Scott Peterson's appeal

[Lavindar]

I thank this person for using jumbo font. I used it for emphasis, not to help any certain poster. If I only posted the little bit of testimony that proved my point, I would be being dishonest. And my font was not as large as yours.

[One2Snoop]

I used it for emphasis, not to help any certain poster. If I only posted the little bit of testimony that proved my point, I would be being dishonest. And my font was not as large as yours.

I think it would be in everyone's best interest to report saraliba's "big font" posts to Freshwater and let it be handled from there. The report button is at the right hand top of a post - its a trianlge outlined in red with a ! in the middle.

Thanks.

[Lavindar]

saraliba, where is your jumbo font on this post - are you miraculously cured?

saraliba
Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 67




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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassie
Which ones are you wanting? Some of what I said was my opinion, I posted some testimony of some, and some I read in a magazine a long time ago.

I will not post anything else about certain things until I get the page numbers of the bocks and for sure which book it was in.

I am sorry for this and should have done this from the start, but so many people said they have read the books, I assumed they would remember what was read.

Sassie don't worry, you're doing a great job here posting.. I enjoy reading your thoughts and posts.
__________________
The mind is like a parachute it works only when it is open.

[I'mSun]

I think it would be in everyone's best interest to report saraliba's "big font" posts to Freshwater and let it be handled from there. The report button is at the right hand top of a post - its a trianlge outlined in red with a ! in the middle.

Thanks.Thanks, Snoop.

[Lavindar]

That was my son helping me with a new prigram. sometimes it works most time not. Even with the largest text that i have.

Thanks for your concerns
So your son helped you at 1:39AM and then was not around to help you at 2:39AM and 2:48am? Is that what you are saying?

[cookiewench]

Why would you need the jumbo font for your own posts?

Don't you know what you posted?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Why would you need the jumbo font for your own posts?

Don't you know what you posted?

well, you know how some of those sii's are.

:biggrin:

:tongue:

j/k

cyn

[Lavindar]

I enter all your posts in a program that my son made for me so I can read them.

Thanks for asking

Its against The LAW to discriminate. I also have a seeing eye dog her name is Lady Yes, it is against the law to discriminate but I think a pair of reading glasses would work just as well.

Congratulations on your attempt to take us off topic, but we are still waiting on sources from your friends

[One2Snoop]

Actually from my understanding and if saraliba did indeed upload this program she speaks of, none of her posts should come out in big font, its only supposed to work on the recieving end (hers).

Saraliba can we get back to discussing Scotts case please? Thank you.

[One2Snoop]

I enter all your posts in a program that my son made for me so I can read them.

Thanks for asking

Its against The LAW to discriminate. I also have a seeing eye dog her name is Lady

Just an FYI to you all but if you quote one of saraliba's post you can see where the font size is changed - that can only be done manually thru her posts here at CL and has nothing to do with this other "program" that enlarges the text for here on her end - if indeed she has it.

Back to Scott's appeals.....

[One2Snoop]

I didn't take this off topic I thank a poster for postin in large font. It made it easier to read. BYW I do wear glasses thanks for your concern

Where does it say anyone that posting in large font is breaking TOS?

I also wear glasses for reading but I don't need to post in Large shouting font unless I want to emphasize a point. What's your point again about Scott's appeal in regular font please?

Just an FYI saraliba but a magnifying glass work wonders when you can't see, I've even tried one a few times, so I speak from experience. :beer:

[Lavindar]

Just an FYI to you all but if you quote one of saraliba's post you can see where the font size is changed - that can only be done manually thru her posts her at CL and has nothing to do with this other "program" that enlarges the text for her on her end - if indeed she has it.

Back to Scott's appeals.....I was thinking the same thing. I think this was all a ploy to make us forget that Sassie was not providing any sources for her information. Amazing how that happened right on top of the large font poster agreeing with sassie totally on another thread on Peterson, isn't it?

I believe I had said that the appeal is not about winning or losing but about judicial review - Scott will, of course GET an appeal - that does not guarantee it will be in his favor however. No atty has yet been assigned that I have heard. Has anyone else heard anything differently?

[Lavindar]

You know what they say:

Don't feed the trolls:lol:

[One2Snoop]

If you read my post i put your post in a progam that my son made. That is not breaking TOS and yes I can see where to make my fonts bigger my son shoed me how.
Now can we please get back on topic instead of talking about me?

thanks

No ones talking about "you" personally saraliba - its the sudden big font that appears to be an issue with you all of a sudden. And yes if you put my post in your program it shouldn't show up large here - but only to the recieving end, yours. I have to ask yet again, are you really here to discuss Scott's case or to discuss big font? Seems to be the latter IMO. I'm tired.....

Good night and sweet dreams. :seeya:

[PsychNurse;~)]

i vote we all simply continue as before. any big font posts are ignored.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

so why does everyone think isp was all concerned when talking to the neighbors, telling them that he'd been "calling laci all day" but had been unable to reach her?

it's as if he wanted everyone to believe that whatever had happened had occurred early in the day.

cyn

[One2Snoop]

so why does everyone think isp was all concerned when talking to the neighbors, telling them that he'd been "calling laci all day" but had been unable to reach her?

it's as if he wanted everyone to believe that whatever had happened had occurred early in the day.

cyn

Precisely. I know I've posted before that I believe he did this in two trips and I also believe it was a fake concern to the neighbors to cover his tracks.

Any thoughts on why the prosecution didn't go with a two trip theory? Is it because they weren't able to verify thru cell phone gps? and no witnesses? Sorry but I just can't let go of the two trips -

Anyhow, IMO he's still guilty and sits on DR for good reason no matter how he did it. He didn't get there by himself. The CE and the bodies washing ashore just a short distance from where he said he'd gone fishing proves it all, IMO.

[One2Snoop]

IMO and JMO I think California also needs to rethink its automatic appeal for DR cases. 5 years should be the max given to prove your case and the judicial system should allow and make this top priority. Make and state your case within a 5 year period of time - after that its the needle.

We should thank god we don't live in the times when someone was pronounced guilty and immediately hung afterwards. I think 5 years is more than enough time to prove your case, given the proper channels to do so. JMO

[PsychNurse;~)]

i believe the prosecution didn't actively pursue a two-trip theory because it would just be one more element to prove that didn't have to be proven. all they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that isp murdered his wife and son and disposed of their bodies in the bay.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

i personally think california should simply abolish the dp. as long as it's lwop i'm fine with that. it costs so much more to execute an inmate than it does to maintain them for life; and if an error were to be discovered 20 years later i don't want to find out too late.

in no way do i believe that is going to happen in this case. i'm referring to cases of which i'm not as well versed.

cyn

[One2Snoop]

i personally think california should simply abolish the dp. as long as it's lwop i'm fine with that. it costs so much more to execute an inmate than it does to maintain them for life; and if an error were to be discovered 20 years later i don't want to find out too late.

in no way do i believe that is going to happen in this case. i'm referring to cases of which i'm not as well versed.

cyn

I understand what you're saying - but I think the DP is needed. I believe the only reason it fails to deter crimes of this nature is because perps know they can live for a very long time before they're actually executed. Thats the part I don't agree with.

To me it should either be "the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt the perp is guilty and therefore he/she deserves the DP or its LWOP".
Giving a 5 year period of time to prove otherwise would amount to alot less money than housing a DR inmate for 30, 40, 50 years in solitary confinement, afforded with legal counsel IMO. I've read the stats regarding death row vs life without parole - seems 2 me its the longivity of the case dragging on over the years that cost the taxpayers more money than if a time limit were to be set. Its also possible I don't know enough about this subject and I should just shut-up and go to bed - LOL.

Seriously, LOL saying goodnight! :seeya:

[adnoid]

...any big font posts are ignored...

I'm way ahead of you.

[adnoid]

so why does everyone think isp was all concerned when talking to the neighbors, telling them that he'd been "calling laci all day" but had been unable to reach her?

it's as if he wanted everyone to believe that whatever had happened had occurred early in the day.

cyn


The guilty flee when none pursue.

[accordn2me]

I should probably follow Snoop - shut up and go to bed - but it might be another month before I get to use a computer so I want to state for the record:

If a "disable" commits a CAPITAL CRIME (too lazy to make the font so the blind can read it] they should get the death penalty. Certainly we don't still have to type IMO behind every statement that is obviously IMO, do we? If so, IMO. If not

If a "disable" commits a CAPITAL CRIME they should get the death penalty. Period

Mentor, is it smartypants to type "Period" when you've already put a period? I'm not being smartypants. I'm just using emphasis without gigantic font. Did it come across right?

[adnoid]

...is it smartypants to type "Period" when you've already put a period?...

It's better to be a smartypants than a dumb*****. You're doing just great!

[accordn2me]

It's better to be a smartypants than a dumb*****. You're doing just great!Thank God I saw this:

"IMPORTANT: This post is intended for the use of the forum members only and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this post is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas."


Notice: Plagiarism is not beneath me. I feel entitled to gifted writings such as this because I'm challenged in this area at times. If I steal it....I'll try to give you credit and even use the same font. If I forget....SUE me! :D

[Lavindar]

Thanks to insomnia I have returned. I don't have a problem with the death penalty - mostly because those on death row had no problem using the death penalty WITHOUT BENEFIT of a trial. I Feel they deserve no better than what they gave out. If there was a GUARANTEE that LWOP would be a miserable life, I'd be OK with that. I'm just not so sure that life is so terrible. Most prisoners eventually adjust to life in prison and become "institutionalized" THey have educational programs, and work release and all kinds of "rehabilitating" opportunities. Just saw two programs tonight on the Manson women. Patricia Krenwinkle (sp?) got her degree in Chemistry while in prison. PRisoners seem to have some opportunities that people on the outside do not.

I am also afraid that LWOP will eventually get translated into LWP, which defeats the purpose. I dont' know. I am not an expert. I just know that prison is not as bad as television tries to make it look. As always this is JMO

[accordn2me]

Thanks to insomnia I have returned. I don't have a problem with the death penalty - mostly because those on death row had no problem using the death penalty WITHOUT BENEFIT of a trial. I Feel they deserve no better than what they gave out. If there was a GUARANTEE that LWOP would be a miserable life, I'd be OK with that. I'm just not so sure that life is so terrible. Most prisoners eventually adjust to life in prison and become "institutionalized" THey have educational programs, and work release and all kinds of "rehabilitating" opportunities. Just saw two programs tonight on the Manson women. Patricia Krenwinkle (sp?) got her degree in Chemistry while in prison. PRisoners seem to have some opportunities that people on the outside do not.

I am also afraid that LWOP will eventually get translated into LWP, which defeats the purpose. I dont' know. I am not an expert. I just know that prison is not as bad as television tries to make it look. As always this is JMO

I am an extreme death penalty advocate. I don't care who you are, how old, how abused, intoxicated, what your IQ is.......if you commit a capital crime...I believe you should get the DP period

That said....when my mother was murdered, my Unitairian minister, knowing my extreme position, came to counsel me. He was shocked when I said, "I don't want this animal to get the death penalty." My minister couldn't believe I wasn't, nor would I be screamin' for the guy's head. Very simply, I believe LWOP is MUCH, MUCH worse than the DP......and LWOP is what I would prefer my mother's murderer to have gotten.

It's like I tell people....if someone needs killin' I can kill 'em........but if they piss me off real bad........I'll make 'em wish they were dead!

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped
I don't care who you are, how old, how abused, intoxicated, what your IQ is.......if you commit a capital crime...I believe you should get the DP period

Very simply, I believe LWOP is MUCH, MUCH worse than the DP
*Snipped


I totally agree acc. :patriot:
Glad to see you back. :D

[Miss Bootsie]

but it might be another month before I get to use a computer


Another month.......http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/lolVeryGood.gif

[USAHICK]

Another month.......http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/lolVeryGood.gif

LOL! :tongue:

[deputydi]

so why does everyone think isp was all concerned when talking to the neighbors, telling them that he'd been "calling laci all day" but had been unable to reach her?

it's as if he wanted everyone to believe that whatever had happened had occurred early in the day.

cyn
Exactly how many calls does he consider "calling all day"? IIRC, he only called her once and left a message saying he was on his way back from Berkely. IMO that was just meant to be part of his alibi and he knew precisely where Laci was at that moment. When Amy called him about the fruit basket, we know Scott never spoke to her (nor did she leave a message)but her number would have come up on his "missed calls" -- did he ever call her back? I don't remember that he did.

Once he saw her ID on his phone, he most certainly would have remembered the promise from the night before. Don't you think, if he was engaged in some "innocent" activity, he would have started trying to find a way to arrange for someone else to get grandpa's gift? To my knowledge he did not.

I believe that once he made the decision to get rid of Laci's body in the Bay (presumably so she would never be found) instead of dumping her in some secluded spot closer to home (where she would have eventually been found) then going off to play golf, he honestly did forget this one little detail -- grandpa's basket.

[deputydi]

<snip>Any thoughts on why the prosecution didn't go with a two trip theory? Is it because they weren't able to verify thru cell phone gps? and no witnesses? Sorry but I just can't let go of the two trips - <snip>

I agree. I've always thought he did it in two trips and wondered the same thing. Since this is an element they didn't even have to "prove", I thought presenting the two-trip theory as a possibility would have made more sense. I guess they felt the evidence supported one trip more than two and they didn't want to confuse the jury with giving them two options to choose from. I'd like to hear other possible explanations also. :shrug:

[Lavindar]

Exactly how many calls does he consider "calling all day"? IIRC, he only called her once and left a message saying he was on his way back from Berkely. IMO that was just meant to be part of his alibi and he knew precisely where Laci was at that moment. When Amy called him about the fruit basket, we know Scott never spoke to her (nor did she leave a message)but her number would have come up on his "missed calls" -- did he ever call her back? I don't remember that he did.

Once he saw her ID on his phone, he most certainly would have remembered the promise from the night before. Don't you think, if he was engaged in some "innocent" activity, he would have started trying to find a way to arrange for someone else to get grandpa's gift? To my knowledge he did not.

I believe that once he made the decision to get rid of Laci's body in the Bay (presumably so she would never be found) instead of dumping her in some secluded spot closer to home (where she would have eventually been found) then going off to play golf, he honestly did forget this one little detail -- grandpa's basket.


I think he made two calls to Laci - one to her dead cell phone (that he KNEW was dead) and one to his home phone, which was the ONLY message he saved from that day- more alibi-type behavior imo. All others were deleted. Who saves his OWN messages if not to PROVE something. I know what I left a message about and do not need to save it other than to PROVE I did call and at what time.

[USAHICK]

I think he made two calls to Laci - one to her dead cell phone (that he KNEW was dead) and one to his home phone, which was the ONLY message he saved from that day- more alibi-type behavior imo. All others were deleted. Who saves his OWN messages if not to PROVE something. I know what I left a message about and do not need to save it other than to PROVE I did call and at what time.


I agree Lavindar. I've never saved a message from myself, what would be the point?

Besides, his "hey beautiful, it's me...." is a dead (no pun) give away.

[deputydi]

I think he made two calls to Laci - one to her dead cell phone (that he KNEW was dead) and one to his home phone, which was the ONLY message he saved from that day- more alibi-type behavior imo. All others were deleted. Who saves his OWN messages if not to PROVE something. I know what I left a message about and do not need to save it other than to PROVE I did call and at what time.
That's right. I had forgotten about the dead cell phone. You're right -- no one saves a message from themselves.

[attorneywan2be]

I think he made two calls to Laci - one to her dead cell phone (that he KNEW was dead) and one to his home phone, which was the ONLY message he saved from that day- more alibi-type behavior imo. All others were deleted. Who saves his OWN messages if not to PROVE something. I know what I left a message about and do not need to save it other than to PROVE I did call and at what time.

What do you mean he saved his own message intentionally to document his alibi? the message was on Laci's cell phone..Brocchini listened to it during his interview and saved it..that was the interview he had with Scott around midnight on the 24th... it was BROCCHINI who saved the message!

Scott made 3 phone calls to Laci..2 calls were made to his home and one call was made to her cell phone..and how do you know he KNEW the phone was dead? do you have the TS regarding the phone being dead and Scott knowing about it? also, Ron called Laci's cell phone when they were looking for her...!

Scott's calls to Laci:

2:14 pm to his home
2:17 pm to Laci's cell phone
3:52 pm to his home

Ron Called Laci's cell phone at 5:30 pm

[deputydi]

What do you mean he saved his own message intentionally to document his alibi? the message was on Laci's cell phone..Brocchini listened to it during his interview and saved it..that was the interview he had with Scott around midnight on the 24th... it was BROCCHINI who saved the message!

Scott made 3 phone calls to Laci..2 calls were made to his home and one call was made to her cell phone..and how do you know he KNEW the phone was dead? do you have the TS regarding the phone being dead and Scott knowing about it? also, Ron called Laci's cell phone when they were looking for her...!

Scott's calls to Laci:

2:14 pm to his home
2:17 pm to Laci's cell phone
3:52 pm to his home

Ron Called Laci's cell phone at 5:30 pm
Wasn't the cell phone found in Laci's LandRover and it wasn't working? I don't think you can leave a msg on a dead cell phone.

[Lavindar]

What do you mean he saved his own message intentionally to document his alibi? the message was on Laci's cell phone..Brocchini listened to it during his interview and saved it..that was the interview he had with Scott around midnight on the 24th... it was BROCCHINI who saved the message!

Scott made 3 phone calls to Laci..2 calls were made to his home and one call was made to her cell phone..and how do you know he KNEW the phone was dead? do you have the TS regarding the phone being dead and Scott knowing about it? also, Ron called Laci's cell phone when they were looking for her...!

Scott's calls to Laci:

2:14 pm to his home
2:17 pm to Laci's cell phone
3:52 pm to his home

Ron Called Laci's cell phone at 5:30 pm

DISTASO: And what happened next?

BROCCHINI: I looked in the Land Rover first. It was unlocked. I opened the driver's door. There was a cell phone attached to a lighter in the Land Rover. It was off. I tried to power it on. It would power on, but immediately power off with a weak or low battery.

It was hooked up to a charger. I believe at one point Jackie and some of Laci's friends also knew her cell phone wasn't working.



VGRANTSKI: Well, I was sitting down, getting ready for dinner, and she asked me to call Laci and tell her to bring some whipped cream for, Sharon makes a great chocolate pie, so we were having a chocolate pie, so...

DISTASO: And did you do that?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

DISTASO: And you didn't, well, you didn't talk to anybody, right?

GRANTSKI: No, I got the recorder.

DISTASO: Did you leave a message?

GRANTSKI: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Was it basically just Hey, Laci, can you bring some whipped,

GRANTSKI: Yeah. Hi, Laci, bring some whipped cream,



RON does NOT say he called her CELL phone. He just called her and left a message on the RECORDER - he did not say VOICE MAIL

[attorneywan2be]

Wasn't the cell phone found in Laci's LandRover and it wasn't working? I don't think you can leave a msg on a dead cell phone.


PETERSON: I called Laci ah just as I was leaving the marina.
BROCCHINI: Home phone?
PETERSON: Told her where I was, ah, home and the mobile.
BROCCHINI: What’s your home number?
PETERSON: 524-2049.
BROCCHINI: You left a message?
PETERSON: Yes.
BROCCHINI: And then what’s your mobile?
PETERSON: 402-8806.
BROCCHINI: Do you know her, ah, do you know her password?
PETERSON: 8184.
BROCCHINI: So if we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, Doesn’t it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in?
PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: You know how to repeat it?
PETERSON: I think 9.
Long pause
BROCCHINI: How many messages did she have? Two?
PETERSON: Two new ones.
Page 11 of 29
BROCCHINI: Okay, I’ll save it, it was probably her dad or somebody.
Long pause, listening to messages on phone.
BROCCHINI: Okay here.

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

BROCCHINI: Okay, I, I, I only have a couple of concerns. One is the cell phone call that you made, but if you listen to it, that call is made at 12:17.
PETERSON: Which one’s that?
BROCCHINI: The first on you made from ah Berkeley.
PETERSON: Was it?
BROCCHINI: Yeah. You said…
PETERSON: ______ from the boat.
BROCCHINI: No you said 2:17, but the time stamp on the call says 12:17. See then to me…
PETERSON: You saved right?
Page 27 of 29
BROCCHINI: I saved it.
PETERSON: Saved today at 12:17 AM.
BROCCHINI: Is that what that says.
PETERSON: Yeah
BROCCHINI: I don’t know, let me listen, cause I have…
PETERSON: Either…
BROCCHINI: You didn’t save…
PETERSON: First time…
BROCCHINI: Oh really…
PETERSON: Well, I save it, then you saved it, I had to, then you saved it.
BROCCHINI: okay.
PETERSON: Then it said yesterday at 12:17 you’d be right.
BROCCHINI: Right, right.
Pause
BROCCHINI: Yeah, you’re right, Okay, it’s says when I saved it.

[attorneywan2be]

DISTASO: And what happened next?

BROCCHINI: I looked in the Land Rover first. It was unlocked. I opened the driver's door. There was a cell phone attached to a lighter in the Land Rover. It was off. I tried to power it on. It would power on, but immediately power off with a weak or low battery.

It was hooked up to a charger. I believe at one point Jackie and some of Laci's friends also knew her cell phone wasn't working.



VGRANTSKI: Well, I was sitting down, getting ready for dinner, and she asked me to call Laci and tell her to bring some whipped cream for, Sharon makes a great chocolate pie, so we were having a chocolate pie, so...

DISTASO: And did you do that?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

DISTASO: And you didn't, well, you didn't talk to anybody, right?

GRANTSKI: No, I got the recorder.

DISTASO: Did you leave a message?

GRANTSKI: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Was it basically just Hey, Laci, can you bring some whipped,

GRANTSKI: Yeah. Hi, Laci, bring some whipped cream,



RON does NOT say he called her CELL phone. He just called her and left a message on the RECORDER - he did not say VOICE MAIL

Ron made 2 calls to Laci..the one he did to her home was before she was discovered missing..he was asking her to get whipped cream..the second call he made to her cell phone leaving her a message that everybody was looking for her...


PETERSON: Just ah, called once from the marina, both phones, and then ah, later on, when was that second call.
BROCCHINI: No the second call wasn’t from you, it was from her dad or somebody.
PETERSON: I left a second message on her mobile.
BROCCHINI: There was only one from you.
PETERSON: Really.
BROCCHINI: Ah there was two there, but one was logged at like 5:30 in the afternoon, it was an old gruffy voice said Laci, everbody’s lookin’ for you. Didn’t say who it was.
PETERSON: Ah that must have been Ron, Ah, well I know I left two at home and I thought I left two on the mobile. Maybe I didn’t leave the second one on the mobile.BROCCHINI: So you ah, the two at home though one was from when you left and one was some other time or…
Page 13 of 29
PETERSON: One was when I left Berkeley and the other one was ah when I was drivin’ in Livermore, the traffic was pretty bad and I knew I wouldn’t be home by 4 so gave her a call.

[Lavindar]

DISTASO: And what happened next?

BROCCHINI: I looked in the Land Rover first. It was unlocked. I opened the driver's door. There was a cell phone attached to a lighter in the Land Rover. It was off. I tried to power it on. It would power on, but immediately power off with a weak or low battery.

It was hooked up to a charger. I believe at one point Jackie and some of Laci's friends also knew her cell phone wasn't working.



VGRANTSKI: Well, I was sitting down, getting ready for dinner, and she asked me to call Laci and tell her to bring some whipped cream for, Sharon makes a great chocolate pie, so we were having a chocolate pie, so...

DISTASO: And did you do that?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

DISTASO: And you didn't, well, you didn't talk to anybody, right?

GRANTSKI: No, I got the recorder.

DISTASO: Did you leave a message?

GRANTSKI: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Was it basically just Hey, Laci, can you bring some whipped,

GRANTSKI: Yeah. Hi, Laci, bring some whipped cream,



RON does NOT say he called her CELL phone. He just called her and left a message on the RECORDER - he did not say VOICE MAIL


In interview with Brocchini at hdqrts:

GERAGOS: And that's, he told you on the top of page 16: After I got out of the shower, put clothes on, that's when I checked the messages. And you asked him: Were there any? And he said: Yeah. You said: Yours? And he said: Mine, and there were three. Two from him and one from Ron, correct?

BROCCHINI: That's what he said.
GERAGOS: Okay. Her stepfather, asking for whipped cream when we came over that's when I said hey, where's he calling me for whipped cream?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. You asked him: Did you erase them? And he said No; correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And: The one from Ron, do you know if that's, it says here, the transcriptionist, you say: The one from ah, Ron, do you know if that was before yours or after yours?

BROCCHINI: That's right.

GERAGOS: And he says: I believe it was after?

BROCCHINI: That's what he said.

GERAGOS: And that was true, wasn't it? When you listened to it?

BROCCHINI: I don't, I don't recall.


He comes home, his wife is not there, nothing is as it should have been and he TAKES A SHOWER, then listens to phone messages? Does NOT say cell phone messages. What is wrong with this picture?

[Lavindar]

Ron made 2 calls to Laci..the one he did to her home was before she was discovered missing..he was asking her to get whipped cream..the second call he made to her cell phone leaving her a message that everybody was looking for her...


PETERSON: Just ah, called once from the marina, both phones, and then ah, later on, when was that second call.
BROCCHINI: No the second call wasn’t from you, it was from her dad or somebody.
PETERSON: I left a second message on her mobile.
BROCCHINI: There was only one from you.
PETERSON: Really.
BROCCHINI: Ah there was two there, but one was logged at like 5:30 in the afternoon, it was an old gruffy voice said Laci, everbody’s lookin’ for you. Didn’t say who it was.
PETERSON: Ah that must have been Ron, Ah, well I know I left two at home and I thought I left two on the mobile. Maybe I didn’t leave the second one on the mobile.BROCCHINI: So you ah, the two at home though one was from when you left and one was some other time or…
Page 13 of 29
PETERSON: One was when I left Berkeley and the other one was ah when I was drivin’ in Livermore, the traffic was pretty bad and I knew I wouldn’t be home by 4 so gave her a call.


Yes, But the whipped cream call was on the HOME phone, NOT the cell phone. The call to the cell was made AFTER they knew she was missing, not before. They were trying ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to find her. Her cell phone was not working - Brocchini proved that. I believe it was testified to that no calls were made or received on that phone after the 23rd.

[USAHICK]

Wasn't the cell phone found in Laci's LandRover and it wasn't working? I don't think you can leave a msg on a dead cell phone.


Jackie Peterson stated that everyone knew Laci's cell phone hadn't been working for weeks.

If the account is active, but just the physical phone broke or ran low on battery power, you can still leave messages.

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, But the whipped cream call was on the HOME phone, NOT the cell phone. The call to the cell was made AFTER they knew she was missing, not before. They were trying ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to find her. Her cell phone was not working - Brocchini proved that. I believe it was testified to that no calls were made or received on that phone after the 23rd.


That's exactly what I said!! that Ron made a call to Laci to her home BEFORE she was discovered missing...and he made a call to her cell phone when they were looking for her..

Read my post, the one you quoted....

Please provide the TS regarding Laci's cell phone being "out of order" or not working...also the TS about Scott knowing about it..thanks

[attorneywan2be]

This is the only thing I was able to find regarding Laci's cell phone...Brocchini found the cell phone attached to a lighter, which means Laci was charging it when she was using her car..Brocchini stated that the battery was weak or low..that doesn't say that the phone was not working!!

Again..please provide the TS where Brocchini proved the cell phone was not working...also, the TS about Scott knowing about her cell phone being out of order..thanks

Allen Brocchini: I looked in the Land Rover first. It was unlocked. I opened the driver's door. There was a cell phone attached to a lighter in the Land Rover. It was off. I tried to power it on. It would power on, but immediately power off with a weak or low battery.
Rick Distaso: And did you look inside anything else in the Land Rover?

[attorneywan2be]

Jackie Peterson stated that everyone knew Laci's cell phone hadn't been working for weeks.

Snip



Please provide a link or the TS to back this up...thanks

[Lavindar]

Jackie Peterson stated that everyone knew Laci's cell phone hadn't been working for weeks.

If the account is active, but just the physical phone broke or ran low on battery power, you can still leave messages.
Telephone Laci Peterson's cellular phone, left at her home the day of her disappearance, according to Det. Doug Ridenour, who told John Walsh that it was a clue that she did not leave the home by her own intent; according to the March 1, 2004, issue of the Globe, a phone that had a dead battery weeks before Laci Peterson's disappearance—a fact that "was well known among her friends and family"


Granted this is a media report, but since media reports by Richard Cole are beng posted, I think it's fair to post this

[thinkaboutit]

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.

We also know from the receipts exactly what Laci bought:

Fred Eachus' testimony:

EACHUS: Items that were purchased Grand Marnier liquor, stuffed salmon, heavy cream, large Grade A eggs, Applewood bacon, raw shrimp, organic chicken soup, oatmeal flakes Barbara's Cinnamon Puffins Cereal, maple syrup, Profiterolles Desert, apple strudel, and then three grocery items. And then the total is $98.19 on Visa.

The receipt:
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/2-3.JPG


And we have the recipe:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8U-3.JPG


She purchased the Grand Marnier, the cream and the eggs - all of which were required for the recipe. $10 worth of Applewood Bacon which would go great with French Toast - maple syrup - most likely for the French Toast also. But no bread. Having had some experience with cooking myself - it makes perfect sense to me that she would wait until the day before to buy the bread to make sure it would be as fresh as possible.

Based on the above - I think Laci had some last minute shopping to do for the brunch - just like Scott said she did.

[Hey Paula]

I think he made two calls to Laci - one to her dead cell phone (that he KNEW was dead) and one to his home phone, which was the ONLY message he saved from that day- more alibi-type behavior imo. All others were deleted. Who saves his OWN messages if not to PROVE something. I know what I left a message about and do not need to save it other than to PROVE I did call and at what time.

Absolutely! More examples of COG! The list goes on with Scott!

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Yes, But the whipped cream call was on the HOME phone, NOT the cell phone. The call to the cell was made AFTER they knew she was missing, not before. They were trying ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to find her. Her cell phone was not working - Brocchini proved that. I believe it was testified to that no calls were made or received on that phone after the 23rd.

Right, Brocchini proved Laci's cell was not working.
Scott had to have known it wasn't working.

[Lavindar]

We also know from the receipts exactly what Laci bought:

Fred Eachus' testimony:



The receipt:
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/2-3.JPG


And we have the recipe:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8U-3.JPG


She purchased the Grand Marnier, the cream and the eggs - all of which were required for the recipe. $10 worth of Applewood Bacon which would go great with French Toast - maple syrup - most likely for the French Toast also. But no bread. Having had some experience with cooking myself - it makes perfect sense to me that she would wait until the day before to buy the bread to make sure it would be as fresh as possible.

Based on the above - I think Laci had some last minute shopping to do for the brunch - just like Scott said she did. I believe the challah bread had to be ordered in advance and she did not do that - at least it's not in the testimony

[I'mSun]

Scott calls Laci during the day and leaves a message on the house phone and on her cell phone, because she isn't home. Or, at least not answering.

When he gets home, she still isn't there but her car is. So is her purse.

If he truly didn't know her whereabouts, wouldn't he be concerned? Wouldn't he start looking for her and making phone calls before eating pizza, taking a shower and everytnhing else he did?

[Lavindar]

Scott calls Laci during the day and leaves a message on the house phone and on her cell phone, because she isn't home. Or, at least not answering.

When he gets home, she still isn't there but her car is. So is her purse.

If he truly didn't know her whereabouts, wouldn't he be concerned? Wouldn't he start looking for her and making phone calls before eating pizza, taking a shower and everytnhing else he did?
Wouldn't he check phone recorder to see if she left a message for him - yet he did NOT think to call hospitals until Sharon told him to? There were only two hospitals in Modesto in 2002 - not like it was difficult to do. Oh, and that phone book would NOT automatically flip to that cardboard page if you had it opened to another page.

[Lavindar]

We also know from the receipts exactly what Laci bought:

Fred Eachus' testimony:



The receipt:
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/2-3.JPG


And we have the recipe:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8U-3.JPG


She purchased the Grand Marnier, the cream and the eggs - all of which were required for the recipe. $10 worth of Applewood Bacon which would go great with French Toast - maple syrup - most likely for the French Toast also. But no bread. Having had some experience with cooking myself - it makes perfect sense to me that she would wait until the day before to buy the bread to make sure it would be as fresh as possible.

Based on the above - I think Laci had some last minute shopping to do for the brunch - just like Scott said she did.


He should have been VERY concerned as the recipe calls for chilling for 8 hours. Wasn't the recipe on the counter or somewhere in plain view? If her brunch was at 11, preparations should have been started and they were NOT

[attorneywan2be]

Scott calls Laci during the day and leaves a message on the house phone and on her cell phone, because she isn't home. Or, at least not answering.

When he gets home, she still isn't there but her car is. So is her purse.

If he truly didn't know her whereabouts, wouldn't he be concerned? Wouldn't he start looking for her and making phone calls before eating pizza, taking a shower and everytnhing else he did?


IMO, any of his actions could have an explanation that points to innocence or an explanation that points to guilt..

For example, his 3 calls to Laci indicate to me that he was genuinely trying to reach her..if his intention was to set up an alibi (where he supposedly dumped Laci's body) then he would have only needed to call her once..

IMO, had he called Sharon as soon as he walked in the house..some people would have considered it a sign of guilt..that Scott knew Laci was not around, why didn't he think of the possibility that Laci could have stepped out for couple of minutes maybe talking to a neighbor...etc..etc...

[thinkaboutit]

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.

Yes - Diane Jackson reported seeing a van at 11:40. Yet Servas never saw this van or these men.

The Medina's were packing up their car at the exact time Servas claims to have found MacKenzie - yet the Medinas didn't see MacKenzie or Servas nor did Servas see the Medinas.

And you have Amie Krigbaum and Terra Venable being wakened by two dogs barking between 10:33 and 10:38....Sage - their next door neighbor's dog - and another dog they didn't recognize - until days later - when they heard MacKenzie barking at the officers when they were taking Laci's Landrover. It was then they realized that the dog they heard that morning could have been MacKenzie. Is it safe to assume that they can't normally hear MacKenzie barking -which is why they didn't immediately recognize the bark? Was MacKenzie loose between 10:33 and 10:38? Or maybe that the barking was different than what they weren't used to hearing from MacKenzie - maybe more aggressive than usual?

So you have 3 other eyewitnesses - 4 if you count both Venable and Krigbaum that contradict Servas' recollection of the events that morning? Could all four of those people be wrong and Servas be right? Possibly - but is it likely?

[Lavindar]

IMO, any of his actions could have an explanation that points to innocence or an explanation that points to guilt..

For example, his 3 calls to Laci indicate to me that he was genuinely trying to reach her..if his intention was to set up an alibi (where he supposedly dumped Laci's body) then he would have only needed to call her once..

IMO, had he called Sharon as soon as he walked in the house..some people would have considered it a sign of guilt..that Scott knew Laci was not around, why didn't he think of the possibility that Laci could have stepped out for couple of minutes maybe talking to a neighbor...etc..etc...

Maybe because it was dark out and there were no lights on. She was not on the street talking to a neighbor or he would have seen her when he drove up.
Laci was very OBVIOUSLY not at home and had not been all day long. No preparations for brunch had happened - she hadn't done the baking he said she was going to do, her purse and keys were there, her car was there, no lights were on, the door was unlocked and the dog was in the yard on a dirty leash. He was more concerned about dumping the (clean) water from the bucket and getting rid of that evidence than he was at finding her. His lame excuse about the car running to drink out of it shows a total lack of knowledge of animal behavior. I think he dumped it because the water was still clean in it and it was right where he allegedly left it because laci could not have mopped any floors that morning - she was dead

[USAHICK]

Telephone Laci Peterson's cellular phone, left at her home the day of her disappearance, according to Det. Doug Ridenour, who told John Walsh that it was a clue that she did not leave the home by her own intent; according to the March 1, 2004, issue of the Globe, a phone that had a dead battery weeks before Laci Peterson's disappearance—a fact that "was well known among her friends and family"


Granted this is a media report, but since media reports by Richard Cole are beng posted, I think it's fair to post this


Catherine Crier talks about it in her book, as does Sharon in hers.

[USAHICK]

IMO, any of his actions could have an explanation that points to innocence or an explanation that points to guilt..

For example, his 3 calls to Laci indicate to me that he was genuinely trying to reach her..if his intention was to set up an alibi (where he supposedly dumped Laci's body) then he would have only needed to call her once..

IMO, had he called Sharon as soon as he walked in the house..some people would have considered it a sign of guilt..that Scott knew Laci was not around, why didn't he think of the possibility that Laci could have stepped out for couple of minutes maybe talking to a neighbor...etc..etc...

We'll disregard the message he left on her well-known dead cell, so aside from that, don't you think if he was "genuinely" trying to reach her, he'd be "genuinely" concerned that he did not?:D

[Lavindar]

Yes - Diane Jackson reported seeing a van at 11:40. Yet Servas never saw this van or these men.

The Medina's were packing up their car at the exact time Servas claims to have found MacKenzie - yet the Medinas didn't see MacKenzie or Servas nor did Servas see the Medinas.

And you have Amie Krigbaum and Terra Venable being wakened by two dogs barking between 10:33 and 10:38....Sage - their next door neighbor's dog - and another dog they didn't recognize - until days later - when they heard MacKenzie barking at the officers when they were taking Laci's Landrover. It was then they realized that the dog they heard that morning could have been MacKenzie. Is it safe to assume that they can't normally hear MacKenzie barking -which is why they didn't immediately recognize the bark? Was MacKenzie loose between 10:33 and 10:38? Or maybe that the barking was different than what they weren't used to hearing from MacKenzie - maybe more aggressive than usual?

So you have 3 other eyewitnesses - 4 if you count both Venable and Krigbaum that contradict Servas' recollection of the events that morning? Could all four of those people be wrong and Servas be right? Possibly - but is it likely?

Of course, the MEdinas don't notice - they are concentrating on loading up their car. Their car is located at the south end of their house - not visible from the Peterson house and vice versa.

Mac was put back in the yard at 10:18 AT THE LATEST per KS's testimony, and KS closed the gate so none of those people would have seen Mac. Kinda ruins your Karen-put-Mac-in-the-yard-at-11:45 theory.

COULD HAVE BEEN is not the same thing as IS. Also your 1038 time would toss out ALL the witness testimony from people who allegedly saw Laci at 1030 walking her dog.

You can't have it both ways.

I think these witnesses make KS's testimony even stronger. KS said she put Mac in the yard at 1018. she never varied that testimony whatsoever. - It's the same in Preliminary and in Trial. She was at Austins when the Medinas left and Mac was safely in his back yard.

[I'mSun]

We'll disregard the message he left on her well-known dead cell, so aside from that, don't you think if he was "genuinely" trying to reach her, he'd be "genuinely" concerned that he did not?:DThat's what I would think, Hick. It is hard to act "genuinely" concerned when you already know the answer, and are pretending not to know.

[Lavindar]

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=516+Covena+Ave.,+Modesto,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.819956,65.302734&ie=UTF8&ll=37.64604,-120.972044&spn=0.000939,0.001993&t=k&z=19&om=1

Here's a map of Covena. You can clearly see a red car parked on the south side of the Medina house. The view of the street would also be inhibited by by the shrub in their yard. Not everyone watches what happens on their streets with binnoculars, particularly when their goal is to drive for 5+ hours in Holiday traffic to see their son.

[attorneywan2be]

Yes - Diane Jackson reported seeing a van at 11:40. Yet Servas never saw this van or these men.

The Medina's were packing up their car at the exact time Servas claims to have found MacKenzie - yet the Medinas didn't see MacKenzie or Servas nor did Servas see the Medinas.

And you have Amie Krigbaum and Terra Venable being wakened by two dogs barking between 10:33 and 10:38....Sage - their next door neighbor's dog - and another dog they didn't recognize - until days later - when they heard MacKenzie barking at the officers when they were taking Laci's Landrover. It was then they realized that the dog they heard that morning could have been MacKenzie. Is it safe to assume that they can't normally hear MacKenzie barking -which is why they didn't immediately recognize the bark? Was MacKenzie loose between 10:33 and 10:38? Or maybe that the barking was different than what they weren't used to hearing from MacKenzie - maybe more aggressive than usual?

So you have 3 other eyewitnesses - 4 if you count both Venable and Krigbaum that contradict Servas' recollection of the events that morning? Could all four of those people be wrong and Servas be right? Possibly - but is it likely?


Servas stated that she returned home BETWEEN 11:45 am and noon..so it's possible she didn't see the van Diane saw simply because she returned close to noon time..so there would have been a good 20 minutes for the burglars to have left the scene before Karen was back..

[Lavindar]

Servas stated that she returned home BETWEEN 11:45 am and noon..so it's possible she didn't see the van Diane saw simply because she returned close to noon time..so there would have been a good 20 minutes for the burglars to have left the scene before Karen was back..
This is true - however, the three-dark-skinned guys were NOT the burglars. They were suspicious men only. They woudl have had 20 minutes to load the "safe" that Gergagos says DJ saw into the van - get rid of the dolly, kidnap Laci, remove her blouse, get a change of pants for her, put her in the van, let the dog out of the yard and make their getaway. Using your information - Amie and Tara saw nothing or heard nothing? OPEARATIVE WORD - REASONABLE I think not.

[attorneywan2be]

The From's and the To's of Karen Servas..her statements:

I found Mckenzie at 10:30 am------------> I found McKenzie at 10:18 am
I found the side gate wide open ------> I found the side gate ajar ----> I found the side gate wide open
I didn't try the front gate to see if it was locked or not----> I tried the front gate, I felt a little panic because it was locked..
I saw the package at 5:05 pm------------------> I saw the package at 4:05 pm
I saw A package as I was leaving to Ripon--------> I can still see THE package as I was leaving to Ripon..I saw it twice that day

And are we supposed to say absolutely positively that Laci had a 10-minute window to have finished the mopping and to have been abducted?!....and why are we supposed to be positive about it? ....just because Karen Servas said she found McKenzie at 10:18 am...."Karen Servas" who kept changing her statements and her timelines...and are we also supposed to consider her return was 11:45 am which would conflict with Diane Jackson's timeline of 11:40 am, despite the fact that Karen stated that she returned home from her errands between 11:45am and noon time.....she was not sure that it was 11:45 am..are we supposed to be sure that it was ?...

Let me elaborate on the fact that Karen never mentioned before the trial that she saw a package at 11:45 am..IMO, she only saw that package possibly when she was leaving her home to go to Ripon....note, at the prelim when she testified that she saw A package as she was leaving to Ripon..she referred to it as "there was A package" not "THE package" that indicates to me that there was no previous reference as to that package BEFORE leaving to Ripon, otherwise, she would have referred to it as "the package" that she already saw...note at the trial, when she testified that she saw that package for the first time between 11:45 am and noon , she referred to it as "A package" in fact, she emphasized the point that it was "A package" (see her reply)....based on all those facts, was she a credible witness? not IMO....

As to the noise she heard and she supposedly determined it was coming from the Hogan's house...she heard the noise when she was at the front gate of Laci and Scott's house..when she walked in the backyard, she stated that it was VERY quiet..so she supposedly was able to determine the noise was coming from the Hogan's, IMO, as she was standing quite a distance from that house..

Karen's testimony regarding the package - Prelim.

15 A. Yes, I was supposed to be somewhere at 5:00 PM.
16 Q. And when you looked at your clock -- I mean --
17 yeah, you looked at your clock. Did you -- during that time
18 you were back in your car at 5:05 and driving away, did you
19 ever look over at the Peterson home at 523 Covena?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What happened when you did that? Did you notice
22 anything when you did that?
23 A. I drove past the home, and Laci's car was in the
24 driveway, and there was a package in the mailbox.
25 Q. And was -- are you familiar with -- are you
26 familiar with the defendant Scott Peterson in this case?
27 A. Yes, I am.

Karen's testimony regarding the package - Trial

Mark Geragos: And when you returned home you said that you knew that UPS delivery had been made as you saw a package near the front of the residence?
Karen Servas: It was a package

---------------------
Mark Geragos: To tell him that when you testified at the preliminary hearing and I specifically asked you, how do you know the exact time,
Karen Servas: Right.
Mark Geragos: and your answer was, Because as I was pulling out of my driveway, I looked at the clock in my car because I was late.
Karen Servas: And I think it also says something on that, the fact that I can still see the package in Scott and Laci's mailbox

[thinkaboutit]

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.

And that's interesting too. The prosecution says Scott was home because...

He said Martha Stewart was cooking something with meringue and meringue was mentioned at approximately 9:49.

and..

Scott checked his voicemail at 10:08 and the call utilized two cell towers - the first was the cell tower that is the primary service tower for his home and then it transferred to the cell tower at 10th and D.

Now on the first point (meringue) - Scott also told Amber that Laci was going to make "cordon blue french toast"

PETERSON: And also to get um…stuff for Christmas Day breakfast.
FREY: Uh-hum.
PETERSON: She was going to make um…some kind of French toast, Cordon Blue French Toast or something like that.
FREY: Uh-hum.


So it makes me think it's possible that Scott was wrong about what he had seen or heard on the Martha Stewart show that day. Scott said Martha had on something with meringue. But Brocchini testified that meringue was mentioned once. Is it possible that like the creme brulee/cordon blue mix-up - Scott was remembering the wrong cooking term? I think so.

As far as his location at 10:08....this was Daniel White's answer to Geragos question of could this call have been made from the warehouse:

WHITE: The call is started from where?

GERAGOS: If the call started from here, 1027 North Emerald.

WHITE: Uh-huh.

GERAGOS: Can it start at 1250 Brighton and hand off to 10th and D?

WHITE: That's a pretty unreasonable scenario, in that you have got multiple sectors that are better service. So all of those sectors would have to be full at the instant you attempt to start the call.

GERAGOS: You checked for the morning of December 24th, correct?

WHITE: In terms of,

GERAGOS: The sector, and whether the sector was full?

WHITE: No.


White said it was unreasonable - but he didn't say it was impossible. All the sectors of 929 Woodland would have had to have been full in order for that call to utilize the Brighton cell tower and hand off to the 10th & D tower.

White also said this about cell traffic:

WHITE: I would say about the most busy would be December 18th, typically right around that period.

GERAGOS: Okay. In the following week?

WHITE: Begins to fall off. I'd said it would be fairly busy on the 24th. People are still out shopping. And then the 25th, it will be extremely low.




Lavindar - you seem to be familiar with Modesto. My research tells me there is only one large shopping mall in Modesto. Vintage Faire Mall. White testified that the primary cell tower for Scott's warehouse was 929 Woodland. He also testified that at a low signal - this cell tower had a radius of 3.2 miles. Vintage Fair mall is within this radius. Toys R Us, Walmart, Target as well as other shopping centers are within this radius. I've been to malls and toy stores on Christmas eve - and they are packed with people. Yet no one checked to see what the usage on this tower was that day (Christmas eve) to determine whether it was possible for Scott to be at the warehouse when he checked his voicemail - or near the warehouse. They only checked the usage on the Brighton cell tower which services the home on Covena. And Jacobsen's experiment with calls made and the cell towers they utilized in June 2004 is not an accurate representation of the utilization of cell towers on one of the busiest shopping days of the year in 2002. No more than Geragos' receipts from Austins in 2004 prove definitively that the cash register was inaccurate in 2002.

[PsychNurse;~)]

In interview with Brocchini at hdqrts:

GERAGOS: And that's, he told you on the top of page 16: After I got out of the shower, put clothes on, that's when I checked the messages. And you asked him: Were there any? And he said: Yeah. You said: Yours? And he said: Mine, and there were three. Two from him and one from Ron, correct?

BROCCHINI: That's what he said.
GERAGOS: Okay. Her stepfather, asking for whipped cream when we came over that's when I said hey, where's he calling me for whipped cream?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. You asked him: Did you erase them? And he said No; correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And: The one from Ron, do you know if that's, it says here, the transcriptionist, you say: The one from ah, Ron, do you know if that was before yours or after yours?

BROCCHINI: That's right.

GERAGOS: And he says: I believe it was after?

BROCCHINI: That's what he said.

GERAGOS: And that was true, wasn't it? When you listened to it?

BROCCHINI: I don't, I don't recall.


He comes home, his wife is not there, nothing is as it should have been and he TAKES A SHOWER, then listens to phone messages? Does NOT say cell phone messages. What is wrong with this picture?

this is from aw2b's response earlier. look at this statement from isp during his interview with brocchini:

PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?

anyone else find it odd that while isp doesn't know anything about the time stamp he KNOWS the call was placed at 2:16? not 'around 2:15 or so' but at 2:16.

cyn

[thinkaboutit]

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

The Bank of America receipt was never admitted into evidence. The Austin's receipt that was submitted as evidence was faded and unreadable at trial.

[attorneywan2be]

omg, this was a big topic on YOUR 1000 mile thread; are you seriously now going to act like you don't know anything about jackie making such statement(s) about laci's phone?

amazing.

cyn

I take issue with you what you said..this is the first time I hear about this..AND I don't buy it..!

[thinkaboutit]

saraliba, where is your jumbo font on this post - are you miraculously cured?

saraliba
Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 67




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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassie
Which ones are you wanting? Some of what I said was my opinion, I posted some testimony of some, and some I read in a magazine a long time ago.

I will not post anything else about certain things until I get the page numbers of the bocks and for sure which book it was in.

I am sorry for this and should have done this from the start, but so many people said they have read the books, I assumed they would remember what was read.

Sassie don't worry, you're doing a great job here posting.. I enjoy reading your thoughts and posts.
__________________
The mind is like a parachute it works only when it is open.

Are these posts by Sassie and the others previously quoted by Saraliba from another board Lavindar?

[PsychNurse;~)]

I take issue with you what you said..this is the first time I hear about this..AND I don't buy it..!

take issue all you want. this WAS discussed ad nauseum on YOUR thread. you might not have posted regarding it, but no way in hades did you manage to miss every single post regarding it.

you seem to have developed a history of selective post reading....

:punch:

cyn

[TopGunner]

I take issue with you what you said..this is the first time I hear about this..AND I don't buy it..!

AW2B, I've read this a few times, I know for sure it's in CC's book.

[deputydi]

For me, this phone stuff is very bewildering.
Page 13 of 29
PETERSON: One was when I left Berkeley and the other one was ah when I was drivin’ in Livermore, the traffic was pretty bad and I knew I wouldn’t be home by 4 so gave her a call.
Assuming Scott did make 3 calls to Laci, the first two were minutes apart and, by his own statement, he called when he "left Berkely". The third call was made when he was driving through Livermore and that was at almost 4:00. The timing of the calls seems a little strange to me. According to mapquest, Berkley to Livermore is less than half-way -- driving time less than an hour (I think mapquest says 45 min). If his final call to Laci was made at 3:52, he should have been way past Livermore. Even adjusting for "pretty bad" traffic and, if traffic was truly that horrendous, wouldn't he have called her earlier instead of waiting 8 minutes before she was expecting him? And, since he was supposed to pick up the fruit basket, wasn't Laci expecting him way before 4:00?

I hope someone can make sense of this, cause I sure can't.

(AW2B's phone timeline. I'm assuming it is accurate.)
Scott's calls to Laci:

2:14 pm to his home
2:17 pm to Laci's cell phone
3:52 pm to his home

[I'mSun]

Are these posts by Sassie and the others previously quoted by Saraliba from another board Lavindar?I'm not Lavindar, but the answer is no. These were posted here last night.

[attorneywan2be]

this is from aw2b's response earlier. look at this statement from isp during his interview with brocchini:

PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?

anyone else find it odd that while isp doesn't know anything about the time stamp he KNOWS the call was placed at 2:16? not 'around 2:15 or so' but at 2:16.

cyn

"Brocchini: Can I hear?"

What does this tell you? Scott said he didn't know if it was time stamped..then "try it out"..to me, he obviously called her number and found out it was "yesterday at 2:16" ...so Brocchini wanted to hear it too...he asked "can I hear"? then he asked "do you know how to repeat it"

BROCCHINI: So if we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, Doesn’t it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in?
PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: You know how to repeat it?
PETERSON: I think 9.

[woohoo]

this is from aw2b's response earlier. look at this statement from isp during his interview with brocchini:

PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.
BROCCHINI: Can I hear?

anyone else find it odd that while isp doesn't know anything about the time stamp he KNOWS the call was placed at 2:16? not 'around 2:15 or so' but at 2:16.

cyn

It appears that Scott makes the statement "I don't know if it's time stamped....try it out" then HE does so. (tries it out) Then simply repeats to Brocchini "yesterday at 2:16"

Which then prompts Brocchini to say (as in reaching for the phone) "can I hear?"
Scott listens and then Brocchini wants to listen.

[woohoo]

Sorry AW2B.....you beat me to it. But it is obvious what was happening.:shrug:

[Lavindar]

The Bank of America receipt was never admitted into evidence. The Austin's receipt that was submitted as evidence was faded and unreadable at trial.


where does it say "unreadable"? Nevertheless, it was the receipt nd it DID have her notation of 10:18 on it. I imagine it was much more readable when she received it and when she looked at it a month later AND her cell phone records backed up that time

[woohoo]

where does it say "unreadable"? Nevertheless, it was the receipt nd it DID have her notation of 10:18 on it. I imagine it was much more readable when she received it and when she looked at it a month later AND her cell phone records backed up that time

I have a lot of trouble agreeing with cell phone records of "times." My own are not always reliable and the one in Susan Medina's testimony. I still haven't gotten that resolved to my understanding.:shrug:

[Lavindar]

Are these posts by Sassie and the others previously quoted by Saraliba from another board Lavindar?

No they are from this board - I do not know how to link to nother post on this board

[deputydi]

No they are from this board - I do not know how to link to nother post on this board
I think they have all been banned anyway.

[Lavindar]

This is the only thing I was able to find regarding Laci's cell phone...Brocchini found the cell phone attached to a lighter, which means Laci was charging it when she was using her car..Brocchini stated that the battery was weak or low..that doesn't say that the phone was not working!!

Again..please provide the TS where Brocchini proved the cell phone was not working...also, the TS about Scott knowing about her cell phone being out of order..thanks

Allen Brocchini: I looked in the Land Rover first. It was unlocked. I opened the driver's door. There was a cell phone attached to a lighter in the Land Rover. It was off. I tried to power it on. It would power on, but immediately power off with a weak or low battery.
Rick Distaso: And did you look inside anything else in the Land Rover?


IT WOULD NOT POWER ON YOu can't call out on a cell phone that will not power on

[attorneywan2be]

For me, this phone stuff is very bewildering.

Assuming Scott did make 3 calls to Laci, the first two were minutes apart and, by his own statement, he called when he "left Berkely". The third call was made when he was driving through Livermore and that was at almost 4:00. The timing of the calls seems a little strange to me. According to mapquest, Berkley to Livermore is less than half-way -- driving time less than an hour (I think mapquest says 45 min). If his final call to Laci was made at 3:52, he should have been way past Livermore. Even adjusting for "pretty bad" traffic and, if traffic was truly that horrendous, wouldn't he have called her earlier instead of waiting 8 minutes before she was expecting him? And, since he was supposed to pick up the fruit basket, wasn't Laci expecting him way before 4:00?

I hope someone can make sense of this, cause I sure can't.

(AW2B's phone timeline. I'm assuming it is accurate.)
Scott's calls to Laci:

2:14 pm to his home
2:17 pm to Laci's cell phone
3:52 pm to his home

The first 2 calls which were 2 minutes apart consist of one call to his home and the other call was to her cell phone..which makes perfect sense..she didn't answer her home phone,so he left her message, then almost immediately he called her cell phone leaving her a message there too...he got gas at Livermore than he made his 3rd call to Laci at 3:52 pm.. which was about few minutes after Amy tried to reach him..I think he tried to reach Laci again to make sure she got his messages to pick up the basket...in his previous messages, he had already told Laci that he was running late and would not be able to pick up the basket for Amy..

The messages that he left Laci were: 1 was left on her cell phone...and 2 were left on the answering machine..

[woohoo]

I can't help but believe the judge allowing Karen Servas's experiment or documentation using her stopwatch and re-creating the trip she made into evidence could be an issue.
1. The defense was not allowed the boat experiment
2. LE did not re-enact or make the same trip to document what she did. That's curious to me.

[thinkaboutit]

I think he made two calls to Laci - one to her dead cell phone (that he KNEW was dead) and one to his home phone, which was the ONLY message he saved from that day- more alibi-type behavior imo. All others were deleted. Who saves his OWN messages if not to PROVE something. I know what I left a message about and do not need to save it other than to PROVE I did call and at what time.

Wasn't the saved hey beautiful message on Laci's cell phone? Laci's cell number was 402-8806 - the highlighted "your" should be "her":

BROCCHINI: And then what’s your mobile?

PETERSON: 402-8806.

BROCCHINI: Do you know her, ah, do you know her password?

PETERSON: 8184.

BROCCHINI: So if we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, Doesn’t it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in?

PETERSON: Ah I don’t know if it’s time stamped, try it out. Yesterday at 2:16.

BROCCHINI: Can I hear?

PETERSON: Yeah.

BROCCHINI: You know how to repeat it?

PETERSON: I think 9.

BROCCHINI: How many messages did she have? Two?

PETERSON: Two new ones.

BROCCHINI: Okay, I’ll save it, it was probably her dad or somebody.

Long pause, listening to messages on phone.

BROCCHINI: Okay here.

PETERSON: ________.

BROCCHINI: Yeah. Okay. (clears throat)

PETERSON: It says the first one was 2:15





There was also testimony that there was activity on Laci's cell phone up until the 22nd or the 23rd - I can't find it right now - but if someone else knows where it is and can post it - I would appreciate it.

Laci's cell phone was not dead. It may have been in her car needing a charge - but it was something she used up until a day or two before she disappeared.

[deputydi]

The first 2 calls which were 2 minutes apart consist of one call to his home and the other call was to her cell phone..which makes perfect sense..she didn't answer her home phone,so he left her message, then almost immediately he called her cell phone leaving her a message there too...he got gas at Livermore than he made his 3rd call to Laci at 3:52 pm.. which was about few minutes after Amy tried to reach him..I think he tried to reach Laci again to make sure she got his messages to pick up the basket...in his previous messages, he had already told Laci that he was running late and would not be able to pick up the basket for Amy..

The messages that he left Laci were: 1 was left on her cell phone...and 2 were left on the answering machine..
I understand all that. What I don't understand is why it took him 1 1/2 hrs to get to Livermore and why he waited until almost 4:00 to make the call to tell her he wouldn't make it home by 4. He was supposed to pick up the fruit basket by 3, wasn't he?

[attorneywan2be]

IT WOULD NOT POWER ON YOu can't call out on a cell phone that will not power on

Who said that someone called out on Laci's phone??

Brocchini called Laci's phone to listen to the messages..he used her password to retrieve the messages..
You know that you can call your cell phone from a remote phone ..enter the password and retrieve the messages..

[Lavindar]

And that's interesting too. The prosecution says Scott was home because...

He said Martha Stewart was cooking something with meringue and meringue was mentioned at approximately 9:49.
and..

Scott checked his voicemail at 10:08 and the call utilized two cell towers - the first was the cell tower that is the primary service tower for his home and then it transferred to the cell tower at 10th and D.

Now on the first point (meringue) - Scott also told Amber that Laci was going to make "cordon blue french toast"

So it makes me think it's possible that Scott was wrong about what he had seen or heard on the Martha Stewart show that day. Scott said Martha had on something with meringue. But Brocchini testified that meringue was mentioned once. Is it possible that like the creme brulee/cordon blue mix-up - Scott was remembering the wrong cooking term? I think so.

As far as his location at 10:08....this was Daniel White's answer to Geragos question of could this call have been made from the warehouse:



White said it was unreasonable - but he didn't say it was impossible. All the sectors of 929 Woodland would have had to have been full in order for that call to utilize the Brighton cell tower and hand off to the 10th & D tower.

White also said this about cell traffic:




Lavindar - you seem to be familiar with Modesto. My research tells me there is only one large shopping mall in Modesto. Vintage Faire Mall. White testified that the primary cell tower for Scott's warehouse was 929 Woodland. He also testified that at a low signal - this cell tower had a radius of 3.2 miles. Vintage Fair mall is within this radius. Toys R Us, Walmart, Target as well as other shopping centers are within this radius. I've been to malls and toy stores on Christmas eve - and they are packed with people. Yet no one checked to see what the usage on this tower was that day (Christmas eve) to determine whether it was possible for Scott to be at the warehouse when he checked his voicemail - or near the warehouse. They only checked the usage on the Brighton cell tower which services the home on Covena. And Jacobsen's experiment with calls made and the cell towers they utilized in June 2004 is not an accurate representation of the utilization of cell towers on one of the busiest shopping days of the year in 2002. No more than Geragos' receipts from Austins in 2004 prove definitively that the cash register was inaccurate in 2002.

First of all - the time for the mention of meringue was at 9:48 NOT 9:49.

Secondly, if Laci had intended to makecordon blue french toast, why did she buy ingredients for the other one - the recipe which was conveniently found at the house?

Brighton cell phone tower covers a residential area - not a mall. The switching off to the tower at 10th and D is consistent with Scott going to his work. Anything else is beyond reasonable thinking.

AND it would prove tha SCOTT lies to the police about the brunch menu - just another one of his little oops.

You are grasping at straws. Again, forgetting the REASONABLE factor in favor of the bizarre and unreasonable.

[TopGunner]

I have a lot of trouble agreeing with cell phone records of "times." My own are not always reliable and the one in Susan Medina's testimony. I still haven't gotten that resolved to my understanding.:shrug:


Switch to Verizon, they're accurate.

[Lavindar]

I understand all that. What I don't understand is why it took him 1 1/2 hrs to get to Livermore and why he waited until almost 4:00 to make the call to tell her he wouldn't make it home by 4. He was supposed to pick up the fruit basket by 3, wasn't he?


Scott would be hitting rush hour traffic on his way home. Stop and go starts about 3 going eastbound from the Bay Area. In addition, people leaving early for Christmas with family would slow things down.

[adnoid]

No they are from this board - I do not know how to link to nother post on this board

At this point you will be unable to.

[attorneywan2be]

I understand all that. What I don't understand is why it took him 1 1/2 hrs to get to Livermore and why he waited until almost 4:00 to make the call to tell her he wouldn't make it home by 4. He was supposed to pick up the fruit basket by 3, wasn't he?

He told her that already when he left her the message at 2:17!!

Quote:

Allen Brocchini: Hi, beautiful. I just left you a message at home. 2:15. I'm leaving Berkeley. I won't be able to get to Vella Farms to get the basket for Poppa. I was hoping you would get this message and go on out there. I'll see you in a bit, sweety. I love you. Bye.

As to why it took him about an hour and half to get to Livermore..1- he said the traffic was very bad ..+.. 2-he stopped and got gas..I lived in CA most of my life..if the traffic is bad..it is really really bad...I lived 40 miles from my work..it used to take me anywhere from an hour to 2 hours depending on the traffic..! as far as I remember, I never made it in less than an hour..!

[Lavindar]

Wasn't the saved hey beautiful message on Laci's cell phone? Laci's cell number was 402-8806 - the highlighted "your" should be "her":



There was also testimony that there was activity on Laci's cell phone up until the 22nd or the 23rd - I can't find it right now - but if someone else knows where it is and can post it - I would appreciate it.

Laci's cell phone was not dead. It may have been in her car needing a charge - but it was something she used up until a day or two before she disappeared.

Yes, but it was not holding a charge. Mine just did that last week. Had it on the charger and it wouldn't charge. bad battery

[thinkaboutit]

First of all - the time for the mention of meringue was at 9:48 NOT 9:49.

Secondly, if Laci had intended to makecordon blue french toast, why did she buy ingredients for the other one - the recipe which was conveniently found at the house?

Brighton cell phone tower covers a residential area - not a mall. The switching off to the tower at 10th and D is consistent with Scott going to his work. Anything else is beyond reasonable thinking.

AND it would prove tha SCOTT lies to the police about the brunch menu - just another one of his little oops.

You are grasping at straws. Again, forgetting the REASONABLE factor in favor of the bizarre and unreasonable.

I'd say calling me on my one minute mistake on the mention of meringue would be considered nitpicking.

I didn't say Laci intended to make cordon blue french toast. I said that is what Scott told Amber Laci was making and he was wrong. It's also possible he was wrong about the meringue.

And I didn't say the Brighton cell tower covered a mall....maybe you should re-read my post?

And how about my question regarding how many malls are in Modesto? One - right?

There is nothing bizarre about my post - thank you.

[thinkaboutit]

Yes, but it was not holding a charge. Mine just did that last week. Had it on the charger and it wouldn't charge. bad battery


The not holding a charge rumor is just that....a rumor. Ron called it at 5:30 trying to reach Laci. Laci had been using the phone up until the day before she went missing. It was not suspicious or unreasonable for Scott to call her phone and leave a message.

[I'mSun]

Scott would be hitting rush hour traffic on his way home. Stop and go starts about 3 going eastbound from the Bay Area. In addition, people leaving early for Christmas with family would slow things down.Holiday traffic often starts earlier in the day. There are a couple places where it is truly stop & slow.

[attorneywan2be]

Sorry AW2B.....you beat me to it. But it is obvious what was happening.:shrug:


Sorry for what?..we just thought of the same thing...:D

[Lavindar]

Lavindar - you seem to be familiar with Modesto. My research tells me there is only one large shopping mall in Modesto. Vintage Faire Mall. White testified that the primary cell tower for Scott's warehouse was 929 Woodland. He also testified that at a low signal - this cell tower had a radius of 3.2 miles. Vintage Fair mall is within this radius. Toys R Us, Walmart, Target as well as other shopping centers are within this radius. I've been to malls and toy stores on Christmas eve - and they are packed with people. Yet no one checked to see what the usage on this tower was that day (Christmas eve) to determine whether it was possible for Scott to be at the warehouse when he checked his voicemail - or near the warehouse. They only checked the usage on the Brighton cell tower which services the home on Covena. And Jacobsen's experiment with calls made and the cell towers they utilized in June 2004 is not an accurate representation of the utilization of cell towers on one of the busiest shopping days of the year in 2002. No more than Geragos' receipts from Austins in 2004 prove definitively that the cash register was inaccurate in 2002.

I would guess that those places would be on the fringers of that cell tower. I am sure there are cell towers much closer to the Mall, WalMart and DEFINIELY Target as Target and the Mall are closer to Salida than to 929 Woodland.

Considering that the Austin receipts that Geragos put into evidence are dated January 14th and January 20th of 2004, I'd say he LIED about them being taken 10 minutes apart.

[woohoo]

Wasn't the saved hey beautiful message on Laci's cell phone? Laci's cell number was 402-8806 - the highlighted "your" should be "her":



There was also testimony that there was activity on Laci's cell phone up until the 22nd or the 23rd - I can't find it right now - but if someone else knows where it is and can post it - I would appreciate it.

Laci's cell phone was not dead. It may have been in her car needing a charge - but it was something she used up until a day or two before she disappeared.

I've been looking for those same reports or whatever! IIRC Brocchini or some LE had requested or was looking at the activity on her phone on the 23rd. I know I was real curious what that activity was - but never did know.

[PsychNurse;~)]

yes, he knows by 2:15 he'll never be able to get to vella farms. leaves a message for laci, but despite not being able to reach her, does he call amy? NO.

and amazingly the one call he doesn't pick up or notice is the one from amy.

imo he didn't want to talk to anyone from laci's family about not being able to reach laci until after he'd gotten home, dumped the boat, showered, washed his clothes, etc.

cyn

[woohoo]

Switch to Verizon, they're accurate.

:seeya: Thanks but not available in my area.

[thinkaboutit]

Telephone Laci Peterson's cellular phone, left at her home the day of her disappearance, according to Det. Doug Ridenour, who told John Walsh that it was a clue that she did not leave the home by her own intent; according to the March 1, 2004, issue of the Globe, a phone that had a dead battery weeks before Laci Peterson's disappearance—a fact that "was well known among her friends and family"


Granted this is a media report, but since media reports by Richard Cole are beng posted, I think it's fair to post this

The Globe is a well-known tabloid. The Enquirer is more respectable than the Globe.

JUDGE: Well, he's just marking it right now. Right now, unless there's some foundation issue. These are phone records, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: Yeah, it's a one-page sheet of the, and it's Bates numbered looks like 38390, and it's a one-page call detail for Laci Peterson's cell phone. This particular page shows 33 calls starting on December 20th and then moving through the 26th.
JUDGE: Okay. (Defendant's Exhibit U marked for identification)

GERAGOS: Now, the, you then asked Scott Peterson: If we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, doesn't it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: So you were trying to check exactly what time Scott Peterson had called Laci Peterson when he left the marina; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

[thinkaboutit]

I'm not Lavindar, but the answer is no. These were posted here last night.

Thank you.

[thinkaboutit]

I believe the challah bread had to be ordered in advance and she did not do that - at least it's not in the testimony

No - no testimony that she ordered it.....the guy from Traders said he didn't know if someone had ordered specifically for that day.

But my point was - she didn't purchase it on the 23rd. It was something she still needed to purchase - which supports Scott's claim that she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast.

[deputydi]

He told her that already when he left her the message at 2:17!!

Quote:

Allen Brocchini: Hi, beautiful. I just left you a message at home. 2:15. I'm leaving Berkeley. I won't be able to get to Vella Farms to get the basket for Poppa. I was hoping you would get this message and go on out there. I'll see you in a bit, sweety. I love you. Bye.

As to why it took him about an hour and half to get to Livermore..1- he said the traffic was very bad ..+.. 2-he stopped and got gas..I lived in CA most of my life..if the traffic is bad..it is really really bad...I lived 40 miles from my work..it used to take me anywhere from an hour to 2 hours depending on the traffic..! as far as I remember, I never made it in less than an hour..!
First of all, thanks for being so patient with me on this.

If going through Livermore is known to be a high traffic area, it's pretty obvious at 2:15 he knew without a doubt he wouldn't make it home by 3. At that point, why didn't he call Amy? Even assuming he didn't know where Laci was, why just leave a message? Worse yet, when Amy called his cell, he didn't answer it or call her back. Poppa must not have been real important to him.

[deputydi]

yes, he knows by 2:15 he'll never be able to get to vella farms. leaves a message for laci, but despite not being able to reach her, does he call amy? NO.

and amazingly the one call he doesn't pick up or notice is the one from amy.

imo he didn't want to talk to anyone from laci's family about not being able to reach laci until after he'd gotten home, dumped the boat, showered, washed his clothes, etc.

cyn
Oops. I just posted the same question. I see no one has answered either yours or mine yet.

[Lavindar]

The Globe is a well-known tabloid. The Enquirer is more respectable than the Globe. Notice how Garegos does NOT say if they are incoming or outgoing. If her phone battery was not holding a charge, voice mail would still take calls. He never says that LACI calls anyone

[thinkaboutit]

where does it say "unreadable"? Nevertheless, it was the receipt nd it DID have her notation of 10:18 on it. I imagine it was much more readable when she received it and when she looked at it a month later AND her cell phone records backed up that time

David Harris: And what is it that People's 28 is, and how do you recognize it?

Jon Buehler: Well, it's taped to a piece of blue copy machine paper. It's got my handwriting on it. It's the receipt I remember. It is substantially more faded here today than it was when I picked it up. I have a photocopy of it in my binder that I believe might more clearly show the time. But time was documented in the report. And this is what I remember. This is what I had.

David Harris: You said there is some writing on here that you recognize. Is that your writing?

Jon Buehler: It is.

David Harris: Looking to the right of the receipt, is there a date and time that's there?

Jon Buehler: There is.

David Harris: And that date and time that you wrote on the blue paper, where did you get that from?

Jon Buehler: That was straight off the receipt.

David Harris: Showing you putting People's 28 up there. You are indicating that the information that you got was right off of the receipt. So the information you wrote is what I'm highlighting now to the right?

Jon Buehler: That's correct.

David Harris: And the date and time information that's on the receipt, that's this date right there, this time right there?

Jon Buehler: It's that faded-out printing just to the left of the 12 that's handwritten

LOL - even Servas had trouble reading it:

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.

[thinkaboutit]

Notice how Garegos does NOT say if they are incoming or outgoing. If her phone battery was not holding a charge, voice mail would still take calls. He never says that LACI calls anyone

If Laci's cell phone was known to be dead - why would Ron bother calling it at 5:30 to tell her that everyone was looking for her?

[deputydi]

If Laci's cell phone was known to be dead - why would Ron bother calling it at 5:30 to tell her that everyone was looking for her?

It probably wasn't the uppermost thing on his mind at that moment.

[attorneywan2be]

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.

Let me start by saying that I firmly believe the cell phone time was correct...

IMO, Susan Medina misspoke and she corrected her testimony under cross..she had 2 phone calls: one reminded her of the time they left to LA (10:33 am)..the other call was at 9:32 am and it reminded her of the time the inspector left..so when she was asked about the call regarding the inspector she mentioned 10:33 am by mistake..

Pat Harris: Okay. So during the day, during that day when you would, when you were in the house, the only time you actually left the house was to go to the patio to discuss what was going on with the building inspector?
Susan Medina: That's correct.
Pat Harris: And it was your recollection that the building inspector actually left sometime around 9:30? If you need to refer to your notes, please.
Susan Medina: Yes. There was a telephone call that was made on 9:32 a.m.
Pat Harris: Hm-hmm.
Susan Medina: And that was made by my husband to the guy who was wanting to, for him to play golf that day. So I gave him the phone in the patio and Mr. Nickerson was still there and I said please call your son. He called earlier inviting you to play golf and tell him no.
Pat Harris: And do you know approximately what time it was?
Susan Medina: When he made that call?
Pat Harris: Yes.
Susan Medina: It's 9:32 am.

[attorneywan2be]

If Laci's cell phone was known to be dead - why would Ron bother calling it at 5:30 to tell her that everyone was looking for her?

Exactly..thank you

[Lavindar]

LOL - even Servas had trouble reading it:

UnreadJon Buehler: Well, it's taped to a piece of blue copy machine paper. It's got my handwriting on it. It's the receipt I remember. It is substantially more faded here today than it was when I picked it up. I have a photocopy of it in my binder that I believe might more clearly show the time. But time was documented in the report. And this is what I remember. This is what I had.
Yes, but they had a backup of it so the information was there.

Unreadable means not being able to be read, not "difficulty" in reading it.

[cookiewench]

:beer: We also know from the receipts exactly what Laci bought:

Fred Eachus' testimony:



The receipt:
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/2-3.JPG


And we have the recipe:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8U-3.JPG


She purchased the Grand Marnier, the cream and the eggs - all of which were required for the recipe. $10 worth of Applewood Bacon which would go great with French Toast - maple syrup - most likely for the French Toast also. But no bread. Having had some experience with cooking myself - it makes perfect sense to me that she would wait until the day before to buy the bread to make sure it would be as fresh as possible.

Based on the above - I think Laci had some last minute shopping to do for the brunch - just like Scott said she did.

Speaking personally, only - I don't agree.

There is no need for the bread to be absolutely fresh if you're making French Toast. The bread is soaked first, and in this case it is even marinated.

There would be no way of telling, once it was made, if it had been made with absolutely fresh, day-old, or even once-frozen bread.

[thinkaboutit]

Lavindar - you seem to be familiar with Modesto. My research tells me there is only one large shopping mall in Modesto. Vintage Faire Mall. White testified that the primary cell tower for Scott's warehouse was 929 Woodland. He also testified that at a low signal - this cell tower had a radius of 3.2 miles. Vintage Fair mall is within this radius. Toys R Us, Walmart, Target as well as other shopping centers are within this radius. I've been to malls and toy stores on Christmas eve - and they are packed with people. Yet no one checked to see what the usage on this tower was that day (Christmas eve) to determine whether it was possible for Scott to be at the warehouse when he checked his voicemail - or near the warehouse. They only checked the usage on the Brighton cell tower which services the home on Covena. And Jacobsen's experiment with calls made and the cell towers they utilized in June 2004 is not an accurate representation of the utilization of cell towers on one of the busiest shopping days of the year in 2002. No more than Geragos' receipts from Austins in 2004 prove definitively that the cash register was inaccurate in 2002.

I would guess that those places would be on the fringers of that cell tower. I am sure there are cell towers much closer to the Mall, WalMart and DEFINIELY Target as Target and the Mall are closer to Salida than to 929 Woodland.

Considering that the Austin receipts that Geragos put into evidence are dated January 14th and January 20th of 2004, I'd say he LIED about them being taken 10 minutes apart.

Well, if there are cell towers closer to those locations - I imagine they would have been quite busy also - and it's quite possible that the 929 Woodland tower had to pick up the activity.

I would think Bill Austin would have remembered whether or not he produced no sales receipts for Jensen on more than one day. In fact he testified that they were done on the same day.

GERAGOS: Do you recognize my Mr. Jensen over here, can you stand up for a second, Paul? Do you recognize him?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's talked to you and been in your store?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.




GERAGOS: And you ran the receipts for him on one occasion; isn't that correct?

AUSTIN: Excuse me?

GERAGOS: You ran the receipts for him on one occasion; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's what I recall.

GERAGOS: Right. Same day?

AUSTIN: As far as I can recall, yes.



So although this doesn't prove that the time stamp receipt was inaccurate in 2002 - I really don't see how you can accuse Geragos of lying when Austin confirmed what Geragos said.

[thinkaboutit]

It probably wasn't the uppermost thing on his mind at that moment.


Sharon doesn't mention in her book that Laci's cell phone was dead either.

[thinkaboutit]

:beer:

Speaking personally, only - I don't agree.

There is no need for the bread to be absolutely fresh if you're making French Toast. The bread is soaked first, and in this case it is even marinated.

There would be no way of telling, once it was made, if it had been made with absolutely fresh, day-old, or even once-frozen bread.

To my knowledge there was no Chahlah bread found in the Peterson home.

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, but it was not holding a charge. Mine just did that last week. Had it on the charger and it wouldn't charge. bad battery

Laci had the phone attached to the lighter..that indicates to me that her phone was working and she was charging it...she used her car on Dec 23rd...but some cars if the ignition is off there would be no power in the lighter to charge the phone...it will only charge it when the car is running..

[deputydi]

:beer:

Speaking personally, only - I don't agree.

There is no need for the bread to be absolutely fresh if you're making French Toast. The bread is soaked first, and in this case it is even marinated.

There would be no way of telling, once it was made, if it had been made with absolutely fresh, day-old, or even once-frozen bread.
French toast is better when made with day old bread.

[I'mSun]

To my knowledge there was no Chahlah bread found in the Peterson home.I don't recall seeing a list of everything that was found in the Peterson home, particularly a list of groceries other than those listed on the receipt. Where can I find the list?

[attorneywan2be]

First of all, thanks for being so patient with me on this.

If going through Livermore is known to be a high traffic area, it's pretty obvious at 2:15 he knew without a doubt he wouldn't make it home by 3. At that point, why didn't he call Amy? Even assuming he didn't know where Laci was, why just leave a message? Worse yet, when Amy called his cell, he didn't answer it or call her back. Poppa must not have been real important to him.

I understand your point..but I know from experience that some people would have a hard time saying "I'm sorry I won't be able to help you" ..I think he preferred to resolve the matter by telling Laci to do it for Amy..IMO, he had no clue that Laci was not getting his messages...maybe he thought she didn't want to talk to him because she was angry that he was not going to make it on time..or maybe he did tell her about Amber..he thought that she was suspicious about that trip and thought that he was seeing Amber..hence not answering his calls..this is just a speculation..

[TopGunner]

I understand your point..but I know from experience that some people would have a hard time saying "I'm sorry I won't be able to help you" ..I think he preferred to resolve the matter by telling Laci to do it for Amy..IMO, he had no clue that Laci was not getting his messages...maybe he thought she didn't want to talk to him because she was angry that he was not going to make it on time..or maybe he did tell her about Amber..he thought that she was suspicious about that trip and thought that he was seeing Amber..hence not answering his calls..this is just a speculation..


AW2B...do you think it's harder to tell someone you can't do the favor you previously offered, so could they make other arrangements, or that they didn't get around to doing the favor previously offered, nor did they tell anyone, so no gift basket period.

Seriously, how SCARY is it to say to someone "hey, I'm really sorry, but I'm running late...I'll never be able to pick up the basket by 3, do you think you can make it?"

I know nobody in my family would pull out a gun. :chicken: :no:

[thinkaboutit]

I don't recall seeing a list of everything that was found in the Peterson home, particularly a list of groceries other than those listed on the receipt. Where can I find the list?

Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items?

[thinkaboutit]

French toast is better when made with day old bread.

But 3 day old bread?

[cookiewench]

To my knowledge there was no Chahlah bread found in the Peterson home.

Were we shown a list of what was in the freezer, and everything that was in the cupboards?

Either way - she may have intended to run out that day for just the bread, but she couldn't because her husband had killed her and she was dead before the sun came up.

[cookiewench]

I understand your point..but I know from experience that some people would have a hard time saying "I'm sorry I won't be able to help you" ..I think he preferred to resolve the matter by telling Laci to do it for Amy..IMO, he had no clue that Laci was not getting his messages...maybe he thought she didn't want to talk to him because she was angry that he was not going to make it on time..or maybe he did tell her about Amber..he thought that she was suspicious about that trip and thought that he was seeing Amber..hence not answering his calls..this is just a speculation..


That makes no sense.

He could have asked her before he left that day.

In fact, if Laci had been alive that day he never would have had to call later, because as soon as he told her he was going fishing 90 miles away, she would have asked him to pick up the basket first - or done it herself.

[TopGunner]

Were we shown a list of what was in the freezer, and everything that was in the cupboards?

Either way - she may have intended to run out that day for just the bread, but she couldn't because her husband had killed her and she was dead before the sun came up.


Hiya Cookie :seeya:

Nope, no list. And you're right, all of Laci's plans for the 24th were canceled on the night of the 23rd. IMO.

We'll never know know what Laci was planning that day. We only know she wasn't planning to die.:(

[I'mSun]

Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items?I think it is also possible that she went to a bakery on the 23rd to buy the bread since it isn't like an ordinary loaf. I know our grocery store doesn't carry it - it's a braided egg bread.

[Otter]

Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items?

It seems we discussed this the other day. Anyway, SP falls, IMO in the Liar Paradox. Its classic, his response to Brocchini about what Laci was doing and planned to do that day. Did she plan on going grocery shopping? Sure, why not? Was she mopping the floor? No, she was in the Bay. The former she planned, the latter she didn't. MOO.

That's the Liar Paradox -- the first sentence is true, the proceeding sentence is false. (Or vise versa.) Neither sentence refers to the other and become contradictions.

IMO, SP told the truth about Laci planning on grocery shopping on Christmas Eve for whatever she needed for Christmas breakfast. Laci was in the Bay at that time and she sure didn't mop the floor, or walk the dog, or listen to Martha Stewart. IMO, he flipped the tv on, not caring what was on, just background noise and the channel was set to her show from the last time the tv was on.

[Hey Paula]

Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items?

Hi Tai!

I seem to recall CTV board discussions re the challah bread, and I recall posts about Laci ordering it when she was at Trader Joe's. However, I can't recall if it was merely speculation, or if she in fact did.

Perhaps Laci had planned on picking up the bread on 12/24.

IMO

[deputydi]

Were we shown a list of what was in the freezer, and everything that was in the cupboards?

Either way - she may have intended to run out that day for just the bread, but she couldn't because her husband had killed her and she was dead before the sun came up.

Exactly!!!!

[deputydi]

That makes no sense.

He could have asked her before he left that day.

In fact, if Laci had been alive that day he never would have had to call later, because as soon as he told her he was going fishing 90 miles away, she would have asked him to pick up the basket first - or done it herself.
I agree. Assuming Scott told Laci that morning he had changed his mind and was driving 90 miles to Berkely to "put the boat in the water", he may have forgotten all about his promise to Amy, but I'll bet the farm Laci didn't.

It's the whole time thing that bugs me. He didn't even leave the house until after 10:00, he stopped at the warehouse to hook the boat up and piddle around with a mortiser, send an email and do whatever else he claimed to have done. It was at least 11:00 before he left to go "fishing". That would put him in Berkely, at the earliest, 12:30 (remember all that traffic in Livermore). His arrival was probably closer to 1:00 or even later, depending on traffic. He called Laci at approx 2:15 and left a message saying he was just leaving the marina and wouldn't be back in time to get Poppa's basket. How on earth does any of this make sense?

[aingael]

Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items?


Perhaps she had planned to shop for it on the 24th, but since Scott had killed her she didn't get to.

The other reason could be that like most of us when we cannot find something for a recipe we substitute and you can substitute french bread for Challah bread.

http://www.haydid.org/challah.htm

[TopGunner]

Perhaps she had planned to shop for it on the 24th, but since Scott had killed her she didn't get to.

The other reason could be that like most of us when we cannot find something for a recipe we substitute and you can substitute french bread for Challah bread.

http://www.haydid.org/challah.htm


Hey aing - good to see you. :seeya:

I agree, the bread is a moot point.

[woohoo]

Let me start by saying that I firmly believe the cell phone time was correct...

IMO, Susan Medina misspoke and she corrected her testimony under cross..she had 2 phone calls: one reminded her of the time they left to LA (10:33 am)..the other call was at 9:32 am and it reminded her of the time the inspector left..so when she was asked about the call regarding the inspector she mentioned 10:33 am by mistake..

Pat Harris: Okay. So during the day, during that day when you would, when you were in the house, the only time you actually left the house was to go to the patio to discuss what was going on with the building inspector?
Susan Medina: That's correct.
Pat Harris: And it was your recollection that the building inspector actually left sometime around 9:30? If you need to refer to your notes, please.
Susan Medina: Yes. There was a telephone call that was made on 9:32 a.m.
Pat Harris: Hm-hmm.
Susan Medina: And that was made by my husband to the guy who was wanting to, for him to play golf that day. So I gave him the phone in the patio and Mr. Nickerson was still there and I said please call your son. He called earlier inviting you to play golf and tell him no.
Pat Harris: And do you know approximately what time it was?
Susan Medina: When he made that call?
Pat Harris: Yes.
Susan Medina: It's 9:32 am.

Thank you!:beer: That resolves that!

[adnoid]

I agree, the bread is a moot point.

Not a grain of substance to it. Someone's trying to get a rise at the very yeast.

[aingael]

Hey aing - good to see you. :seeya:

I agree, the bread is a moot point.

Hi TipGunner and thanks.:) :seeya:

I would think that those who feel Scott is not guilty would agree that this is a reasonable explanation. ;)

[woohoo]

Laci had the phone attached to the lighter..that indicates to me that her phone was working and she was charging it...she used her car on Dec 23rd...but some cars if the ignition is off there would be no power in the lighter to charge the phone...it will only charge it when the car is running..

I have a cell phone that never leaves my car. It is one I use for emergency or calls made while driving. It stays plugged into the lighter all the time. When the motor is turned off so is the charge to the phone. It will operate fine as soon as it is turned on as long as I am driving down the street.

If my car is sitting in the driveway with no motor running, the cell will power up and immediately power down. Just as Laci's did.

[Lavindar]

Well, if there are cell towers closer to those locations - I imagine they would have been quite busy also - and it's quite possible that the 929 Woodland tower had to pick up the activity.

I would think Bill Austin would have remembered whether or not he produced no sales receipts for Jensen on more than one day. In fact he testified that they were done on the same day.


So although this doesn't prove that the time stamp receipt was inaccurate in 2002 - I really don't see how you can accuse Geragos of lying when Austin confirmed what Geragos said.

Here's a deliberate mis-stateing of the testimony by Geragos (and yet, you don't think he'd lie)


Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Geragos lies cash register

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

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

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. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct? AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time.

Can Gergaos not hear correctly? Or he is delibertely mis-stating information - I have to belivee the latter




Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

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. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct?

AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time. Two were standard and one is computerized. GERAGOS: The computerized cash register would have been attended to by Mr. Jensen?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who would have set up that cash register back in 2002; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You did not set it up?

AUSTIN: No, I did not.

GERAGOS: Do you recognize my Mr. Jensen over here, can you stand up for a second, Paul? Do you recognize him?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's talked to you and been in your store?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

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: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up.


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?



Austin KNOWs now tvhat Gergagos was up to. He sees the different dates/

[Hey Paula]

Not a grain of substance to it. Someone's trying to get a rise at the very yeast.

LOL! :biggrin:

The bread, not being found in the house, bolsters the State's contention that Laci wasn't alive past the wee hours of 12/24, as she never got the chance to shop for it.

IMO

[Lavindar]

I don't recall seeing a list of everything that was found in the Peterson home, particularly a list of groceries other than those listed on the receipt. Where can I find the list?
That list showed that she bought the ingredients for the creme brulee fresh toast, not the stuff Scott told Amber she was going to make. I don't believe that was in testimony anyway.

[Lavindar]

If Laci's cell phone was known to be dead - why would Ron bother calling it at 5:30 to tell her that everyone was looking for her?
Panic - something Scott couldn't seen to show.

[Otter]

I have a cell phone that never leaves my car. It is one I use for emergency or calls made while driving. It stays plugged into the lighter all the time. When the motor is turned off so is the charge to the phone. It will operate fine as soon as it is turned on as long as I am driving down the street.

If my car is sitting in the driveway with no motor running, the cell will power up and immediately power down. Just as Laci's did.

I think I'm the only person in the world without a cellphone, so I defer. Isn't the argument from the NG's that he called her throughout the day? Now, this last call -- no suspicions are raised, nothing about "Laci? Where are you? Pick up!"

I'm by nature a worrier, usually for no reason but always thinking some horrible thing has happened when someone is not where they're supposed to be. Why isn't the loving husband checking out these things on his own? Why does it take the police to ask him these things? Why is there no concern -- at all? Concern? There's not even a curiosity as to where his wife is.

I'd be frantic, but that's just me.

[Lavindar]

I can't help but believe the judge allowing Karen Servas's experiment or documentation using her stopwatch and re-creating the trip she made into evidence could be an issue.
1. The defense was not allowed the boat experiment
2. LE did not re-enact or make the same trip to document what she did. That's curious to me.


Better read up on experimentation. Little different when she recreated the exact route and things she did that day and then submitted the most beneficial time to the defense. Also not expeerimentation when it was backed up by two separate time stamps from two separate sources. Later, she found he B of A receipt and it was a third source of information. I Realized it was not in evidence, but neither is a lot of the things that are speculated here.

Karen had PROOF to back up her times. Garegos even said in her testimony when she asked to explain the situation that "I WILL EXPLAIN" which tells me that he will put HIS spin on it rather than the truth.

[Lavindar]

Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items? She bought the ingredients on the 23frd, not the 22nd. Are you Garegos - you keep changing the days and times by a minute or a day or something?

[I'mSun]

That list showed that she bought the ingredients for the creme brulee fresh toast, not the stuff Scott told Amber she was going to make. I don't believe that was in testimony anyway.You are right, it wasn't. Actually what I wrote was in reply to TAI's post: To my knowledge there was no Chahlah bread found in the Peterson home.

[TopGunner]

Not a grain of substance to it. Someone's trying to get a rise at the very yeast.


TG <------------------- laughing outloud:tongue:

[Lavindar]

I can't help but believe the judge allowing Karen Servas's experiment or documentation using her stopwatch and re-creating the trip she made into evidence could be an issue.
1. The defense was not allowed the boat experiment
2. LE did not re-enact or make the same trip to document what she did. That's curious to me.
Why is that curious. They did not have her vehicle; they did not know the route she took, they did not know exactly what she did inthe store. They could not have walked in her shoes. She is a hero in my book. By trying to help Scott by narrowing that timeline, she wound up slipping the noose around his neck and I wanna be there to see him die myself.

[Lavindar]

I have a cell phone that never leaves my car. It is one I use for emergency or calls made while driving. It stays plugged into the lighter all the time. When the motor is turned off so is the charge to the phone. It will operate fine as soon as it is turned on as long as I am driving down the street.

If my car is sitting in the driveway with no motor running, the cell will power up and immediately power down. Just as Laci's did. Funny, mine holds a charge when the car is turned off. I did deliveries for 18 months and my car was always in the car charger also. It charged when I was driving the car and held the charge until run down. If what you say is true, your phone would be of no use in vehicle emergencies of a dead battery or the vehicle is turned off. It would only be useful in emergencies when the vehicle is running.

[Lavindar]

Thank you!:beer: That resolves that!

Yes, but it doesn't prove that the Medinas saw Mackenzie in the street, does it?

[TopGunner]

Yes, but it doesn't prove that the Medinas saw Mackenzie in the street, does it?


Correct. :beer:

[Lavindar]

I find it SO interesting that you assume that Karen's cell phone records are WRONG, but the ones that prove Scott's stories are 100% accurate. I find it interesting that people who are busy getting ready for a holiday trip and are loading their car might notice a dog in the street when they couldn't see that area from the location of their car.

I find it interesting that Karen was MISTAKEN when she saw the dog, yet she describes in detail her actions, yet she didn't know if she was coming or going. I find it interesting that TESIMONY is ignored in favor of other theories. I find it interesting that what Geragos says is Gospel When the Judge says specifically that what the attorneys say cannot be considered evidence.

[woohoo]

Here's a deliberate mis-stateing of the testimony by Geragos (and yet, you don't think he'd lie)


Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Geragos lies cash register

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

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

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. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct? AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time.

Can Gergaos not hear correctly? Or he is delibertely mis-stating information - I have to belivee the latter




Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

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. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct?

AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time. Two were standard and one is computerized. GERAGOS: The computerized cash register would have been attended to by Mr. Jensen?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who would have set up that cash register back in 2002; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You did not set it up?

AUSTIN: No, I did not.

GERAGOS: Do you recognize my Mr. Jensen over here, can you stand up for a second, Paul? Do you recognize him?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's talked to you and been in your store?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

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: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up.


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?



Austin KNOWs now tvhat Gergagos was up to. He sees the different dates/

I disagree....The rest of the testimony:
Recross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: And apparently it wasn't accurate in 2004, was it?

AUSTIN: I don't know why it wouldn't be.

GERAGOS: Well, because if it was ten minutes apart and it shows different dates and different times, that would be a pretty good indication that that wasn't accurate, wouldn't it?

AUSTIN: I couldn't tell you if these were done on the same day, sir.

GERAGOS: Didn't you just testify that he did it ten minutes apart on the same day in front of you? You didn't say ten minutes apart, but you did say you did it, he did it in front of you?

AUSTIN: According to this it was done on two different days.

GERAGOS: Do you remember,

AUSTIN: I didn't look at that part.

GERAGOS: Okay. But did you run two receipts for him on the same day?

AUSTIN: I can't tell you if I did or not.

GERAGOS: Well, when I asked you before, I asked you about it and you said that you did. Do you remember testifying to that about five minutes ago?

AUSTIN: I also didn't look at the dates on these two receipts

GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

GERAGOS: And you ran the receipts for him on one occasion; isn't that correct?

AUSTIN: Excuse me?

GERAGOS: You ran the receipts for him on one occasion; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's what I recall.

GERAGOS: Right. Same day?

AUSTIN: As far as I can recall, yes.GERAGOS: Thank you. No further questions.

[Otter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, MG does a great cross. So, in the opinion of someone who sure doesn't count, ineffective counsel doesn't seem in the cards.

Or the receipts.

The devil in this case is not in the details, he wasn't that clever. MOO.

[woohoo]

I think I'm the only person in the world without a cellphone, so I defer. Isn't the argument from the NG's that he called her throughout the day? Now, this last call -- no suspicions are raised, nothing about "Laci? Where are you? Pick up!"

I'm by nature a worrier, usually for no reason but always thinking some horrible thing has happened when someone is not where they're supposed to be. Why isn't the loving husband checking out these things on his own? Why does it take the police to ask him these things? Why is there no concern -- at all? Concern? There's not even a curiosity as to where his wife is.

I'd be frantic, but that's just me.

And I agree with that premise. I would be the same way. I have had health issues in the past and If my husband couldn't get me on the phone, there would be a flurry of calls to my daughter, granddaughter and grandson following his call to me.:shrug:

[Lavindar]

I disagree....The rest of the testimony:
Recross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: And apparently it wasn't accurate in 2004, was it?

AUSTIN: I don't know why it wouldn't be.

GERAGOS: Well, because if it was ten minutes apart and it shows different dates and different times, that would be a pretty good indication that that wasn't accurate, wouldn't it?

AUSTIN: I couldn't tell you if these were done on the same day, sir.

GERAGOS: Didn't you just testify that he did it ten minutes apart on the same day in front of you? You didn't say ten minutes apart, but you did say you did it, he did it in front of you?

AUSTIN: According to this it was done on two different days.

GERAGOS: Do you remember,

AUSTIN: I didn't look at that part.

GERAGOS: Okay. But did you run two receipts for him on the same day?

AUSTIN: I can't tell you if I did or not.

GERAGOS: Well, when I asked you before, I asked you about it and you said that you did. Do you remember testifying to that about five minutes ago?

AUSTIN: I also didn't look at the dates on these two receipts

GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

GERAGOS: And you ran the receipts for him on one occasion; isn't that correct?

AUSTIN: Excuse me?

GERAGOS: You ran the receipts for him on one occasion; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's what I recall.

GERAGOS: Right. Same day?

AUSTIN: As far as I can recall, yes.GERAGOS: Thank you. No further questions.


More of GERAGOS testimony. He remembered talking to the investigator GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

That doesn't say ten minutes apart. To me a couple of occasions means a couple of different days.

Geragos-speak again.

[Otter]

More of GERAGOS testimony. He remembered talking to the investigator GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

That doesn't say ten minutes apart. To me a couple of occasions means a couple of different days.

Geragos-speak again.

He's good at it! BARD, he did all he could with what little he had IMO. His problem was he could only nitpick things that really made no difference to anything. Oh I know, her time line. She wasn't crucial, not a bit. Not when you comprehend the big picture of what he said and did in his own words. Its all superfluous gobbledy-gook.

MOO.

[woohoo]

Better read up on experimentation. Little different when she recreated the exact route and things she did that day and then submitted the most beneficial time to the defense. Also not expeerimentation when it was backed up by two separate time stamps from two separate sources. Later, she found he B of A receipt and it was a third source of information. I Realized it was not in evidence, but neither is a lot of the things that are speculated here.

Karen had PROOF to back up her times. Garegos even said in her testimony when she asked to explain the situation that "I WILL EXPLAIN" which tells me that he will put HIS spin on it rather than the truth.

I think you are reading too much into the "I will explain." TS often omit words in the heat of a confrontation. IMO he probably meant "I will let you explain" since we are speculating. And it is pure speculation that she found the BOA receipt. Because had she found it, and it further substantiated her testimony there is nothing between heaven and earth that would have kept the prosecution from using it.

As for experimentation...the receipt can be used only to prove she was at a given place at a given time. There are no receipts showing the time on her stopwatch when she began her experiment sans her word and using HER stopwatch. Did the stopwatch operate properly? Was there anyone to witness she left at any given time? How heavy was the traffic? Was it as heavy as Christmas Eve? How long did it take her to drive around BOA during her re-enactment? She was looking for a parking place on Christmas Eve.

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.

I just don't see this as certifiable evidence that her re-enactment was exact and duplicated her actions on Christmas Eve. For the same reasons that the boat experiment was not allowed. :shrug:

[woohoo]

Why is that curious. They did not have her vehicle; they did not know the route she took, they did not know exactly what she did inthe store. They could not have walked in her shoes. She is a hero in my book. By trying to help Scott by narrowing that timeline, she wound up slipping the noose around his neck and I wanna be there to see him die myself.
quote:
"and I wanna be there to see him die myself"

YIKES!!!!!

They could have done all the above right along with her and made it more legitimate.

And BTW it wasn't only to help Scott that she recreated this timeline. She was working very closely with Det. Brocchini in reporting anything going on at the Peterson house. The prosecution needed a "tighter" timeline from her.

Who did she contact with the results of her re-enactment? The detectives.

[woohoo]

Funny, mine holds a charge when the car is turned off. I did deliveries for 18 months and my car was always in the car charger also. It charged when I was driving the car and held the charge until run down. If what you say is true, your phone would be of no use in vehicle emergencies of a dead battery or the vehicle is turned off. It would only be useful in emergencies when the vehicle is running.

The phone continues to charge as I drive the car. Of course it hold whatever charge was built up for a time based on how long I run the car. Maybe I didnt make that clear enough. Depending on how long I drive determines how much charge it has. After the motor is killed, it runs down or loses what charge it has built up. And then it starts all over again when the motor starts. But I don't remember Brocchini starting the motor in Laci's car???

It would be useful in the event of a dead battery for a short time, depending on how far I have driven when the battery went dead. But you know that.
I do have another cell in my purse but the one kept in the car is an older one that I find easier to see the numbers, and is easier to get to than having to dig in my purse for the one I use in stores. It's a personal choice.

[Lavindar]

I think you are reading too much into the "I will explain." TS often omit words in the heat of a confrontation. IMO he probably meant "I will let you explain" since we are speculating. And it is pure speculation that she found the BOA receipt. Because had she found it, and it further substantiated her testimony there is nothing between heaven and earth that would have kept the prosecution from using it.

As for experimentation...the receipt can be used only to prove she was at a given place at a given time. There are no receipts showing the time on her stopwatch when she began her experiment sans her word and using HER stopwatch. Did the stopwatch operate properly? Was there anyone to witness she left at any given time? How heavy was the traffic? Was it as heavy as Christmas Eve? How long did it take her to drive around BOA during her re-enactment? She was looking for a parking place on Christmas Eve.

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.

I just don't see this as certifiable evidence that her re-enactment was exact and duplicated her actions on Christmas Eve. For the same reasons that the boat experiment was not allowed. :shrug:

Her time re-enactment is VERY important. Her original statement was that she put the dog in the yard at 1030 which was impossible given the Austin receipt and the cell phone records.

[TopGunner]

quote:
"and I wanna be there to see him die myself"

YIKES!!!!!

They could have done all the above right along with her and made it more legitimate.

And BTW it wasn't only to help Scott that she recreated this timeline. She was working very closely with Det. Brocchini in reporting anything going on at the Peterson house. The prosecution needed a "tighter" timeline from her.

Who did she contact with the results of her re-enactment? The detectives.



This is the first I heard that she was "working closely with Brocchini", let alone they (LE) attempted to get a "tighter" timeline from her. Where is this stated?

[Lavindar]

The phone continues to charge as I drive the car. Of course it hold whatever charge was built up for a time based on how long I run the car. Maybe I didnt make that clear enough. Depending on how long I drive determines how much charge it has. After the motor is killed, it runs down or loses what charge it has built up. And then it starts all over again when the motor starts. But I don't remember Brocchini starting the motor in Laci's car???

Laci had driven to Trader Joe's on the 23rd. That's on the opposite side of town, and would have charged her battery for about half an hour.

It wouldn't be THAT dead after an hour's charging the day before when it had not been used.

It would be useful in the event of a dead battery for a short time, depending on how far I have driven when the battery went dead. But you know that.
I do have another cell in my purse but the one kept in the car is an older one that I find easier to see the numbers, and is easier to get to than having to dig in my purse for the one I use in stores. It's a personal choice.

Laci had driven to Trader Joe's on the 23rd. That's on the opposite side of town, and would have charged her battery for about half an hour one way.

It wouldn't be THAT dead after an hour's charging the day before when it had not been used, at least mine will hold an hour's charge (with no use for 3 days)

[Lavindar]

quote:
"and I wanna be there to see him die myself"

YIKES!!!!!

They could have done all the above right along with her and made it more legitimate.

And BTW it wasn't only to help Scott that she recreated this timeline. She was working very closely with Det. Brocchini in reporting anything going on at the Peterson house. The prosecution needed a "tighter" timeline from her.

Who did she contact with the results of her re-enactment? The detectives.

Most people in Modesto were busy looking for Laci and she did not need the police with her to do exactly what she did that morning

[Lavindar]

I think you are reading too much into the "I will explain." TS often omit words in the heat of a confrontation. IMO he probably meant "I will let you explain" since we are speculating. And it is pure speculation that she found the BOA receipt. Because had she found it, and it further substantiated her testimony there is nothing between heaven and earth that would have kept the prosecution from using it.

As for experimentation...the receipt can be used only to prove she was at a given place at a given time. There are no receipts showing the time on her stopwatch when she began her experiment sans her word and using HER stopwatch. Did the stopwatch operate properly? Was there anyone to witness she left at any given time? How heavy was the traffic? Was it as heavy as Christmas Eve? How long did it take her to drive around BOA during her re-enactment? She was looking for a parking place on Christmas Eve.

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.

I just don't see this as certifiable evidence that her re-enactment was exact and duplicated her actions on Christmas Eve. For the same reasons that the boat experiment was not allowed. :shrug:


IF the police had been involved in her re-inactment, you'd be shouting about LE framing scott. Give me a break.

[One2Snoop]

But 3 day old bread?

Yes, makes it even better. I've made this recipe (its awesome BTW and doesn't need syrup). I think that makes me an expert on the subject doesn't it? ;) J/K LOL. :tongue:
Was there bread in the freezer or fridge by chance? Does anyone know what the 3 non-taxable items where listed on the receipt? I shop at Trader Joes, 75% of my shopping is done there and I don't recall seeing anything like that on any of my reciepts before. Just curious.

TIA

[I'mSun]

Yes, makes it even better. I've made this recipe (its awesome BTW and doesn't need syrup). I think that makes me an expert on the subject doesn't it? ;) J/K LOL. :tongue:
Was there bread in the freezer or fridge by chance? Does anyone know what the 3 non-taxable items where listed on the receipt? I shop at Trader Joes, 75% of my shopping is done there and I don't recall seeing anything like that on any of my reciepts before. Just curious.

TIAAll I remember seeing was 3 @ 1.29 LOL! I'd say that makes you an expert! I didn't even hear about it until this case.

[One2Snoop]

We also know from the receipts exactly what Laci bought:

Fred Eachus' testimony:



The receipt:
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/2-3.JPG


And we have the recipe:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8U-3.JPG


She purchased the Grand Marnier, the cream and the eggs - all of which were required for the recipe. $10 worth of Applewood Bacon which would go great with French Toast - maple syrup - most likely for the French Toast also. But no bread. Having had some experience with cooking myself - it makes perfect sense to me that she would wait until the day before to buy the bread to make sure it would be as fresh as possible.

Based on the above - I think Laci had some last minute shopping to do for the brunch - just like Scott said she did.

All I remember seeing was 3 @ 1.29 LOL! I'd say that makes you an expert! I didn't even hear about it until this case.


If you look at the receipt and you seriously will need a magnifying glass to see it. :D It says Grocery Non-taxable 3 X $1.29. I was just curious what a non-taxable item would be.

Also - you don't have to use challah in the recipe - I used Kings Hawaiin - I've also seen alot of other bread variations listed for this recipe. FWIW.

[aingael]

I think you are reading too much into the "I will explain." TS often omit words in the heat of a confrontation. IMO he probably meant "I will let you explain" since we are speculating. :


The above was snipped for space.

The problem with your theory of "omitted" words is "if" this is the true trial transcript words cannot be omitted.

The defense as well as the prosecution has to certify the trial record and if there was something wrong it has to be reviewed. In my opinion, trying to make something fit your theory with an explanation like that won't cut it, it only shows desperation.

[frydaddy]

If you look at the receipt and you seriously will need a magnifying glass to see it. :D It says Grocery Non-taxable 3 X $1.29. I was just curious what a non-taxable item would be.

Also - you don't have to use challah in the recipe - I used Kings Hawaiin - I've also seen alot of other bread variations listed for this recipe. FWIW.

Could it be fruit, vegetables, bagels, donuts...something loose that are bought individually?

ETA: Who purposely puts off a grocery store visit until Christmas Eve when the places are a zoo? And with Laci's busy schedule of walking, baking cookies, mopping, etc. - when was she going to partake in the "involved prep"? Sorry, I know you know the answers to these questions!

[frydaddy]

The above was snipped for space.

The problem with your theory of "omitted" words is "if" this is the true trial transcript words cannot be omitted.

The defense as well as the prosecution has to certify the trial record and if there was something wrong it has to be reviewed. In my opinion, trying to make something fit your theory with an explanation like that won't cut it, it only shows desperation.

You got it!

[adnoid]

I find it SO interesting that you assume that Karen's cell phone records are WRONG, but the ones that prove Scott's stories are 100% accurate...

That's how it works. When the cell phone records back up Scott's story they are accurate. The rest of the time they have been fabricated by a conspiracy involving AT&T and California law enforcement.

[adnoid]

This is the first I heard that she was "working closely with Brocchini", let alone they (LE) attempted to get a "tighter" timeline from her. Where is this stated?

It's not.

It's part of this theme that anyone who cooperated with LE was scheming against Scott. Never mind that Scott himself asked everyone to do whatever they could to help!

[woohoo]

I find it SO interesting that you assume that Karen's cell phone records are WRONG, but the ones that prove Scott's stories are 100% accurate. I find it interesting that people who are busy getting ready for a holiday trip and are loading their car might notice a dog in the street when they couldn't see that area from the location of their car.

I find it interesting that Karen was MISTAKEN when she saw the dog, yet she describes in detail her actions, yet she didn't know if she was coming or going. I find it interesting that TESIMONY is ignored in favor of other theories. I find it interesting that what Geragos says is Gospel When the Judge says specifically that what the attorneys say cannot be considered evidence.

I have never said her phone records were wrong. I have said that I have known some cell records to wrong. Her cell phone records have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point I am trying to discuss.

I am not arguing her cell phone records. I think you may be, but I'm not. My point has to do with admitting the whole "backtracking" procedure into evidence without documentation of her facts, other than her word and her stopwatch.
The cell phone call came after she had stopped her stopwatch.

[woohoo]

That's how it works. When the cell phone records back up Scott's story they are accurate. The rest of the time they have been fabricated by a conspiracy involving AT&T and California law enforcement.

I've never said all Scott's records were accurate. He made 3 calls IIRC on Christmas Day standing in his front yard that were handed off to a very questionable tower location.

[woohoo]

Her time re-enactment is VERY important. Her original statement was that she put the dog in the yard at 1030 which was impossible given the Austin receipt and the cell phone records.

I'm very much aware of the importance of her timeline re-enactment. The prosecution made it a huge part of their case.

What cell phone records backed up anything concerning her trip from Covena St. to Austins? That part of her testimony came AFTER she had already re-created the 10:18 timeline.

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?

SERVAS: Correct.

[woohoo]

Laci had driven to Trader Joe's on the 23rd. That's on the opposite side of town, and would have charged her battery for about half an hour one way.

It wouldn't be THAT dead after an hour's charging the day before when it had not been used, at least mine will hold an hour's charge (with no use for 3 days)

So, are you saying you DON'T think her phone was dead? That it would have been charged sufficiently for Brocchini to power it up? Or that it was just dead and Scott knew it? Not clear.

I assume you are talking about your current cell phone that will hold an hour's charge. There have been a lot of improvements regarding this since 2002 which is when Laci's phone came into question.

[attorneywan2be]

The above was snipped for space.

The problem with your theory of "omitted" words is "if" this is the true trial transcript words cannot be omitted.

The defense as well as the prosecution has to certify the trial record and if there was something wrong it has to be reviewed. In my opinion, trying to make something fit your theory with an explanation like that won't cut it, it only shows desperation.

Actually those transcripts were purchased before the trial record was certified...

[enlightenme]

I'm very much aware of the importance of her timeline re-enactment. The prosecution made it a huge part of their case.

What cell phone records backed up anything concerning her trip from Covena St. to Austins? That part of her testimony came AFTER she had already re-created the 10:18 timeline.

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?

SERVAS: Correct.


Even Distaso said approximately here. Do you really think 12 more minutes (10:30 instead of 10:18) would have saved Scott a conviction? I don't think so, there was so much other CE!

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

I agree. Assuming Scott told Laci that morning he had changed his mind and was driving 90 miles to Berkely to "put the boat in the water", he may have forgotten all about his promise to Amy, but I'll bet the farm Laci didn't.

It's the whole time thing that bugs me. He didn't even leave the house until after 10:00, he stopped at the warehouse to hook the boat up and piddle around with a mortiser, send an email and do whatever else he claimed to have done. It was at least 11:00 before he left to go "fishing". That would put him in Berkely, at the earliest, 12:30 (remember all that traffic in Livermore). His arrival was probably closer to 1:00 or even later, depending on traffic. He called Laci at approx 2:15 and left a message saying he was just leaving the marina and wouldn't be back in time to get Poppa's basket. How on earth does any of this make sense?

You'd bet the farm that someone you don't even know would not have forgotten about the basket? How can you be so sure?

[woohoo]

This is the first I heard that she was "working closely with Brocchini", let alone they (LE) attempted to get a "tighter" timeline from her. Where is this stated?

Transcript from Pre-lim: This is one area it was discussed. It was in news reports also but I realize those aren't considered "official." Right?

MR. McALLISTER: Well, let me ask the detective more directly.

Q. When you talked with Karen Servas, was she -- did she tell you about how -- how much Scott and Laci were looking forward to the baby?

A. Can I look at my report?

Q. Sure.

A. I don't think she ever told me that. I don't remember, if she did.

Q. Okay. Well, all your report talks about is about how she on the 4th of January agreed, essentially, to become an informer for you; right?

MR. DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. McALLISTER:

Q. Well, didn't Ms. Servas say that she would report to you anything that was going on next door with Scott Peterson?

A. I may have asked her to call me and tell me if anything was going on. I don't -- the answer is no. She said she'd be a witness.

Q. (Indicating to witness.)

A. I see -- I got it right here, Mr. --

Q. You know what I'm talking about?

A. It's just what I testified to.

Q. "She said she would be willing to talk to us any time, and she will note any other unusual things that she sees or remembers." Right?

A. And she's been good about that.

Q. Oh, she's been real good about that.

THE COURT: Just ask questions, Mr. McAllister.

MR. McALLISTER:

Q. She's called you a lot of times, hasn't she?

MR. DISTASO: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance. This is definitely beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Sounds like it. Sustained.

[thinkaboutit]

Hey aing - good to see you. :seeya:

I agree, the bread is a moot point.

The only reason we are discussing the bread is because a poster was debating the issue that Laci had things to do that would require her to leave the house that day.

But you're right - it's a moot point - because regardless of whether she had already purchased the bread or not......people run out to the store, leave the house to talk to a neighbor, etc.....and they often do it in the spur of the moment - it doesn't need to be planned.

No reason for alarm when Scott called at 2:15 and she wasn't home, imo.

Sharon Rocha testified at pre-lim that there may have been times when Laci and Scott came to her house in separate cars. And they lived 5 minutes away. So imo, it would have been reasonable for Scott to assume, when he came home that Laci was already at her mother's - possibly picked up by Sharon. Maybe one of her friends came by and they ran out for something. Or at a neighbor's house - didn't Sharon instruct Scott to check with the neighbors? There are many possibilities...and it makes perfect sense to me that Scott was not alarmed until he had been home for 30 minutes and Laci did not return and then he heard the message from Grantski asking them to bring whipped cream.

[attorneywan2be]

So, are you saying you DON'T think her phone was dead? That it would have been charged sufficiently for Brocchini to power it up? Or that it was just dead and Scott knew it? Not clear.

I assume you are talking about your current cell phone that will hold an hour's charge. There have been a lot of improvements regarding this since 2002 which is when Laci's phone came into question.

Woohoo...I found this...:D

Laci's phone was not dead..I think this should put the notion that her phone was dead to rest...

On December 23rd..Scott called Laci's cell phone at 10:47 am

Click exhibit 203A-1 ..scroll down to 12/23 at 10:47 am her cell phone number : 209-402-8806

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/P203.htm

[thinkaboutit]

Here's a deliberate mis-stateing of the testimony by Geragos (and yet, you don't think he'd lie)


Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Geragos lies cash register

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

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

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. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct? AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time.

Can Gergaos not hear correctly? Or he is delibertely mis-stating information - I have to belivee the latter




Cross Examination by Mark Geragos



JUDGE: Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: Mr. Austin, you don't set up the -- program the machine, do you?

AUSTIN: I didn't program this one, no.

GERAGOS: It's a gentleman by the name of Jared Jensen is the one who did it?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Jared Jensen is an employee of yours?

AUSTIN: Yes, he is.

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. One that was computerized, three that were standard; is that correct?

AUSTIN: There's three cash registers at that time. Two were standard and one is computerized. GERAGOS: The computerized cash register would have been attended to by Mr. Jensen?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And he's the one who would have set up that cash register back in 2002; is that correct?

AUSTIN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. You did not set it up?

AUSTIN: No, I did not.

GERAGOS: Do you recognize my Mr. Jensen over here, can you stand up for a second, Paul? Do you recognize him?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. He's talked to you and been in your store?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did he make, or have somebody ring up two no-sales receipts while you were there?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Those two no-sales receipts, just show you, are these, do those look familiar?

AUSTIN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Mark this as a defense.

JUDGE: Want this as a Defense Exhibit.

GERAGOS: Defense Exhibit.

JUDGE: All right. That will be Defense H. No-sale receipts from Austin's

GERAGOS: Defense H?

JUDGE: Right.

GERAGOS: Now, these two receipts, you see the one says 1:35 and the other says 2:26? Do you see that?

AUSTIN: Yes, sir.

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: Isn't that what Mr. Jensen was doing is to check the accuracy of the machine and see if it self-programs?

AUSTIN: I don't know how close together those were rung up.


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?



Austin KNOWs now tvhat Gergagos was up to. He sees the different dates/


I didn't say Geragos would never lie. I said I don't see how you can accuse Geragos of lying in this particular circumstance - when Austin said he was there when the no sales receipts were rung up - and they were done on the same day. I don't care if they were rung up 10 minutes apart or 20 minutes apart - they were rung up on the same day and the receipts had different dates on them.

[woohoo]

Even Distaso said approximately here. Do you really think 12 more minutes (10:30 instead of 10:18) would have saved Scott a conviction? I don't think so, there was so much other CE!

JMO

I'm not arguing guilt or innocence or value of time.

I was simply stating that I think it was wrong to allow Karen Servas's SELF MADE re-enactment of events into evidence and to disallow Geragos's boat demonstration.

The same rule should apply to both. The inability to recreate the events EXACTLY as they happened. And I had asked wouldn't or couldn't that be an appealable issue.

[thinkaboutit]

Panic - something Scott couldn't seen to show.


I wonder what Ron meant then when he told the 911 operator that "he's all shook" (referring to Scott)?

[woohoo]

Actually those transcripts were purchased before the trial record was certified...

This is true. There are many "mistakes" in the transcripts that we have read.

One of the funniest was when the judge was attempting to use the term "hoisted on your own pretard"

And it was printed in the TS "hoisted on your own GUITAR!":lol:

[thinkaboutit]

She bought the ingredients on the 23frd, not the 22nd. Are you Garegos - you keep changing the days and times by a minute or a day or something?

LOL! Yeah - I'm Geragos. I'm not changing anything Lavindar. You are obviously just reading too fast.

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit
Let me put it another way. We know Laci didn't buy the bread on the 23rd. We have her receipt - it's not there. We know she didn't buy it on the 24th.
There was no testimony that any of this type of bread was found in the home. Scott said she had some last minute shopping to do for the breakfast. If the prosecution could have proven him a liar by showing that she had already purchased everything for the breakfast - it's my opinion they would have presented it. Besides all that - I doubt she would have bought the bread on the 22nd or before - which would have made the bread 3 days old or more by the time she was ready to use it. And if she was at the store on the 22nd or before and bought the bread - why did she wait until the 23rd to buy the rest of the items?

[thinkaboutit]

Why is that curious. They did not have her vehicle; they did not know the route she took, they did not know exactly what she did inthe store. They could not have walked in her shoes. She is a hero in my book. By trying to help Scott by narrowing that timeline, she wound up slipping the noose around his neck and I wanna be there to see him die myself.

Why would you want to see that?

[thinkaboutit]

Funny, mine holds a charge when the car is turned off. I did deliveries for 18 months and my car was always in the car charger also. It charged when I was driving the car and held the charge until run down. If what you say is true, your phone would be of no use in vehicle emergencies of a dead battery or the vehicle is turned off. It would only be useful in emergencies when the vehicle is running.

So does mine. But not everyone's cell phones are like ours. Cars are different too. Some cigarette lighters work when the car is off.....some cigarette lighters don't.

All this talk that Laci's cell was dead is just that - talk.....I haven't seen one quote or one link that proves it. Brocchini testified that it was plugged into the car charger but it wasn't charged. He did not testify that the phone would not hold a charge. Neither did anyone else.

[thinkaboutit]

I find it SO interesting that you assume that Karen's cell phone records are WRONG, but the ones that prove Scott's stories are 100% accurate. I find it interesting that people who are busy getting ready for a holiday trip and are loading their car might notice a dog in the street when they couldn't see that area from the location of their car.

I find it interesting that Karen was MISTAKEN when she saw the dog, yet she describes in detail her actions, yet she didn't know if she was coming or going. I find it interesting that TESIMONY is ignored in favor of other theories. I find it interesting that what Geragos says is Gospel When the Judge says specifically that what the attorneys say cannot be considered evidence.


Did someone say Karen's cell records were wrong? I don't think so.

How do you know that the Medinas could not have seen MacKenzie and Servas in the street from the location of their car?

[thinkaboutit]

More of GERAGOS testimony. He remembered talking to the investigator GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

That doesn't say ten minutes apart. To me a couple of occasions means a couple of different days.

Geragos-speak again.


He spoke to the investigator a couple of times.

He ran no sales receipts on ONE day.

[thinkaboutit]

I think you are reading too much into the "I will explain." TS often omit words in the heat of a confrontation. IMO he probably meant "I will let you explain" since we are speculating. And it is pure speculation that she found the BOA receipt. Because had she found it, and it further substantiated her testimony there is nothing between heaven and earth that would have kept the prosecution from using it.
...........


Woohoo - ITA!! :beer: (And with the rest of your post too) ;)

[Lavindar]

He spoke to the investigator a couple of times.

He ran no sales receipts on ONE day.


Then how can GAregos try to claim that those two receipts were run 10 minutes apart?

[Lavindar]

Did someone say Karen's cell records were wrong? I don't think so.

How do you know that the Medinas could not have seen MacKenzie and Servas in the street from the location of their car?

Because they were loading their car on the southside of their house - if you look at the satellite, it would be almost impossible to see the Peterson HOUSE let alone a dog in the street from the south side of their house. There is a parking pad for their vehicle right next to their house on the SOUTH side. Peterson house and dog were seen NORTH of there. There is also a large shrub that would blook the view

I have posted this before: You can clearly see a red car on the south of the Medina house. They were loading their car - walking from house to car and back. I don't think they would have been looking for a dog in the street in front of the Peterson house

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=516+covena+ave&sll=37.020098,-95.712891&sspn=30.847102,65.302734&ie=UTF8&ll=37.64604,-120.972044&spn=0.000939,0.001993&t=k&z=19&om=1

[thinkaboutit]

Then how can GAregos try to claim that those two receipts were run 10 minutes apart?

Huh? You can't run two receipts 10 minutes apart in one day????

[Lavindar]

Huh? You can't run two receipts 10 minutes apart in one day????

You can't? I was responding to your post 2196
thinkaboutit
Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 896


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavindar
More of GERAGOS testimony. He remembered talking to the investigator GERAGOS: Okay. How many times have you talked to the investigator?

AUSTIN: A couple of occasions.

That doesn't say ten minutes apart. To me a couple of occasions means a couple of different days.

Geragos-speak again.


He spoke to the investigator a couple of times.

He ran no sales receipts on ONE day.
__________________

[USAHICK]

Transcript from Pre-lim: This is one area it was discussed. It was in news reports also but I realize those aren't considered "official." Right?

MR. McALLISTER: Well, let me ask the detective more directly.

Q. When you talked with Karen Servas, was she -- did she tell you about how -- how much Scott and Laci were looking forward to the baby?

A. Can I look at my report?

Q. Sure.

A. I don't think she ever told me that. I don't remember, if she did.

Q. Okay. Well, all your report talks about is about how she on the 4th of January agreed, essentially, to become an informer for you; right?

MR. DISTASO: Objection. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. McALLISTER:

Q. Well, didn't Ms. Servas say that she would report to you anything that was going on next door with Scott Peterson?

A. I may have asked her to call me and tell me if anything was going on. I don't -- the answer is no. She said she'd be a witness.

Q. (Indicating to witness.)

A. I see -- I got it right here, Mr. --

Q. You know what I'm talking about?

A. It's just what I testified to.

Q. "She said she would be willing to talk to us any time, and she will note any other unusual things that she sees or remembers." Right?

A. And she's been good about that.

Q. Oh, she's been real good about that.

THE COURT: Just ask questions, Mr. McAllister.

MR. McALLISTER:

Q. She's called you a lot of times, hasn't she?

MR. DISTASO: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance. This is definitely beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Sounds like it. Sustained.


I don't see where in this preliminary testimony it says the LE contacted her and asked her to keep an eye on ISP, and to report whatever they saw. I also don't see anywhere in this testimony where it says anyone tried to get her to tighten her timeline.

All is says is she "offered" to watch ISP and called (on her own) to report what she was seeing. Slight twist that changes the entire original statement.

[ekg]

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

as far as I know there was never any testimony on whether she changed it or n ot...but that could be wrong

and I do not believe it to be teh case anyways.... she went back with a stopwatch and timed herself,she went thru reciepts and phone records to make sure of her time...... and she never once notice her clock was an hour off?

no way, no how...no, the DST thing started on the CTV board as a way to explain the 4:05/5:05 difference...

cyn, how is she only 5 minutes late to something she has to be at by 4:00pm and she's leaving her house at 4:05 pm? she had to be in Ripon which is about a 20 minute drive IIRC....... so wouldn't she be 25-30 minutes late???


and typically we set our clocks back in early fall right? so she went from oct to December and never noticed her clock was off and entire hour? or noticed it and never compensated for it in some way

sorry.... I don't buy it....

[thinkaboutit]

Because they were loading their car on the southside of their house - if you look at the satellite, it would be almost impossible to see the Peterson HOUSE let alone a dog in the street from the south side of their house. There is a parking pad for their vehicle right next to their house on the SOUTH side. Peterson house and dog were seen NORTH of there. There is also a large shrub that would blook the view

Exactly and wrong. MacKenzie wasn't in front of the Peterson home. He was initially in the middle of the street in front of Servas home - (which is on the south side of the Peterson home). She said she backed out of her driveway, heading south and MacKenzie was in the street looking at her. Then when she pulled her car over the curb - MacKenzie had moved to her rear bumper - which was in front of Servas' driveway - which would have been directly in front of (across the street from) the south side of the Medina home where the Medinas were loading their car. The shrub would not have been in their view of Servas' driveway.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't see where in this preliminary testimony it says the LE contacted her and asked her to keep an eye on ISP, and to report whatever they saw. I also don't see anywhere in this testimony where it says anyone tried to get her to tighten her timeline.

All is says is she "offered" to watch ISP and called (on her own) to report what she was seeing. Slight twist that changes the entire original statement.


Did you miss this part?

A. I may have asked her to call me and tell me if anything was going on. I don't -- the answer is no. She said she'd be a witness.

[thinkaboutit]

as far as I know there was never any testimony on whether she changed it or n ot...but that could be wrong

and I do not believe it to be teh case anyways.... she went back with a stopwatch and timed herself,she went thru reciepts and phone records to make sure of her time...... and she never once notice her clock was an hour off?

no way, no how...no, the DST thing started on the CTV board as a way to explain the 4:05/5:05 difference...

cyn, how is she only 5 minutes late to something she has to be at by 4:00pm and she's leaving her house at 4:05 pm? she had to be in Ripon which is about a 20 minute drive IIRC....... so wouldn't she be 25-30 minutes late???


and typically we set our clocks back in early fall right? so she went from oct to December and never noticed her clock was off and entire hour? or noticed it and never compensated for it in some way

sorry.... I don't buy it....


I don't buy it either EKG.

[adnoid]

I've never said all Scott's records were accurate. He made 3 calls IIRC on Christmas Day standing in his front yard that were handed off to a very questionable tower location.

What does "questionable" mean? If he made the calls, the calls went through, and they were recorded on his bill, what's questionable?

I have been using cellular phones since the mid 1980s and I'm pretty familiar with how they work.

[ekg]

I also wear glasses for reading but I don't need to post in Large shouting font unless I want to emphasize a point. What's your point again about Scott's appeal in regular font please?

Just an FYI saraliba but a magnifying glass work wonders when you can't see, I've even tried one a few times, so I speak from experience. :beer:

wow....... I seriously hope saraliba is full of it........ or you ppl are just way way way cruel...

my g/ma is legally blind and I make all of her font whether she's writing or read extra large so she can yes, see what she is writing...

my g/pa has macular degeneration and even magnifiers don't help him....sure the magnify everything around his blind spot, but when you have a 'hole' in your line of sight no amount of magnification can help you...

I don't like see them mocked my anybody, family included! and I'm amazed that you all would assume she is lying and mock her this way....

how utterly sad...even tho I have already been made fun of on here b/c I cannot hear very well, how utterly sad that ppl would assume she is lying and say these things..

let me tell you a little secret.....I'm in my early 30's and I can't hear very well, and it gets worse every year,I'll be completely deaf in a few years.... its not my fault it's the many ENT's who I was forced to see as a young child who screwed up my ears, fault... but ya know something, and this is the secret part.... ppl still think I should be able to hear..and they get angry with me b/c I am incapable of hearing things.

it's the same with ppl who are going blind... ppl around you think it's your fault you can't see...or you're not trying hard enough!

trust me, I'd love to hear..there's nothing I like more than music, except for maybe books...... and my g/parents would love to see, especially my g/pa who was a sharp-shooter for the Marines in WWII and who has read a book every month of his adult life b/c he joined the Marines at 17 instead of finishing school... but I can't hear and they can't see...

but you all mock and laugh away.....

karma

:mad:

[ekg]

Precisely. I know I've posted before that I believe he did this in two trips and I also believe it was a fake concern to the neighbors to cover his tracks.

Any thoughts on why the prosecution didn't go with a two trip theory? Is it because they weren't able to verify thru cell phone gps? and no witnesses? Sorry but I just can't let go of the two trips -

Anyhow, IMO he's still guilty and sits on DR for good reason no matter how he did it. He didn't get there by himself. The CE and the bodies washing ashore just a short distance from where he said he'd gone fishing proves it all, IMO.


so IYO did RD lie in his opening?Closing? and entire case? since he's only presented the one trip theory?

do you think he only presented the one trip b/c he couldn't prove 2 trips? so what? he just made up the one trip?

image if he would have gone with the 2 trips it would have been
I can't tell you how he killed her
I can't tell you where he killed her
I can't tell you when he killed her
I can't tell you why he killed her
I can't tell you how he got her to the bay
I can't tell you when he got her to the bay
but trust me when I tell you he did it... and we have mountains of CE to prove it
:rolleyes: please....

but yeah, that jury would have believed him....


it's funny how I'm stretching and have an active imagination when I think of something to show Scott not guilty....... but you can just throw out the DA's entire theory b/c you just know he made 2 trips?

what proof do you have of these two-trips?

where is that part of the TS?

who testified to the 2 trips?

I'd like to read more on this....

TIA

[aingael]

wow....... I seriously hope saraliba is full of it........ or you ppl are just way way way cruel...

:

Snipped to shorten.


Unfortunately saraliba is usually full of it. She can drive, mow lawns, go shopping etc. She posts everywhere else without the use of large fonts. From reading her for years, most of the things she does is to get attention no matter what kind it is.:shrug:

[Lavindar]

as far as I know there was never any testimony on whether she changed it or n ot...but that could be wrong

and I do not believe it to be teh case anyways.... she went back with a stopwatch and timed herself,she went thru reciepts and phone records to make sure of her time...... and she never once notice her clock was an hour off?

no way, no how...no, the DST thing started on the CTV board as a way to explain the 4:05/5:05 difference...

cyn, how is she only 5 minutes late to something she has to be at by 4:00pm and she's leaving her house at 4:05 pm? she had to be in Ripon which is about a 20 minute drive IIRC....... so wouldn't she be 25-30 minutes late???


and typically we set our clocks back in early fall right? so she went from oct to December and never noticed her clock was off and entire hour? or noticed it and never compensated for it in some way

sorry.... I don't buy it....

ekg - she went back and did the stopwatch thing in January of 2003. She never used the clock in her car to retrace her steps at all.

She realized that at 5:05 it would have been totally dark out on Dec 24th so she realized that she much have been wrong on the time - she could NOT have seen the package in the mailbox when it was DARK out, so she went back and looked at her daytimer and caught the 4:00 time. Maybe leaving her house 5 minutes late meant she was 5 minuts late, not that she was actually 5 minutes late in arriving. That was never clear in the testimony.

Nevertheless, she was VERY clear on her time of putting MacKenzie in the yard. No wavering there at all.

I think Karen is just one of those HONEST people who tries to get it right, not some nefarious person in on convicting Scott.

[aingael]

Actually those transcripts were purchased before the trial record was certified...

Well if this is accurate then no one should use those transcripts for reference since they are not accurate and apparently can give the reader the wrong impression of what was said.

How can anyone use the transcripts to prove a point if they could be wrong?

[Lavindar]

wow....... I seriously hope saraliba is full of it........ or you ppl are just way way way cruel...

my g/ma is legally blind and I make all of her font whether she's writing or read extra large so she can yes, see what she is writing...

my g/pa has macular degeneration and even magnifiers don't help him....sure the magnify everything around his blind spot, but when you have a 'hole' in your line of sight no amount of magnification can help you...

I don't like see them mocked my anybody, family included! and I'm amazed that you all would assume she is lying and mock her this way....

how utterly sad...even tho I have already been made fun of on here b/c I cannot hear very well, how utterly sad that ppl would assume she is lying and say these things..

let me tell you a little secret.....I'm in my early 30's and I can't hear very well, and it gets worse every year,I'll be completely deaf in a few years.... its not my fault it's the many ENT's who I was forced to see as a young child who screwed up my ears, fault... but ya know something, and this is the secret part.... ppl still think I should be able to hear..and they get angry with me b/c I am incapable of hearing things.

it's the same with ppl who are going blind... ppl around you think it's your fault you can't see...or you're not trying hard enough!

trust me, I'd love to hear..there's nothing I like more than music, except for maybe books...... and my g/parents would love to see, especially my g/pa who was a sharp-shooter for the Marines in WWII and who has read a book every month of his adult life b/c he joined the Marines at 17 instead of finishing school... but I can't hear and they can't see...

but you all mock and laugh away.....

karma

:mad:

ekg, I can understand your anger, but saraliba posted multiple posts in the Lounge in regular font so I seriously doubt she is legally blind. She seems to read and type just fine over there.

We were not being cruel - we were exposing a liar and a fraud.

[ekg]

IMO and JMO I think California also needs to rethink its automatic appeal for DR cases. 5 years should be the max given to prove your case and the judicial system should allow and make this top priority. Make and state your case within a 5 year period of time - after that its the needle.

We should thank god we don't live in the times when someone was pronounced guilty and immediately hung afterwards. I think 5 years is more than enough time to prove your case, given the proper channels to do so. JMO


tell that to these guys

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/689.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/54.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/77.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/149.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/184.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/302.php

etc etc etc
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

[ekg]

ekg, I can understand your anger, but saraliba posted multiple posts in the Lounge in regular font so I seriously doubt she is legally blind. She seems to read and type just fine over there.

We were not being cruel - we were exposing a liar and a fraud.

as I said... I hope she is full of it

or yes, you were being extremely cruel....

[Lavindar]

Exactly and wrong. MacKenzie wasn't in front of the Peterson home. He was initially in the middle of the street in front of Servas home - (which is on the south side of the Peterson home). She said she backed out of her driveway, heading south and MacKenzie was in the street looking at her. Then when she pulled her car over the curb - MacKenzie had moved to her rear bumper - which was in front of Servas' driveway - which would have been directly in front of (across the street from) the south side of the Medina home where the Medinas were loading their car. The shrub would not have been in their view of Servas' driveway.


SERVAS: I backed out of my driveway to, my front end as it backed out would have been facing south. My front end was facing south. I was going out on to Encina, which is the street that's over here (pointing).

DISTASO: Okay.

SERVAS: It's south of the house.

DISTASO: If we're looking at Covena down the street here, the little trail that leads to the park is down here?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And then Encina is this direction?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: So if we look at the picture it's to the left?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: So you backed out of your driveway, and so you probably backed out this way so your front end was facing towards Encina?

SERVAS: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: And then what happened next?

SERVAS: I looked out of my driver side window and McKenzie was standing in the street looking at me.

DISTASO: Okay. So the dog that we saw earlier was standing in the street?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And where, if I used the house, where was he?

SERVAS: He was, move a little bit more up the street.

DISTASO: Let me see if this might show up. Yeah, let me give you a laser pointer. This might show up better.

SERVAS: As I backed out he was right about here (indicating).

DISTASO: And that's about the location where you marked on the picture in front of you, right?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: Okay. Then what happened next.

SERVAS: Well, I saw that he was by himself so I pulled over to here (indicating), pulled my car over, and got out of my car and walked over to him. By that time he had, he had gone to basically the end of my bumper, my driver's side bumper. So he was standing right in front of my driveway at that point.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me click. This was 27B. Let me go to 27C. There it is. So this is a little bit closer. Can you show us, hold on. Let me go to 27B. This is looking directly at your house. Can you show me on here then where you saw him?



SERVAS: Yeah. The first time was here in the street when I went and got out of my car he had moved to here (pointing).

DISTASO: Okay. And so you get in your car, and then what happened next?

SERVAS: I walked over to him, I saw that he had his leash on, and he was just standing there. So I went over to him and checked his tags to make sure he was actually McKenzie, and he was.




She did NOT say she was driving when she saw Mac. And Mac was UP THE STREET when she saw him. When you pull out of her driveway, her car would be nearer Laci's house than the Medinas. She pulled over to curb and Mac came to end of her car. She then walked to the gate of the Petersons. I do not think she would have walked across neighbor's yards to do that.

Since you seem to have resources we do not - please provide the pictures that she marked that were put into evidence PROVING your point.

IF HE HAD been in the middle of the street in front of the Servas house as you claim, she would have hit him and would have seen him BEFORE backing out.

[ekg]

Exactly how many calls does he consider "calling all day"? IIRC, he only called her once and left a message saying he was on his way back from Berkely. IMO that was just meant to be part of his alibi and he knew precisely where Laci was at that moment. When Amy called him about the fruit basket, we know Scott never spoke to her (nor did she leave a message)but her number would have come up on his "missed calls" -- did he ever call her back? I don't remember that he did.

Once he saw her ID on his phone, he most certainly would have remembered the promise from the night before. Don't you think, if he was engaged in some "innocent" activity, he would have started trying to find a way to arrange for someone else to get grandpa's gift? To my knowledge he did not.

I believe that once he made the decision to get rid of Laci's body in the Bay (presumably so she would never be found) instead of dumping her in some secluded spot closer to home (where she would have eventually been found) then going off to play golf, he honestly did forget this one little detail -- grandpa's basket.

why would she have eventually been found?

[Lavindar]

why would she have eventually been found?

She WAS found.

[ekg]

What do you mean he saved his own message intentionally to document his alibi? the message was on Laci's cell phone..Brocchini listened to it during his interview and saved it..that was the interview he had with Scott around midnight on the 24th... it was BROCCHINI who saved the message!

Scott made 3 phone calls to Laci..2 calls were made to his home and one call was made to her cell phone..and how do you know he KNEW the phone was dead? do you have the TS regarding the phone being dead and Scott knowing about it? also, Ron called Laci's cell phone when they were looking for her...!

Scott's calls to Laci:

2:14 pm to his home
2:17 pm to Laci's cell phone
3:52 pm to his home

Ron Called Laci's cell phone at 5:30 pm


sounds like he tried to call her all day...

and isn't it weird that when Scott does it (fish when its cold and late in the morning,smile/laugh in court,call the cell) he's guilty and lying..... but when Ron does the exact same thing its nothing?

[thinkaboutit]

SERVAS: I backed out of my driveway to, my front end as it backed out would have been facing south. My front end was facing south. I was going out on to Encina, which is the street that's over here (pointing).

DISTASO: Okay.

SERVAS: It's south of the house.

DISTASO: If we're looking at Covena down the street here, the little trail that leads to the park is down here?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And then Encina is this direction?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: So if we look at the picture it's to the left?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: So you backed out of your driveway, and so you probably backed out this way so your front end was facing towards Encina?

SERVAS: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: And then what happened next?

SERVAS: I looked out of my driver side window and McKenzie was standing in the street looking at me.

DISTASO: Okay. So the dog that we saw earlier was standing in the street?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And where, if I used the house, where was he?

SERVAS: He was, move a little bit more up the street.

DISTASO: Let me see if this might show up. Yeah, let me give you a laser pointer. This might show up better.

SERVAS: As I backed out he was right about here (indicating).

DISTASO: And that's about the location where you marked on the picture in front of you, right?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: Okay. Then what happened next.

SERVAS: Well, I saw that he was by himself so I pulled over to here (indicating), pulled my car over, and got out of my car and walked over to him. By that time he had, he had gone to basically the end of my bumper, my driver's side bumper. So he was standing right in front of my driveway at that point.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me click. This was 27B. Let me go to 27C. There it is. So this is a little bit closer. Can you show us, hold on. Let me go to 27B. This is looking directly at your house. Can you show me on here then where you saw him?



SERVAS: Yeah. The first time was here in the street when I went and got out of my car he had moved to here (pointing).

DISTASO: Okay. And so you get in your car, and then what happened next?

SERVAS: I walked over to him, I saw that he had his leash on, and he was just standing there. So I went over to him and checked his tags to make sure he was actually McKenzie, and he was.




She did NOT say she was driving when she saw Mac. And Mac was UP THE STREET when she saw him. When you pull out of her driveway, her car would be nearer Laci's house than the Medinas. She pulled over to curb and Mac came to end of her car. She then walked to the gate of the Petersons. I do not think she would have walked across neighbor's yards to do that.

Since you seem to have resources we do not - please provide the pictures that she marked that were put into evidence PROVING your point.

#1 - I never said she was driving when she saw McK.

She pulled out of her driveway so her front end was facing SOUTH - toward Encina. Her car would not have been closer to the Peterson house than the Medina house. She saw Mac out of her driver side window. She pulled over to the curb - she says that by then he had moved to her back driver's side bumper - which means her car is pulled over south of her driveway - facing south.

Who said she walked across neighbor's yards - why would she need to?

I don't have access to anything more than you do. In fact you have access to more than I do - since you claim to be from the Modesto area - or lived there at one time and seen the Medina house with your own eyes. I don't live anywhere near there - nor have I ever been to Modesto.

Look at the google map you provided. Servas' driveway is the curvy one - directly across the street from the south side of the Medina home where the red vehicle is parked in the map you provided.

Here's the pic you asked for.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/27D.jpg

Here is her testimony:

SERVAS: Well, I saw that he was by himself so I pulled over to here (indicating), pulled my car over, and got out of my car and walked over to him. By that time he had, he had gone to basically the end of my bumper, my driver's side bumper. So he was standing right in front of my driveway at that point.


For more clarification - her pre-lim testimony:

Q. And what happened when you found the dog? You said you were backing out of your driveway. Let's just go back to that.

A. Correct.

Q. And then what happened? You saw the dog?

A. I saw the dog out of my driver's side window. He was standing in the street staring at me.

Q. Okay. And what did you do then?

A. I pulled my car over to the curb, got out of my car, and walked to the back of the car, because now the dog was standing off of my back left bumper.




http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/33.JPG

[ekg]

Wasn't the cell phone found in Laci's LandRover and it wasn't working? I don't think you can leave a msg on a dead cell phone.

why can't you? the voice mail isn't on the phone it's part of the service thru the company..

my phone is dead all the time and goes right to voicemail instead of ringing...

[ekg]

Telephone Laci Peterson's cellular phone, left at her home the day of her disappearance, according to Det. Doug Ridenour, who told John Walsh that it was a clue that she did not leave the home by her own intent; according to the March 1, 2004, issue of the Globe, a phone that had a dead battery weeks before Laci Peterson's disappearance—a fact that "was well known among her friends and family"


Granted this is a media report, but since media reports by Richard Cole are beng posted, I think it's fair to post this

we're using The Globe now as proof of anything?

I can understand the NE....... they aren't as bad....... but The Globe?
:confused:

[ekg]

Right, Brocchini proved Laci's cell was not working.
Scott had to have known it wasn't working.

no he proved it had a weak/low battery....

or did I misread the TS again?

[ekg]

Wouldn't he check phone recorder to see if she left a message for him - yet he did NOT think to call hospitals until Sharon told him to? There were only two hospitals in Modesto in 2002 - not like it was difficult to do. Oh, and that phone book would NOT automatically flip to that cardboard page if you had it opened to another page.


as far as he knew she was at Sharons or was out getting the whipped cream Ron asked her to go an get..... a friend could have come over, like friends do on Christmas eve, and given her a ride to the store.

the purse wasn't sitting out in the open, so he wouldn't automatically look for it would he?

so why would Scott call the hospital before calling Sharon and Laci's friends to see if they knew where she was....... if he had started calling the hospital and 911 before checking with everyone you would be saying he was wrong for jumping the gun...

[USAHICK]

we're using The Globe now as proof of anything?

I can understand the NE....... they aren't as bad....... but The Globe?
:confused:


Maybe the Globe got it from Catherine Crier who wrote in her book that Jackie Peterson said "everyone knows Laci's cell phone hasn't worked for weeks!"

[ekg]

Yes - Diane Jackson reported seeing a van at 11:40. Yet Servas never saw this van or these men.

The Medina's were packing up their car at the exact time Servas claims to have found MacKenzie - yet the Medinas didn't see MacKenzie or Servas nor did Servas see the Medinas.

And you have Amie Krigbaum and Terra Venable being wakened by two dogs barking between 10:33 and 10:38....Sage - their next door neighbor's dog - and another dog they didn't recognize - until days later - when they heard MacKenzie barking at the officers when they were taking Laci's Landrover. It was then they realized that the dog they heard that morning could have been MacKenzie. Is it safe to assume that they can't normally hear MacKenzie barking -which is why they didn't immediately recognize the bark? Was MacKenzie loose between 10:33 and 10:38? Or maybe that the barking was different than what they weren't used to hearing from MacKenzie - maybe more aggressive than usual?

So you have 3 other eyewitnesses - 4 if you count both Venable and Krigbaum that contradict Servas' recollection of the events that morning? Could all four of those people be wrong and Servas be right? Possibly - but is it likely?

someone is is mistaken that's for sure........

great post TAI:beer:

[ekg]

The Bank of America receipt was never admitted into evidence. The Austin's receipt that was submitted as evidence was faded and unreadable at trial.

Thanks TAI, I believe I also asked about that BOA receipt at one time or another.

you would think the BOA receipt would be a much better indicator of time.. since banks deal with time-sensitive issues and all..and it wouldn't be hard to get either so I don't understand why it was never admitted and MG never asked about it...

[ekg]

AW2B, I've read this a few times, I know for sure it's in CC's book.


do you know why RD didn't use it or ask Jackie about it? b/c it would have been huge to say in court that everyone, including Scott knew that the phone didn't work...

[woohoo]

I don't see where in this preliminary testimony it says the LE contacted her and asked her to keep an eye on ISP, and to report whatever they saw. I also don't see anywhere in this testimony where it says anyone tried to get her to tighten her timeline.

All is says is she "offered" to watch ISP and called (on her own) to report what she was seeing. Slight twist that changes the entire original statement.

It sure seems like they did to me:
Brocchini:
A.I may have asked her to call me and tell me if anything was going on. I don't -- the answer is no. She said she'd be a witness.

Q. "She said she would be willing to talk to us any time, and she will note any other unusual things that she sees or remembers." Right?

A. And she's been good about that.

[ekg]

The Globe is a well-known tabloid. The Enquirer is more respectable than the Globe.

JUDGE: Well, he's just marking it right now. Right now, unless there's some foundation issue. These are phone records, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: Yeah, it's a one-page sheet of the, and it's Bates numbered looks like 38390, and it's a one-page call detail for Laci Peterson's cell phone. This particular page shows 33 calls starting on December 20th and then moving through the 26th.
JUDGE: Okay. (Defendant's Exhibit U marked for identification)

GERAGOS: Now, the, you then asked Scott Peterson: If we called, if you called her number and ah if they would tell you, doesn't it? Does it tell you what time the call comes in; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: So you were trying to check exactly what time Scott Peterson had called Laci Peterson when he left the marina; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes



good find TAI!!

[ekg]

:beer:

Speaking personally, only - I don't agree.

There is no need for the bread to be absolutely fresh if you're making French Toast. The bread is soaked first, and in this case it is even marinated.

There would be no way of telling, once it was made, if it had been made with absolutely fresh, day-old, or even once-frozen bread.

for you and me maybe there wouldn't be a difference...... but Laci went to Paris on a cooking lesson vacation didn't she? IMO she would want fresh bread 1st and go with one day old/frozen bread in a pinch..

[attorneywan2be]

Karen Servas testified that she retraced her steps from the moment she saw McKenzie until she reached Austin's..for some reason, she stopped her watch at that point, I wonder why she didn't keep the stopwatch on to estimate her time until she made her purchase? after all she was using the time per the purchase receipt.. IMO, she knew the new timeline didn't work..

Anyhow, let's say it took her 11 minutes, as she stated, to get to Austin's ( I estimated the time based on mapquest and her testimony, IMO, it would have taken her at least 13 minutes)..and let's say she spent 5 minutes in the store as she stated..the time according to her receipt was 10:34..keep that in mind, according to her testimony at the prelim. she made a phone call at 10:38 when she got back into her car...so it took her 4 minutes to walk to her car after paying for her purchase?? yet, it took her 5 minutes to park her car ..walk to the store..find the ornaments..stand in line..pay for her purchase..??!! c'mon!

According to her testimony at the trial, (note: she changed her statement again) she made a phone call at 10:38 am when she was between Austin's and Starbuck's..however, IMO, it only takes a minute drive from Austin's to Starbuck's..it is about 1/3 of a mile..so even if that is true, then, IMO, it took her 3 1/2 minutes to walk from Austin's back to her car, pull out of her parking place....!!! yet it supposedly took her 5 minutes to park her car, walk to Austin's, find the ornaments, stand in line and pay for them..is it reasonable? not IMO..


Karen 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.

[Lavindar]

as far as he knew she was at Sharons or was out getting the whipped cream Ron asked her to go an get..... a friend could have come over, like friends do on Christmas eve, and given her a ride to the store.
the purse wasn't sitting out in the open, so he wouldn't automatically look for it would he?

so why would Scott call the hospital before calling Sharon and Laci's friends to see if they knew where she was....... if he had started calling the hospital and 911 before checking with everyone you would be saying he was wrong for jumping the gun...

Maybe because seh was VERY pregnant, the house was unlocked, the dog was still on a leash, her car was still there and there were no lights on in the house.

OH and the mop bucket was still sitting out where he left it

He did NOT KNOW ABOUT THE request for whipped cream cuz he didn't listen to the messages until AFTER his shower.

The dinner was for family, NOT friends and she was going with SCOTT.

[ekg]

I agree. Assuming Scott told Laci that morning he had changed his mind and was driving 90 miles to Berkely to "put the boat in the water", he may have forgotten all about his promise to Amy, but I'll bet the farm Laci didn't.

It's the whole time thing that bugs me. He didn't even leave the house until after 10:00, he stopped at the warehouse to hook the boat up and piddle around with a mortiser, send an email and do whatever else he claimed to have done. It was at least 11:00 before he left to go "fishing". That would put him in Berkely, at the earliest, 12:30 (remember all that traffic in Livermore). His arrival was probably closer to 1:00 or even later, depending on traffic. He called Laci at approx 2:15 and left a message saying he was just leaving the marina and wouldn't be back in time to get Poppa's basket. How on earth does any of this make sense?

why couldn't she have forgotten.... she was tired right? maybe it just slipped her mind?

[ekg]

Hey aing - good to see you. :seeya:

I agree, the bread is a moot point.



it's very much NOT a moot point.... Scott said she had to go to the store and he has been called a liar...it's been asked over and over why would she need to go to the store again that day when she just went the day before? or why would she mop when the maid had just mopped the day before..

the bread is a reasonable answer as to why she needed to go to the store..

[Lavindar]

for you and me maybe there wouldn't be a difference...... but Laci went to Paris on a cooking lesson vacation didn't she? IMO she would want fresh bread 1st and go with one day old/frozen bread in a pinch.. you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Martha Stewart woudln't do that

[thinkaboutit]

She did NOT say she was driving when she saw Mac. And Mac was UP THE STREET when she saw him. When you pull out of her driveway, her car would be nearer Laci's house than the Medinas. She pulled over to curb and Mac came to end of her car. She then walked to the gate of the Petersons. I do not think she would have walked across neighbor's yards to do that.

Since you seem to have resources we do not - please provide the pictures that she marked that were put into evidence PROVING your point.

IF HE HAD been in the middle of the street in front of the Servas house as you claim, she would have hit him and would have seen him BEFORE backing out.


The pic I provided in my previous post has disappeared - so here it is again. You mean if MacKenzie was in the middle of the street as Servas claimed. The 1 where she first saw the dog is written on the picture on the far left in the middle of the street. The 2, which indicates where she first TOUCHED the dog - is a little closer to the curb - in front of her driveway.:



DISTASO: So you backed out of your driveway, and so you probably backed out this way so your front end was facing towards Encina?

SERVAS: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: And then what happened next?

SERVAS: I looked out of my driver side window and McKenzie was standing in the street looking at me


DISTASO: Okay. While we're here I'm going to have you do one thing. Take a look at 27B, is that a picture of your home?

SERVAS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: And did you find Scott Peterson's dog, McKenzie, out in front of your home sometime on December 24th, 2002?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Okay. Before we get started, I'm just going to pull this picture out. And just draw a circle where it was that you found the dog.

SERVAS: When I first saw the dog or when I touched the dog?

DISTASO: When you first saw the dog.

SERVAS: Okay. That would be, it would be right about here. Do you want me to just put an X?

DISTASO: No, just put a "1" for where you first saw it.

SERVAS: Okay.

DISTASO: And then on the bottom of that picture can you just put your name, Karen Servas, so we remember later who we were talking to.

SERVAS: Right there?

DISTASO: Right there is fine. Okay. And then on this picture can you also put a "2" where you first touched the dog.

SERVAS: That would be right here (writes on diagram).

DISTASO: Okay.

GERAGOS: Do you want to make the "1" a little larger.

SERVAS: I'm trying.

DISTASO: It's not showing up.

SERVAS: No, it's not showing up very well.

DISTASO: There's a black one behind you. That might be a little better.

SERVAS: (writing on diagram)

DISTASO: A little bit.




http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/27D.jpg

[Lavindar]

why couldn't she have forgotten.... she was tired right? maybe it just slipped her mind?
Well, it obviously didn't slip Scott's - yet he didn't bother to call Amy OR EVEN TAKE HER PHONE CALL

[I'mSun]

The Globe is a well-known tabloid. The Enquirer is more respectable than the Globe.WHAT?? Says who? Both are tabloid trash. It's like comparing a box of rotten apples to the box right next to it, also full of rotten apples. :confused:

[attorneywan2be]

The From's and the To's of Karen Servas..her statements:

I found Mckenzie at 10:30 am------------> I found McKenzie at 10:18 am
I found the side gate wide open ------> I found the side gate ajar ----> I found the side gate wide open
I didn't try the front gate to see if it was locked or not----> I tried the front gate, I felt a little panic because it was locked..
I saw the package at 5:05 pm------------------> I saw the package at 4:05 pm
I saw A package as I was leaving to Ripon--------> I can still see THE package as I was leaving to Ripon..I saw it twice that day

And are we supposed to say absolutely positively that Laci had a 10-minute window to have finished the mopping and to have been abducted?!....and why are we supposed to be positive about it? ....just because Karen Servas said she found McKenzie at 10:18 am...."Karen Servas" who kept changing her statements and her timelines...and are we also supposed to consider her return was 11:45 am which would conflict with Diane Jackson's timeline of 11:40 am, despite the fact that Karen stated that she returned home from her errands between 11:45am and noon time.....she was not sure that it was 11:45 am..are we supposed to be sure that it was ?...

Let me elaborate on the fact that Karen never mentioned before the trial that she saw a package at 11:45 am..IMO, she only saw that package possibly when she was leaving her home to go to Ripon....note, at the prelim when she testified that she saw A package as she was leaving to Ripon..she referred to it as "there was A package" not "THE package" that indicates to me that there was no previous reference as to that package BEFORE leaving to Ripon, otherwise, she would have referred to it as "the package" that she already saw...note at the trial, when she testified that she saw that package for the first time between 11:45 am and noon , she referred to it as "A package" in fact, she emphasized the point that it was "A package" (see her reply)....based on all those facts, was she a credible witness? not IMO....

As to the noise she heard and she supposedly determined it was coming from the Hogan's house...she heard the noise when she was at the front gate of Laci and Scott's house..when she walked in the backyard, she stated that it was VERY quiet..so she supposedly was able to determine the noise was coming from the Hogan's, IMO, as she was standing quite a distance from that house..

Karen's testimony regarding the package - Prelim.

15 A. Yes, I was supposed to be somewhere at 5:00 PM.
16 Q. And when you looked at your clock -- I mean --
17 yeah, you looked at your clock. Did you -- during that time
18 you were back in your car at 5:05 and driving away, did you
19 ever look over at the Peterson home at 523 Covena?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What happened when you did that? Did you notice
22 anything when you did that?
23 A. I drove past the home, and Laci's car was in the
24 driveway, and there was a package in the mailbox.
25 Q. And was -- are you familiar with -- are you
26 familiar with the defendant Scott Peterson in this case?
27 A. Yes, I am.

Karen's testimony regarding the package - Trial

Mark Geragos: And when you returned home you said that you knew that UPS delivery had been made as you saw a package near the front of the residence?
Karen Servas: It was a package

---------------------
Mark Geragos: To tell him that when you testified at the preliminary hearing and I specifically asked you, how do you know the exact time,
Karen Servas: Right.
Mark Geragos: and your answer was, Because as I was pulling out of my driveway, I looked at the clock in my car because I was late.
Karen Servas: And I think it also says something on that, the fact that I can still see the package in Scott and Laci's mailbox

ETA: I just found another statement that Karen Servas changed..it is regarding the phone call she made at 10:38 am after leaving Austin's

I got back into my car and made a phone call----> I made a phone call when I was between Austin's and Starbuck's ..

[Lavindar]

#1 - I never said she was driving when she saw McK.

She pulled out of her driveway so her front end was facing SOUTH - toward Encina. Her car would not have been closer to the Peterson house than the Medina house. She saw Mac out of her driver side window. She pulled over to the curb - she says that by then he had moved to her back driver's side bumper - which means her car is pulled over south of her driveway - facing south.

Who said she walked across neighbor's yards - why would she need to?

I don't have access to anything more than you do. In fact you have access to more than I do - since you claim to be from the Modesto area - or lived there at one time and seen the Medina house with your own eyes. I don't live anywhere near there - nor have I ever been to Modesto.

Look at the google map you provided. Servas' driveway is the curvy one - directly across the street from the south side of the Medina home where the red vehicle is parked in the map you provided.

Here's the pic you asked for.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/27D.jpg

Here is her testimony:



For more clarification - her pre-lim testimony:




http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/33.JPG


I am sorry - I see no numbers on there anywhere - just the names Peterson and MEdina and another name on some plots.

If she were BACKING out of her driveway to go South, her car would have been NORTH of her driveway, not south. And she saw the dog THEN - and it was UP THE STREET

[attorneywan2be]

as far as I know there was never any testimony on whether she changed it or n ot...but that could be wrong

and I do not believe it to be teh case anyways.... she went back with a stopwatch and timed herself,she went thru reciepts and phone records to make sure of her time...... and she never once notice her clock was an hour off?

no way, no how...no, the DST thing started on the CTV board as a way to explain the 4:05/5:05 difference...

cyn, how is she only 5 minutes late to something she has to be at by 4:00pm and she's leaving her house at 4:05 pm? she had to be in Ripon which is about a 20 minute drive IIRC....... so wouldn't she be 25-30 minutes late???


and typically we set our clocks back in early fall right? so she went from oct to December and never noticed her clock was off and entire hour? or noticed it and never compensated for it in some way

sorry.... I don't buy it....

Exactly..leaving at 4:05, how could she be late 5 minutes if she had to be at Ripon at 4:00 pm.. makes no sense!!!

[thinkaboutit]

Maybe because seh was VERY pregnant, the house was unlocked, the dog was still on a leash, her car was still there and there were no lights on in the house.

OH and the mop bucket was still sitting out where he left it

He did NOT KNOW ABOUT THE request for whipped cream cuz he didn't listen to the messages until AFTER his shower.

The dinner was for family, NOT friends and she was going with SCOTT.

She wasn't THAT pregnant. She had a month and a half to go - and they were just at the doctor's office the day before. Yes...the dog was on it's leash, in the backyard - yet no one finds it strange that Servas wasn't concerned when she found the pregnant Laci's dog in the street with it's leash on. Her car was there - but that doesn't mean she hadn't walked to a neighbors to talk to them about something. It was only 4:45 - no lights kind of goes with no one having been home for 15 minutes or so when it started to get dark out. Of course the mop bucket would still be there - it would have still been full of water and if she was too pregnant to lift it while filling it, like Scott said, then she would have been too pregnant to lift it to dump it as well.

[Lavindar]

She wasn't THAT pregnant. She had a month and a half to go - and they were just at the doctor's office the day before. Yes...the dog was on it's leash, in the backyard - yet no one finds it strange that Servas wasn't concerned when she found the pregnant Laci's dog in the street with it's leash on. Her car was there - but that doesn't mean she hadn't walked to a neighbors to talk to them about something. It was only 4:45 - no lights kind of goes with no one having been home for 15 minutes or so when it started to get dark out. Of course the mop bucket would still be there - it would have still been full of water and if she was too pregnant to lift it while filling it, like Scott said, then she would have been too pregnant to lift it to dump it as well.


WHY are you changing the subject. WE are talking about why the HUSBANDD of a pregnant wife might think it odd that she is not home....not why a neighbor wasn't concerned. HUGE difference.

[thinkaboutit]

I am sorry - I see no numbers on there anywhere - just the names Peterson and MEdina and another name on some plots.

If she were BACKING out of her driveway to go South, her car would have been NORTH of her driveway, not south. And she saw the dog THEN - and it was UP THE STREET

You don't see the 2 in the street in front of the driveway? I can understand not being able to see the 1 - but you can't see the 2? ON THE PICTURE - NOT ON THE MAP.

The only time Servas used the term "up the street" was when Distaso was pointing to a place on the picture - and she told him he was up the street from where he was pointing - not from where her vehicle was.

But her testimony was - her car was facing south and she saw MacKenzie IN THE STREET when she looked out her drivers side window. He had to be in the street because Servas said so. And it couldn't have been further north up the street - because she would have had to have been turning around and looking behind her to see him further north.

[thinkaboutit]

WHY are you changing the subject. WE are talking about why the HUSBANDD of a pregnant wife might think it odd that she is not home....not why a neighbor wasn't concerned. HUGE difference.

I'm not changing the subject. Yes there is a huge difference. One of them found the dog in the street - the other one found the dog in the backyard.

[Lavindar]

She wasn't THAT pregnant. She had a month and a half to go - and they were just at the doctor's office the day before. Yes...the dog was on it's leash, in the backyard - yet no one finds it strange that Servas wasn't concerned when she found the pregnant Laci's dog in the street with it's leash on. Her car was there - but that doesn't mean she hadn't walked to a neighbors to talk to them about something. It was only 4:45 - no lights kind of goes with no one having been home for 15 minutes or so when it started to get dark out. Of course the mop bucket would still be there - it would have still been full of water and if she was too pregnant to lift it while filling it, like Scott said, then she would have been too pregnant to lift it to dump it as well.


Sunset was at 4:50, It was a hazy day. Blinds in the house were drawn so lights would have had to be on most of the day.

[Lavindar]

I'm not changing the subject. Yes there is a huge difference. One of them found the dog in the street - the other one found the dog in the backyard.

One found a MISSING WIFE. One found a loose dog.

[Lavindar]

You don't see the 2 in the street in front of the driveway? I can understand not being able to see the 1 - but you can't see the 2? ON THE PICTURE - NOT ON THE MAP.

The only time Servas used the term "up the street" was when Distaso was pointing to a place on the picture - and she told him he was up the street from where he was pointing - not from where her vehicle was.

But her testimony was - her car was facing south and she saw MacKenzie IN THE STREET when she looked out her drivers side window. He had to be in the street because Servas said so. And it couldn't have been further north up the street - because she would have had to have been turning around and looking behind her to see him further north.

Common usage is that N is UP in a map and S is DOWN

[thinkaboutit]

WHAT?? Says who? Both are tabloid trash. It's like comparing a box of rotten apples to the box right next to it, also full of rotten apples. :confused:

Agreed - but the Enquirer gets it right once in a great while. Personally, I wouldn't use anything I found in either one as support for an argument - but then again, I wasn't the one that did.

[thinkaboutit]

Common usage is that N is UP in a map and S is DOWN

NO ONE WAS LOOKING AT, REFERRING TO, OR MARKING A MAP. IT WAS A PICTURE. NOT YELLING - JUST TRYING TO MAKE MY POINT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR.

[Lavindar]

You don't see the 2 in the street in front of the driveway? I can understand not being able to see the 1 - but you can't see the 2? ON THE PICTURE - NOT ON THE MAP.

The only time Servas used the term "up the street" was when Distaso was pointing to a place on the picture - and she told him he was up the street from where he was pointing - not from where her vehicle was.

But her testimony was - her car was facing south and she saw MacKenzie IN THE STREET when she looked out her drivers side window. He had to be in the street because Servas said so. And it couldn't have been further north up the street - because she would have had to have been turning around and looking behind her to see him further north. Well, maybe she was - looking to see where she was backing out of the driveway. Maybe she was looking over her shoulder out the driver's window. I don't see how you can claim for certain any of your allegations.

[Lavindar]

Agreed - but the Enquirer gets it right once in a great while. Personally, I wouldn't use anything I found in either one as support for an argument - but then again, I wasn't the one that did. No, but you change facts - like saying that the meringue happened at 9:49 and that Laci did her shopping on the 22nd