll win? If not, I guess I'll just have to put you on ignore if you're only here to play font games. Take care. :seeya:



saraliba
Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 64


Jack and coke sounds good. It helps to sleep at night.
__________________
The mind is like a parachute it works only when it is open.

saraliba
View Public Profile
Send a private message to saraliba
Find all posts by saraliba
Add saraliba to Your Buddy List

07-07-2007, 02:26 AM
saraliba
Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 64


Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Bum
I think I need a Spanish Coffee..my eye's are starting to go


you're too close to the tv drooling at Brad Pitt.
__________________
The mind is like a parachute it works only when it is open.

You have become legally blind since the 7th of this month?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Boat Rockers???????

Do you perhaps mean the Jurors that examined the boat???;)

Nah, the Jurors weren't conducting an experiment nor were they doing an investigation.

I ran across a case that went before the Appeals Court with similar circumstances. One of the appeal issues had to do with the Jurors doing their own experiment.

I think the Appellate Judges opinion on the issue of the Jurors conducting an experiment is very interesting.

Going out right now, but later on tonight or tomorrow, I will find the case and post a link.

was that the michael fletcher case in michigan? he murdered his pregnant wife leanna? he was a defense attorney and having an affair with a judge, right?

the jurors experimented with the gun/positions to check his story and ultimately found him guilty. appeals court denied overturning the verdict, claiming that wasn't experimentation.

cyn

[Lavindar]

was that the michael fletcher case in michigan? he murdered his pregnant wife leanna? he was a defense attorney and having an affair with a judge, right?

the jurors experimented with the gun/positions to check his story and ultimately found him guilty. appeals court denied overturning the verdict, claiming that wasn't experimentation.

cyn

I think that case is closer to experimentation than some alleged boat rocking by a juror who was dismissed.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Takes too long and hard for me to read them. But i do try. I like the jumbo fonts better since its easier to read. Are you against the disable?

But is it ok for some posters to use font that is not disable? Or do you do it to help me? If so Thanks
:)

unless you have need to read your own posts again and again the smaller font works better for 99.9% of those reading on these boards and i imagine it takes up a heck of a lot less bandwidth.

i have a feeling if you continue posting like that you're going to find yourself banned from posting.

:seeya:

cyn