Scott Peterson's appeal

[attorneywan2be]

I started this thread so we can discuss issues related to the appeal..

I'll start with Greta's show where she stated that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..other talking heads agreed....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLyyBwa141Q

[JustMyOpinion]

I started this thread so we can discuss issues related to the appeal..

I'll start with Greta's show where she stated that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..other talking heads agreed....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLyyBwa141Q

Gloria Allred disagreed. Bernie Grimm & Ted Williams agreed.

[attorneywan2be]

Gloria Allred disagreed. Bernie Grimm & Ted Williams agreed.


Exactly!!... 3 attorneys agreed that Scott will most likely win his appeal because of the boat experiment...

[JustMyOpinion]

Exactly!!... 3 attorneys agreed that Scott will most likely win his appeal because of the boat experiment...

Three agreed, one disagreed.

[attorneywan2be]

Three agreed, one disagreed.

Exactly!!!! you have already said that and we both agreed...LOL

But I think you want to talk about the one that disagreed..!

Ok...IMO, Gloria Allread is biased simply because she was involved in this case..she represented Amber...but Greta..Bernie..and Ted were not involved at all in this case..so I would definitely give more weight to their opinion...

[JustMyOpinion]

Exactly!!!! you have already said that and we both agreed...LOL

But I think you want to talk about the one that disagreed..!

Ok...IMO, Gloria Allread is biased simply because she was involved in this case..she represented Amber...but Greta..Bernie..and Ted were not involved at all in this case..so I would definitely give more weight to their opinion...

I don't give any weight to any of their opinions on this ( including Allred's opinion) I would be interested in the opinion of a former Appellate court judge, though.

[attorneywan2be]

I don't give any weight to any of their opinions on this ( including Allred's opinion) I would be interested in the opinion of a former Appellate court judge, though.

Judge Napolitano of Fox News said the same thing Greta said..!..I don't have a link to it..but I heard it on TV..he is a former Superior Court judge..he once taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at a law school..he also said that the removal of 2 jurors during deliberations will be a very powerful appeal issue...

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...

A living person who helped herself getting into the toolbox..getting into the boat..who was able to bend her legs.. arms...etc..etc..in addition, the similarity as to the height and weight is not enough, there would be differences as to the body proportions...frame size..etc..

VS.

Laci's dead body possibly with Rigor Mortis setting in and one person supposedly carrying/lifting her body that weighted 153 lbs and making it fit into the toolbox and then into the boat...

In addition, the prosecution didn't replicate their own theory....how about the 5 anchors?!..where are those anchors in their demonstration?.. they had Kim Fulbright in the boat and no anchors attached..

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/Kimsdemonstrationtoolbox.jpg



http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/Kimsdemonstration2.jpg

[accordn2me]

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...(snipped the part I didn't read)......Do you think it would have been an error on JD's part if he would have allowed the defense to present their experiment (in addition to the prosecution's)?

[cookiewench]

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...

In addition, the prosecution didn't replicate their own theory....how about the 5 anchors?!..where are those anchors in their demonstration?.. they had Kim Fulbright in the boat and no anchors attached..



And just what was the prosecution's theory that this demonstration didn't fit?

How do you know when Scott put Laci in the toolbox? How do you know that rigor mortis would have set in before he did? How do you know how strong Scott was?

How do you know he didn't thorough tape her up (which I believe he did), before he took her from the house (or, immediately took her to the warehouse and taped her up).

Why would anyone think that he attached anchors before he got to the bay? That doesn't even make sense. Why would someone carry a body around that was dragging anchors when they didn't need to?

The prosecution wanted to show that a woman of Laci's size could fit into the toolbox and boat.

Which....they did. And rightly so.

[enlightenme]

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...
<<snipped>>

That's not the ONLY reason Judge D. gave for not allowing Geragos' boat experiment.

Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury. There is the issue here about instructing on second degree murder. The court will rely on the law on that issue. I've already given, gave my, I already gave my reasoning as to excluding the boat experiment.

I'd say that he gave very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment.

[thinkaboutit]

That's not the ONLY reason Judge D. gave for not allowing Geragos' boat experiment.

Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury. There is the issue here about instructing on second degree murder. The court will rely on the law on that issue. I've already given, gave my, I already gave my reasoning as to excluding the boat experiment.

I'd say that he gave very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment.


If these are very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment - shouldn't the same reasoning have been applied for allowing the jurors to get into the boat and attempt to rock it - to check the "stability" and "bouyancy" while it was on a trailer?

VAN SUSTEREN: Why did you want to get in the boat?

BERATLIS: Because there were questions about the stability of the boat that when we listened to the experts, I don't think those questions were answered in our minds. We needed to have a little bit more to that. And I climbed in the boat.

You know, to look, like everybody was saying, at pictures, didn't mean much to us. And not being able to get in the boat originally for some — we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets. And we didn't know what we could do. And then when we got to the deliberation, we said, you know, Can we go and look at the boat? Can we physically get inside the boat? And then when the judge agreed to it and he asked, I believe, the rest of the — you know, the defense and the prosecution, and they said OK, we did it, you know?

It was a matter of just getting an idea of the boat. Looking at it in a picture didn't speak much.

VAN SUSTEREN: Greg, the description the judge gave in court is that you got in it and you rocked back and forth or I think jumped up and down. How would you describe what was done in that boat?

BERATLIS: We tried rocking it. One of them was standing — one person was standing up, and another person was kneeling. I was the person kneeling. And we were trying to show what was the buoyancy. And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that.



The first part bolded above = experiment. Beratlis admits his questions about the stability of the boat weren't answer by the experts that testified at trial - and he was going to check it out for himself.

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.

[JustMyOpinion]

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/110804_recharge_ctv.html
Shortly after the jury returned to its deliberations, defense attorney Mark Geragos requested a mistrial, saying that "rocking the boat" constituted an experiment. Jurors are prohibited from carrying out their own experiments.

"When I say rocking, I mean rocking," Geragos complained to the judge, noting that one of the panelists was hopping on one foot.

The judge denied the motion. He said that jurors were allowed to "closely observe and even manipulate" evidence during their deliberations. The jurors' actions, he said, "could work for the prosecution's benefit, could work for the defense's benefit."

[accordn2me]

If these are very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment - shouldn't the same reasoning have been applied for allowing the jurors to get into the boat and attempt to rock it - to check the "stability" and "bouyancy" while it was on a trailer?



The first part bolded above = experiment. Beratlis admits his questions about the stability of the boat weren't answer by the experts that testified at trial - and he was going to check it out for himself.

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.Tell me one more time....what was wrong with allowing the jurors inside the boat?

[JustMyOpinion]

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

.

He said: "we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets
Where did he say "they were told hands-off"? TIA

[cookiewench]

Nothing, A2me.

Jurors routinely handle evidence: touch it, hold it, whatever.

The jurors knew that the boat wasn't in water when they got into it.

They weren't the idiots that Geragos was hoping they would be when he tried to show his bogus boat experiment.

[thinkaboutit]

He said: "we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets
Where did he say "they were told hands-off"? TIA

I interpret this as being told hands off:

And not being able to get in the boat originally for some

He could have said - and not having gotten in the boat the first time.

[thinkaboutit]

Tell me one more time....what was wrong with allowing the jurors inside the boat?

If the jurors are not allowed to watch a video because the conditions are not the same - and a platform might affect bouyancy - and this may mislead them......how can getting into a boat on a trailer to check bouyancy and stability NOT mislead them?

[Miss Bootsie]

If these are very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment - shouldn't the same reasoning have been applied for allowing the jurors to get into the boat and attempt to rock it - to check the "stability" and "bouyancy" while it was on a trailer?



The first part bolded above = experiment. Beratlis admits his questions about the stability of the boat weren't answer by the experts that testified at trial - and he was going to check it out for himself.

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.

Where in the quote does Beratlis admit the first time they viewed the boat- they were told "hands off"

And not being able to get in the boat originally for some — we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets.

Do you honestly believe the Juror's were instructed that they couldn't even touch the boat?
If a Juror in the same situation, I would wait for permission before I touched the boat as well.

This quote from Beratlis means a great deal.

And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that.

It's common sense to most people that you can't replicate conditions on water by stepping or rocking a boat on land.

You can't read the minds of the Jurors to determine exactly what they had in mind.

Why do you think the Jurors jumped up and down in the boat?
Do you think they thought Scott may have jumped up and down in the boat and they were trying to duplicate what they thought he did?
Seems to me they were simply trying to determine if the boat was sound.


Stepping inside the boat is a lot different than the test the defense requested to conduct.

[attorneywan2be]

That's not the ONLY reason Judge D. gave for not allowing Geragos' boat experiment.

[COLOR="SeaGreen"]Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood.

The prosecution told the jury that 5 anchors were made..Dr. Cheng's testimony was based on the theory that Laci's body was weighted down by attaching 5 anchors to her body...yet The judge allowed the prosecution to use a demonstration that didn't include 5 anchors...the judge should have wondered if the absence of anchors made it possible for the body to fit in the boat as opposed to a body with 5 anchors attached.. just like he did when he wondered if the plywood at the bottom would have affected the stability of the boat when he ruled on the defense boat experiment..

Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, [B]you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th.

How would a living person trying to fit herself into a toolbox and into a boat by scrunching herself up recreate the event on Dec 24th as presented by the prosecution?? an event that entailed a dead body with possible Rigor mortis that needed to be carried and needed to be manipulated by one person in order to make it fit in the toolbox/boat..??

So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury,

Again, isn't also misleading to tell the jury that it was a possible for Scott to have put Laci's dead body in the toolbox and in the boat by using a living person that climbed into the toolbox/boat without being carried by anyone..adjusted her body accordingly to fit into the toolbox and the boat..

[Miss Bootsie]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/110804_recharge_ctv.html
Shortly after the jury returned to its deliberations, defense attorney Mark Geragos requested a mistrial, saying that "rocking the boat" constituted an experiment. Jurors are prohibited from carrying out their own experiments.

"When I say rocking, I mean rocking," Geragos complained to the judge, noting that one of the panelists was hopping on one foot.

The judge denied the motion. He said that jurors were allowed to "closely observe and even manipulate" evidence during their deliberations. The jurors' actions, he said, "could work for the prosecution's benefit, could work for the defense's benefit."

lol, I had to laugh at Geragos remark in the quote you posted.

Geragos:
"When I say rocking, I mean rocking," Geragos complained to the judge, noting that one of the panelists was hopping on one foot.

How do you even begin to rock a boat on a trailer hopping on one foot.:shrug:
Now, someone might hop on one foot trying to determine how sound the bottom of a boat is.

[ekg]

Seems to me they were simply trying to determine if the boat was sound.


snipped


and how do you check a water vehicles 'soundness' on a trailer parked on concrete?

what, if it feels safe tied to a trailer,parked in a garage it must be safe in the bay?

but you're right, they sure did try to test the soundness of the boat..... problem is they weren't given the right tools and surrounding to make that judgment... if they wanted to test the soundness the boat should have been placed in water before they got in it...

[accordn2me]

lol, I had to laugh at Geragos remark in the quote you posted.



How do you even begin to rock a boat on a trailer hopping on one foot.:shrug:
Now, someone might hop on one foot trying to determine how sound the bottom of a boat is.
And people do experiments all the time....;)

PM

[ekg]

And people do experiments all the time....;)

PM

yes, but jurors aren't allowed to.


Shortly after the jury returned to its deliberations, defense attorney Mark Geragos requested a mistrial, saying that "rocking the boat" constituted an experiment. Jurors are prohibited from carrying out their own experiments.

Juror 7 was removed for doing her own investigations...

jurors can manipulate the evidence.... but they can't investigate or experiment with evidence to form their opinions...

[cookiewench]

It is only a few internet posters who've decided to call it an "experiment".

That doesn't make it one.

[Miss Bootsie]

I interpret this as being told hands off:



He could have said - and not having gotten in the boat the first time.

What does this mean to you?

And we didn't know what we could do.

If the Jurors had been instructed, "hands off", they would have known what they could or could not do.

[accordn2me]

It is only a few internet posters who've decided to call it an "experiment".

That doesn't make it one.Good point, cookiewench! It was a "manipulation" in my opinion.

[Miss Bootsie]

and how do you check a water vehicles 'soundness' on a trailer parked on concrete?

what, if it feels safe tied to a trailer,parked in a garage it must be safe in the bay?

but you're right, they sure did try to test the soundness of the boat..... problem is they weren't given the right tools and surrounding to make that judgment... if they wanted to test the soundness the boat should have been placed in water before they got in it...

It's not necessary to test a boat in the water to determine how structurally sound it is.
Example: A weak spot in the floor can be determined without taking the boat out in the water.
How structurally strong the floor is can be determined without taking a boat in the water.

I really hope you are not of the opinion that most people buying a used boat, don't step in and check it out.
If you wait until you take the boat out in the water, you may be in trouble.

I believe you must put a boat in the water to determine how it handles, but not to determine how structurally sound it is.

I think it would be impossible for the Jurors to get a feel for the size of the boat by looking in from the outside.

I think that good old common sense factor will play into an appellate Court's decision on the issue of the Jurors stepping in the boat.

[deputydi]

<snip>Juror 7 was removed for doing her own investigations...
Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

[frydaddy]

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

Good call! Not to mention, as Judge D said, could work better for the defense. Think if the jurors got in the boat, determined there's no way Scott could have dumped Laci in the bay from that boat, and acquitted Scott on that basis alone, we'd be seeing the same cries of foul on the "experiment"?

[Miss Bootsie]

yes, but jurors aren't allowed to.



Juror 7 was removed for doing her own investigations...

jurors can manipulate the evidence.... but they can't investigate or experiment with evidence to form their opinions...



I don't think it can be called an experiment, because the Juror's were more than aware they could not duplicate the conditions of the boat being in the water - by stepping into the boat on a trailer and jumping up and down.
Everyone is aware, just as you and I are, that conditions on the water cannot be duplicated on a boat sitting on a trailer on land. This is knowledge that most adult human beings have.

As I said in a prior post, I think the common sense factor will weigh heavily on the Appellate Court's opinion of whether the Juror's performed an experiment.

[thinkaboutit]

Good call! Not to mention, as Judge D said, could work better for the defense. Think if the jurors got in the boat, determined there's no way Scott could have dumped Laci in the bay from that boat, and acquitted Scott on that basis alone, we'd be seeing the same cries of foul on the "experiment"?

I think we would - from the prosecution.

[frydaddy]

I think we would - from the prosecution.

:confused: Do they post here too?

[Miss Bootsie]

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

You are right. There is no comparison.

[attorneywan2be]

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

That is true DD..however, as far as I know, the jury is not allowed to experiment with evidence if the experiment would create a new evidentiary fact that was not introduced at the trial...in this case, Beratlis stated on Greta's show that there were questions in their minds about the stability of the boat that the experts didn't address..

Quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: Why did you want to get in the boat?

BERATLIS: Because there were questions about the stability of the boat that when we listened to the experts, I don't think those questions were answered in our minds. We needed to have a little bit more to that. And I climbed in the boat.

You know, to look, like everybody was saying, at pictures, didn't mean much to us. And not being able to get in the boat originally for some — we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets. And we didn't know what we could do. And then when we got to the deliberation, we said, you know, Can we go and look at the boat? Can we physically get inside the boat? And then when the judge agreed to it and he asked, I believe, the rest of the — you know, the defense and the prosecution, and they said OK, we did it, you know?

It was a matter of just getting an idea of the boat. Looking at it in a picture didn't speak much.

VAN SUSTEREN: Greg, the description the judge gave in court is that you got in it and you rocked back and forth or I think jumped up and down. How would you describe what was done in that boat?

BERATLIS: We tried rocking it. One of them was standing — one person was standing up, and another person was kneeling. I was the person kneeling. And we were trying to show what was the buoyancy. And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that.

[deputydi]

Jurors are permitted to examine and handle items in evidence. They had every right to ask to see the evidence (boat) in question. You can't possibly suggest that it should have been brought to them in the deliberation room. They did not conduct an independent experiment with anything not in evidence ~ in fact, I don't think it can be properly classified as an "experiment" at all. What they did was test the veracity of the defense's claim that the boat was not sturdy enough for Scott to have dumped a body from it. That is totally different than conducting independent internet research from a juror's home.

[ekg]

I don't think it can be called an experiment, because the Juror's were more than aware they could not duplicate the conditions of the boat being in the water - by stepping into the boat on a trailer and jumping up and down.
Everyone is aware, just as you and I are, that conditions on the water cannot be duplicated on a boat sitting on a trailer on land. This is knowledge that most adult human beings have.

As I said in a prior post, I think the common sense factor will weigh heavily on the Appellate Court's opinion of whether the Juror's performed an experiment.

then why did they do it?

sure they are aware of it NOW.... but how many times have you done a stupid thing only to go "Oops, I knew better than that"

the simple fact is,them getting in the boat, one kneeling down while the other rocks and jumps up and down is testing it out for something...what that something was is debatable.... but what is not debating is that they were testing it...... experimenting with it..... not manipulating,feeling,fingering or handling it...

[ekg]

You are right. There is no comparison.

sure there is...both sets were investigating....... she was doing investigation on her own..... the 'boat-rockers' were doing an investigation in front of everyone...... are jurors allowed to investigate?

besides... how did they know #7 investigated anything? B/c she told them.... well did her investigation taint them in anyway? If she was using those facts to deliberate then the whole jury was tainted at that point..

[attorneywan2be]

Jurors are permitted to examine and handle items in evidence. They had every right to ask to see the evidence (boat) in question. You can't possibly suggest that it should have been brought to them in the deliberation room. They did not conduct an independent experiment with anything not in evidence ~ in fact, I don't think it can be properly classified as an "experiment" at all. What they did was test the veracity of the defense's claim that the boat was not sturdy enough for Scott to have dumped a body from it. That is totally different than conducting independent internet research from a juror's home.


Yes, the jury is allowed to handle evidence..my point is, they experiment with the boat which is in evidence to establish facts that were not addressed by the experts..---> "the stability of the boat"..as far as I know, that is not allowed..

[attorneywan2be]

sure there is...both sets were investigating....... she was doing investigation on her own..... the 'boat-rockers' were doing an investigation in front of everyone...... are jurors allowed to investigate?

besides... how did they know #7 investigated anything? B/c she told them.... well did her investigation taint them in anyway? If she was using those facts to deliberate then the whole jury was tainted at that point..

As far as I remember..either the jurors or the foreman told the judge that she didn't share with them the results of her investigation...I'm not really positive, so I need to check it out...

[ekg]

Jurors are permitted to examine and handle items in evidence. They had every right to ask to see the evidence (boat) in question. You can't possibly suggest that it should have been brought to them in the deliberation room. They did not conduct an independent experiment with anything not in evidence ~ in fact, I don't think it can be properly classified as an "experiment" at all. What they did was test the veracity of the defense's claim that the boat was not sturdy enough for Scott to have dumped a body from it. That is totally different than conducting independent internet research from a juror's home.

there you go...... they "tested" MG's theory that the boat wasn't sturdy enough to dump a body from..... But they "tested" it while hooked up to a trailer and parked on concrete.... NOT in the water, where you would have to do the "test" to get the answer of is it sturdy enough..

the 2nd point is.. jurors aren't allowed to 'test' or experiment with anything. handle, finger,feel, or manipulate sure..... but not test,research or experiment...:shrug:

I would think a fair trial is the most important outcome... not guilt or innocence...we have the juror himself saying that they got into the boat to show the buoyancy... But you can't show buoyancy if you're on a trailer park on land...

It doesn't matter if they were directed to not form an opinion b/c of their tests...you can't un-ring a bell.....

1st they tested it and aren't allowed to and 2nd they tested it in an improper way... the most chilling of all is that verdict came very very shorty after this test..

wouldn't you agree it was at the least an improper advantage for the state b/c there was no water?

[ekg]

As far as I remember..either the jurors or the foreman told the judge that she didn't share with them the results of her investigation...I'm not really positive, so I need to check it out...

so what did she say? "I did some checking on my own and....." they all plugged their ears and shouted "STOP LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA?":lol:



I guess she could have said 'Do you want to know what I found out on my own".. or something like that...

I guess we'll never know if she did ask before telling them..... I don't think that jury would admit to it if she did b/c IMO then they'd be the jury who had the mistrial.... doesn't sell as many books as the jury who convicted....:shrug:

[deputydi]

sure there is...both sets were investigating....... she was doing investigation on her own..... the 'boat-rockers' were doing an investigation in front of everyone...... are jurors allowed to investigate?

besides... how did they know #7 investigated anything? B/c she told them.... well did her investigation taint them in anyway? If she was using those facts to deliberate then the whole jury was tainted at that point..
What makes you think it was some kind of "investigation". If a gun was used to commit the crime, it would have been placed in evidence -- right? If the defense claimed the murder was an accident due to the gun's hair-trigger, would the jury not have the right to ask to see the gun during deliberations and handle it? They may reach their own conclusion about the veracity of the defense claim and then discuss it among themselves. This is no different -- except the evidentiary item could not be brought to them.

[deputydi]

there you go...... they "tested" MG's theory that the boat wasn't sturdy enough to dump a body from..... But they "tested" it while hooked up to a trailer and parked on concrete.... NOT in the water, where you would have to do the "test" to get the answer of is it sturdy enough..

the 2nd point is.. jurors aren't allowed to 'test' or experiment with anything. handle, finger,feel, or manipulate sure..... but not test,research or experiment...:shrug:

I would think a fair trial is the most important outcome... not guilt or innocence...we have the juror himself saying that they got into the boat to show the buoyancy... But you can't show buoyancy if you're on a trailer park on land...

]b]It doesn't matter if they were directed to not form an opinion b/c of their tests...you can't un-ring a bell..... [/b]

1st they tested it and aren't allowed to and 2nd they tested it in an improper way... the most chilling of all is that verdict came very very shorty after this test..

wouldn't you agree it was at the least an improper advantage for the state b/c there was no water?
and, J Delucci made it very clear to the jury that the boat's reaction would be completely different if it was on water. They agreed and completely understood.

Yes, it does matter -------- legally.

[JustMyOpinion]

so what did she say? "I did some checking on my own and....." they all plugged their ears and shouted "STOP LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA?":lol:



I guess she could have said 'Do you want to know what I found out on my own".. or something like that...

I guess we'll never know if she did ask before telling them..... I don't think that jury would admit to it if she did b/c IMO then they'd be the jury who had the mistrial.... doesn't sell as many books as the jury who convicted....:shrug:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/16/MNG80ACOTJ1.DTL
Gorman, who worked as a systems auditor for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., had been troubled by the testimony of a computer forensics expert who testified for the prosecution in August.
Peterson had been confronted about his marital status by Frey's best friend on Dec. 6, and prosecutors said he had checked a fishing-oriented Web site on Dec. 8 -- which they said indicated premeditation. The defense, however, argued that Peterson had accessed the site on Dec. 5, which was the date on the information Peterson printed out. The expert never explained the discrepancy.

Shortly after the testimony, Gorman had gone online on her home computer and discovered that the fishing Web site wasn't updated every day. Peterson, she determined, could have accessed and printed the fishing information on Dec. 8.

Early in the deliberations, Gorman mentioned that she'd gone to the Internet and accessed the site. But before she could even tell the other jurors what she'd found, she felt a tap on her shoulder. A fellow juror was cautioning her not to discuss her findings. A couple of jurors seemed bothered but didn't make it a big deal.

But when they appeared close to taking a vote on guilt on day 5 of deliberations, two of the jurors said they didn't think Gorman could be objective or fair because of the research she'd done. A note was sent to the judge, who after interviewing her and other jurors removed her from the panel.

[ekg]

What makes you think it was some kind of "investigation". If a gun was used to commit the crime, it would have been placed in evidence -- right? If the defense claimed the murder was an accident due to the gun's hair-trigger, would the jury not have the right to ask to see the gun during deliberations and handle it? They may reach their own conclusion about the veracity of the defense claim and then discuss it among themselves. This is no different -- except the evidentiary item could not be brought to them.


not the same thing....

what this jury did was get in a boat that was tied to a trailer and parked on land to test out the buoyancy...They said so themselves..

sure thing they can look at the evidence and come to their own conclusions.... they just can't test, as you said, the evidence to come up with their conclusions.

any conclusion as to the buoyancy of the boat or whether the boat would tip over if someone tried to dump 150+ worth or weight over the side is and unfair, improper, and wrong conclusion unless it is tested under the same conditions that is in question....

it would be like taking that gun back into the deliberation, dry firing it and saying "Yeah, you can tell the kick would have broken her wrist and the report would have alerted anyone in vicinity" there's no ammunition in the gun to make that assumption...... just like there is no water around the boat to make any assumption as to its stability on the water or it's bouyancy.

[JustMyOpinion]

not the same thing....

what this jury did was get in a boat that was tied to a trailer and parked on land to test out the buoyancy...They said so themselves..

.

How can you possibly purport to know what they did, were you there?
It's been reported that some ( two?) of the jurors climbed into the boat during deliberations.
It's been reported they rocked it.
One juror made some statements about this in response to questions posed by Greta ( on a television show), he used the word "buoyancy". ( also the word "stability") The juror also told Greta: "And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that."

[ekg]

and, J Delucci made it very clear to the jury that the boat's reaction would be completely different if it was on water. They agreed and completely understood.

Yes, it does matter -------- legally.


no, it really doesn't matter..... the bell was rung...

If Brochinni would have gotten up and said "Scott confessed to me, the Judge says its too prejudicial for you to hear, but he told me he did it and how he did it,he told me he choked her.." it would be stricken from the record and the jurors admonished that they couldn't use it. But that doesn't take away that it was said in court...IF the trial continued and guilt was found you could never be sure if that outburst swayed the jury.... which is why it would probably be a mistrial..

they went into the boat with the goal of proving buoyancy.. they did in their minds prove it.... even after the admonishment, you can't know if it still played into deliberations..

at the very least...... its an unfair advantage to the State and grounds for an appeal

at the most it's grounds for appeal with jeopardy attached....

the test itself is a whole other issue....and will depend on if the COA thinks it was an "experiment" or a "manipulation"...:shrug:

how rocking the boat and jumping up and down on the boat is anything but an experiment IDK tho...

[attorneywan2be]

so what did she say? "I did some checking on my own and....." they all plugged their ears and shouted "STOP LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA?":lol:



I guess she could have said 'Do you want to know what I found out on my own".. or something like that...

I guess we'll never know if she did ask before telling them..... I don't think that jury would admit to it if she did b/c IMO then they'd be the jury who had the mistrial.... doesn't sell as many books as the jury who convicted....:shrug:

You know what..I might be wrong..I can't find anything in the trial record on whether or not juror # 7 shared the results of her investigation with the other jurors..!!

[ekg]

How can you possibly purport to know what they did, were you there?
It's been reported that some ( two?) of the jurors climbed into the boat during deliberations.
It's been reported they rocked it.
One juror made some statements about this in response to questions posed by Greta ( on a television show), he used the word "buoyancy". ( also the word "stability") The juror also told Greta: "And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that."


I can know what those two got in the boat and tested it for b/c they told me....

and it wasn't just reported JMO, the jurors told me they rocked it, the jurors told me they kneeled in it, the jurors told me they were trying to show what was the buoyancy..

and unless you want me to believe that they aren't intelligent enough to communicate their thoughts, then I can only go by their words..they wanted to check the buoyancy by kneeling it,standing in it and rocking it... to me it's pretty cut and dried..

as for the admonishment...... that was given a little to late..... it should have been given before they got in it, before they started jumping and before the started rocking.... and before they thought of doing those things to answer some of the question they had that weren't answered and before they admittedly got in to check how buoyant the boat was....

again the bell was rung...... too late for "sorrys" and "oops, don't consider that" after the ringing...

[JustMyOpinion]

I can know what those two got in the boat and tested it for b/c they told me....

and it wasn't just reported JMO, the jurors told me they rocked it, the jurors told me they kneeled in it, the jurors told me they were trying to show what was the buoyancy..

..

Which jurors spoke to you?

[deputydi]

no, it really doesn't matter..... the bell was rung...
<snip>
You are wrong. Bells are rung all the time in every trial that goes before a jury. Unless it is found to be egregious, the judge's admonishment is enough. The jurors were properly advised that they couldn't judge the boat's buoyancy by testing it in a garage and they all agreed and understood.

[ekg]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/16/MNG80ACOTJ1.DTL
Gorman, who worked as a systems auditor for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., had been troubled by the testimony of a computer forensics expert who testified for the prosecution in August.
Peterson had been confronted about his marital status by Frey's best friend on Dec. 6, and prosecutors said he had checked a fishing-oriented Web site on Dec. 8 -- which they said indicated premeditation. The defense, however, argued that Peterson had accessed the site on Dec. 5, which was the date on the information Peterson printed out. The expert never explained the discrepancy.

Shortly after the testimony, Gorman had gone online on her home computer and discovered that the fishing Web site wasn't updated every day. Peterson, she determined, could have accessed and printed the fishing information on Dec. 8.

Early in the deliberations, Gorman mentioned that she'd gone to the Internet and accessed the site. But before she could even tell the other jurors what she'd found, she felt a tap on her shoulder. A fellow juror was cautioning her not to discuss her findings. A couple of jurors seemed bothered but didn't make it a big deal.

But when they appeared close to taking a vote on guilt on day 5 of deliberations, two of the jurors said they didn't think Gorman could be objective or fair because of the research she'd done. A note was sent to the judge, who after interviewing her and other jurors removed her from the panel.

thank you....:)



do you know if the judge questioned everyone to see if she had talked to any of them alone?

and it's funny how she wasn't being objective and fair.... I get that she shouldn't have looked online..... but she found evidence that proved the State wrong..... how is that being nonobjective and unfair?

[accordn2me]

thank you....:)



do you know if the judge questioned everyone to see if she had talked to any of them alone?

and it's funny how she wasn't being objective and fair.... I get that she shouldn't have looked online..... but she found evidence that proved the State wrong..... how is that being nonobjective and unfair?Because she did a private investigation, right?

The jurors jumping up and down in the boat....if that's an appeal issue...our entire judicial system needs to be overhauled. That's stoopid!

[ekg]

You are wrong. Bells are rung all the time in every trial that goes before a jury. Unless it is found to be egregious, the judge's admonishment is enough. The jurors were properly advised that they couldn't judge the boat's buoyancy by testing it in a garage and they all agreed and understood.


and allowing them to test the buoyancy of the boat, when it was on a trailer on land and then not at least allowing the Def a rebuttal, was egregious

[ekg]

Because she did a private investigation, right?

The jurors jumping up and down in the boat....if that's an appeal issue...our entire judicial system needs to be overhauled. That's stoopid!


no, I get how it's against the rules....... but if you find out the state or the def is wrong.... you'd think it would be a good thing...:shrug:

and the jurors testing a boat on land for buoyancy was stoopid...LOL

[JustMyOpinion]

thank you....:)



do you know if the judge questioned everyone to see if she had talked to any of them alone?



You are welcome.
The article says: "after interviewing her and other jurors"
I don't know what the judge asked them.

[accordn2me]

no, I get how it's against the rules....... but if you find out the state or the def is wrong.... you'd think it would be a good thing...:shrug:

and the jurors testing a boat on land for buoyancy was stoopid...LOLThe juror said there were questions about the boat's stability. He also said they were "trying to show what was the buoyancy" but that they realized the boat was on land. Do you think he really meant he thought he could "show the buoyancy" by doing that? Do you really think that's the definition of "experiment?"

[cookiewench]

and allowing them to test the buoyancy of the boat, when it was on a trailer on land and then not at least allowing the Def a rebuttal, was egregious

It's a boat. Strictly by definition, it's bouyant. It floats. It's a floating boat.

It's a floating, bouyant boat that Scott took out into the bay and dumped his murdered wife's body from.

Sitting in it, rocking it, jumping up and down in it isn't going to change that.

It's not as if a person dumping someone - either alive or dead, off the side of a boat is unheard of. I've been thrown off the side of a boat. It didn't flip and it didn't sink.

The issue is a non-issue, really.

[accordn2me]

It's a boat. Strictly by definition, it's bouyant. It floats. It's a floating boat.

It's a floating, bouyant boat that Scott took out into the bay and dumped his murdered wife's body from.

Sitting in it, rocking it, jumping up and down in it isn't going to change that.

It's not as if a person dumping someone - either alive or dead, off the side of a boat is unheard of. I've been thrown off the side of a boat. It didn't flip and it didn't sink.

The issue is a non-issue, really.I agree with you! If people could see the size of some fish these fishermen over here pull into boats....they'd think twice about doubting whether SLP could dump a pregnant, dead (if she was) Laci overboard.

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, what the jurors did with the boat was an experiment...one of the jurors even reached over to see if he could toss a body overboard....!!! and I wonder about Guinasso's remark regarding Scott Peterson's reaction "Scott Peterson dropped his chin to his chest"..the question is : what did Guinasso and other jurors think that reaction meant?

In November, jurors were sequestered in a hotel at night and on weekends while deliberating whether Peterson, 32, murdered his pregnant wife and their unborn son. Jurors asked for a private viewing of the killer's boat. One juror, with the judge's permission, climbed inside and shook the boat, Guinasso said.

Geragos later tried to use that incident to ask for a mistrial. But the real buzz among jurors was prompted by Peterson's reaction when the juror sat in the boat, Guinasso said.

"(The juror) reached over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard," Guinasso said, "and Scott Peterson dropped his chin almost to his chest."

About that time, juror Fran Gorman told fellow panelists that she had done Internet research on facts raised during the trial, Guinasso said.

Having already outed one case of juror misconduct, Guinasso said he was reluctant to play the heavy. He found a passage in the judge's written instructions that prohibits independent research by jurors and silently laid it before Gorman, he said.

"I didn't say anything," Guinasso said. "But she became nervous."

Another juror eventually announced that she was uncomfortable with Gorman's revelation and thought they should tell the judge. Once again, jurors were escorted one by one into Delucchi's chamber.When the dust settled, Gorman was gone.

The third juror to go lasted only one day longer than Gorman.

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10107564p-10931862c.html

[accordn2me]

You don't believe everything you read in a newspaper do you?

How do you think one would "reach over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard?"

Were they in Grerago's boat with the headless DUMMY?

[attorneywan2be]

You don't believe everything you read in a newspaper do you?

How do you think one would "reach over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard?"

Were they in Grerago's boat with the headless DUMMY?

These are the actual statements made by Guinasso..it is not a mere media report..and IMO, they will be used in the appeal..Guinasso was referring to the boat experiment conducted by the jury that we have been discussing..

But the real buzz among jurors was prompted by Peterson's reaction when the juror sat in the boat, Guinasso said.

"(The juror) reached over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard," Guinasso said, "and Scott Peterson dropped his chin almost to his chest."

[deputydi]

and allowing them to test the buoyancy of the boat, when it was on a trailer on land and then not at least allowing the Def a rebuttal, was egregious
What MG wanted to do was an experiment -- this was not.

[accordn2me]

a test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

:read:

Jumping in the boat was NOT an experiment. Even if you could stretch it to say that it was......it was harmless. I'd bet the farm that's not what convinced jurors that SLP is guilty. :no:

[ekg]

You are welcome.
The article says: "after interviewing her and other jurors"
I don't know what the judge asked them.

yes, you're right again...... I'm sorry and thank you....

I've been skimming OJ's book that was leaked today so I'm missing things....too disgusted I guess..... LOL

[ekg]

IMO, what the jurors did with the boat was an experiment...one of the jurors even reached over to see if he could toss a body overboard....!!! and I wonder about Guinasso's remark regarding Scott Peterson's reaction "Scott Peterson dropped his chin to his chest"..the question is : what did Guinasso and other jurors think that reaction meant?

In November, jurors were sequestered in a hotel at night and on weekends while deliberating whether Peterson, 32, murdered his pregnant wife and their unborn son. Jurors asked for a private viewing of the killer's boat. One juror, with the judge's permission, climbed inside and shook the boat, Guinasso said.

Geragos later tried to use that incident to ask for a mistrial. But the real buzz among jurors was prompted by Peterson's reaction when the juror sat in the boat, Guinasso said.

"(The juror) reached over like he wanted to see if he could toss somebody overboard," Guinasso said, "and Scott Peterson dropped his chin almost to his chest."

About that time, juror Fran Gorman told fellow panelists that she had done Internet research on facts raised during the trial, Guinasso said.

Having already outed one case of juror misconduct, Guinasso said he was reluctant to play the heavy. He found a passage in the judge's written instructions that prohibits independent research by jurors and silently laid it before Gorman, he said.

"I didn't say anything," Guinasso said. "But she became nervous."

Another juror eventually announced that she was uncomfortable with Gorman's revelation and thought they should tell the judge. Once again, jurors were escorted one by one into Delucchi's chamber.When the dust settled, Gorman was gone.

The third juror to go lasted only one day longer than Gorman.

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10107564p-10931862c.html

it was a test..... an experiment..... it can't be seen as anything else...Good find AW2B

[cookiewench]

Again: how could leaning over the side of a boat as if you were throwing someone off of it be an "experiment"?

That's like saying that opening a car door and pretending to get out of it is an "experiment", when it's not - it's actually an everyday known occurance, just as throwing something off of a boat is, and always will be.

People throw anchors off of boats that are just like Scott's. People jump off of boats that are just like Scott's, to go fishing. People pull big, fat, fighting fish onto boats that are just like Scott's.

Any juror (or person in this country) who's ever seen boats on the water, watched a movie with boats in it knows that people pull things into and throw things out of boats, and that they don't tip over.

Canoes tip over. Kayaks tip over. Boats like Scott's boat rarely, rarely tip over.

And on top of that, he probably didn't even throw her over. He probably went to a shallow area near the island, put that missing life jacket on her, and then towed her out to the deeper area.

[deputydi]

it was a test..... an experiment..... it can't be seen as anything else...Good find AW2B
Unfortunately we are going to have to wait several years to hear what the appellate court decides.

Fran Gorman conducted her own research outside the confines of the jury room. That is clearly not allowed. MG wanted to film a reenactment of the pros theory to show it was not possible. That cannot be done because the conditions can never be replicated. The judge was correct in disallowing this to be presented as "evidence". The jurors were advised and they understood that jumping in the garaged boat could not be considered as "proof" of buoyancy or stability. If it is found to be an error, it will (IMO) be found to be harmless error -- not reversible.

A reversible error must be something so egregious that it is likely to have changed the outcome. How can anyone think jumping around in the boat would have changed anything?

[accordn2me]

Again: how could leaning over the side of a boat as if you were throwing someone off of it be an "experiment"?
That's like saying that opening a car door and pretending to get out of it is an "experiment", when it's not - it's actually an everyday known occurance, just as throwing something off of a boat is, and always will be.

People throw anchors off of boats that are just like Scott's. People jump off of boats that are just like Scott's, to go fishing. People pull big, fat, fighting fish onto boats that are just like Scott's.

Any juror (or person in this country) who's ever seen boats on the water, watched a movie with boats in it knows that people pull things into and throw things out of boats, and that they don't tip over.

Canoes tip over. Kayaks tip over. Boats like Scott's boat rarely, rarely tip over.

And on top of that, he probably didn't even throw her over. He probably went to a shallow area near the island, put that missing life jacket on her, and then towed her out to the deeper area.Again....you'd have to have one da kine imagination....oh wait..........oh well.......those of us who don't aren't going to see the "experimentation" in it are we? :lol:

Ya know....I don't think he would have needed the lifejacket to tow her to deep water.....but I bet he used that fish finder to find the shipping channel.

[accordn2me]

<snip>

A reversible error must be something so egregious that it is likely to have changed the outcome. How can anyone think jumping around in the boat would have changed anything?
Yeah.....if the jurors wouldn't have jumped in the boat they wouldn't have returned a guilty verdict? :no:

[Lili007]

Yeah.....if the jurors wouldn't have jumped in the boat they wouldn't have returned a guilty verdict? :no:

I think you forgot to add "In My Opinion". Unless the "?" is supposed to substitute.

JMO

[Lili007]

a test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

:read:

Jumping in the boat was NOT an experiment. Even if you could stretch it to say that it was......it was harmless. I'd bet the farm that's not what convinced jurors that SLP is guilty. :no:

I totally agree. What convinced the jury of his guilt were the remains of the body of his wife and unborn child turning up where he went "fishing for sturgeon" for about one hour, in a boat no-one but himself and the previous owner (whose name was of course serrendipitously Peterson, a boat that Scott never "bothered" to register in HIS name) knew about, driving over to Berkley Marina 90 miles and then back 90 miles on Christmnas Eve, whereupon getting back home all he cared about was eating leftover pizza and showering and chucking his clothes in the washing machine before he noticed that his wife wasn't there, even though her car, purse and keys were.

I think those jurors managed to take those facts in.

JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Unfortunately we are going to have to wait several years to hear what the appellate court decides.

Fran Gorman conducted her own research outside the confines of the jury room. That is clearly not allowed. MG wanted to film a reenactment of the pros theory to show it was not possible. That cannot be done because the conditions can never be replicated. The judge was correct in disallowing this to be presented as "evidence". The jurors were advised and they understood that jumping in the garaged boat could not be considered as "proof" of buoyancy or stability. If it is found to be an error, it will (IMO) be found to be harmless error -- not reversible.

A reversible error must be something so egregious that it is likely to have changed the outcome. How can anyone think jumping around in the boat would have changed anything?


I agree. Also, I believe a Jury is allowed some latitude when analyzing the evidence using their common sense and reasoning to compensate for the variables.
The Jurors were well aware by using their common sense,they couldn't replicate conditions on water by stepping in, moving around, or jumping up and down in a boat on land.

[Lili007]

I agree. Also, I believe a Jury is allowed some latitude when analyzing the evidence using their common sense and reasoning to compensate for the variables.
The Jurors were well by using their common sense,they couldn't replicate conditions on water by stepping in, moving around, or jumping up and down in a boat on land.

You might be quite right, if the sole "proof" of Scott's guilt or innocence rested on those parameters.

But it doesn't, and you know it. Or you should, if you've ever read the case.

JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

You might be quite right, if the sole "proof" of Scott's guilt or innocence rested on those parameters.

But it doesn't, and you know it. Or you should, if you've ever read the case.JMO

It doesn't and I know it.

[Lili007]

It doesn't and I know it.

Right.

JMO

[cookiewench]

Again....you'd have to have one da kine imagination....oh wait..........oh well.......those of us who don't aren't going to see the "experimentation" in it are we? :lol:

Ya know....I don't think he would have needed the lifejacket to tow her to deep water.....but I bet he used that fish finder to find the shipping channel.


LOL....I meant to type that people jump off the side of boats like Scott's in order to go SWIMMING.

Scott's boat was called a "Gamefisher". That means that (again....strictly by definition) it was designed to have men of all shapes and sizes throwing anchors off of it and pulling in fish of all shapes & sizes.

It HAD to be stable on the water, it HAD to be "bouyant", it HAD to be hard to tip over.

[attorneywan2be]

David Weber testified that they test gamefisher boats for side/center stability and level of flotation in a swimming pool..

Mark Geragos: While the clerk is marking that. The tests basically are done, you have seen the first picture. You have a kind of a tank or a something like a swimming pool, indoor swimming pool?
David Weber: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And you put it in, fill it with fresh water?
David Weber: Correct.
---------------------

Mark Geragos: You don't introduce any kind of current or waves into the water?
David Weber: That was the, maybe if I could interject a little bit. That was the problem with our industry. We had to have a standard set so we could all do the same thing. And, you know, we couldn't account for variables. So that's why the Coast Guard set up the standard. That's why we all complied to it.

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

They test the "side stability" of the boat by placing steel weights on the side of the boat totalling 142.5 pounds...they spread those weights evenly..


Mark Geragos: Okay. And in this case, at least your understanding of why you are doing, for instance, this side stability test, and this is D 5D-2, it is, your understanding is that you do these tests so that the, for instance, if water gets into the boat, two people are overboard, you want to see what the stability of the boat is if those two people are grabbing on to the side of the boat?
David Weber: Yes. That's my understanding.
Mark Geragos: Okay. So what you do is, on a side stability test, you put, I have got D 5D-5. You put some weight on the side right here where I'm pointing to, is that correct?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the amount of weight that you tested on this side stability test, which is this picture?
David Weber: Right.
Mark Geragos: I don't know if we can see it. But I assume the weights are spread evenly, those steel weights? Steel weights right there?
David Weber: Yes.
Mark Geragos: What my finger is pointing to right there are the weights?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And then, there, there?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And then you distributed, if I understand correctly on this form, 142 pounds?
David Weber: 142.5.
Mark Geragos: And when you did that, the boat goes underwater on the one side?
David Weber: It heeled to the starboard side 12 degrees. And the starboard rear corner was under like 1.3.
Mark Geragos: So when you say, have to excuse me. What I know about boats is probably exceeded by what I know about fishing. The 12 degrees means that the boat is leaning on a 12 degree angle?
David Weber: If you were to, see if I can describe it. If you are looking at rear profile of the boat transom area,
Mark Geragos: This is the transom?
David Weber: Transom, the rear of the boat. I'm assuming things then.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
David Weber: It's actually you have got left, port, right, starboard. It's going to the starboard side by 12 degrees.
Mark Geragos: So it's higher here?
David Weber: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Than it is,
David Weber: I can't see that from here. But I think the portside transom area says 7 inches.
Mark Geragos: If we're talking about that marking right there, 7 inches here, it says negative 1.375?
David Weber: Then the bow is 5 inches, and then the,
Mark Geragos: Bow being right there, 5?
David Weber: Starboard bow is 5 inches. Port bow is 16 inches.
Mark Geragos: That's, when you put it into this tank, you are measuring from the water level to that point in the boat to the highest point of the boat.
David Weber: Which is the gunwale in this case.
Mark Geragos: So we have got this point, when you add 142 pounds spread evenly along the side of the boat, it's 16 inches out of the water right there, correct?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: 5 inches out of the water right here, correct?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And an inch and a third and change under water right there?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: 7 inches above water right there?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: You try and do this with the weight evenly spread out, correct?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Did you ever try and put 400 pounds in one area, like right there?
David Weber: No, we haven't.
Mark Geragos: Ever tried to put 400 pounds in one area right there?
David Weber: No, we haven't.
Mark Geragos: How about right there on the seat?
David Weber: No.


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

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, this level flotation test is not as likely to have a turn, you call a turn turtle?
David Weber: It's not. This is strictly center stability.
Mark Geragos: And center stability meaning in here?
David Weber: All the weight is right at the centerline of the boat except for the battery.
Mark Geragos: And this, the total amount of weight that you put in for this center stability looks like that.
David Weber: 285 for persons weight, and a hundred, and I apologize, my eyes aren't that good. 112 pound, is that right? For the engine weight, I believe. And then thirteen and half, or twelve and the half, for the battery.
Mark Geragos: You got 112 there, correct?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And that represents the engine?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When you and I talked this morning, I think you told me, correct me if I'm wrong, that the engine that was on the boat that you tested probably weighs ten or twenty percent more than the engine that is currently on the boat that the jury just saw?
David Weber: Correct. This is worst-case scenario again.
Mark Geragos: It's a different engine, meaning?
David Weber: Four stroke.
Mark Geragos: Four stroke. Not a two-stroke. And then you have got the battery there that you said was twelve and half pounds, or something like that?
David Weber: That's submerged weight.
Mark Geragos: Then, well, submerged 285?
David Weber: Yes, 285.
Mark Geragos: How many inches was the deepest, how many inches?
David Weber: I cannot see that from here. I'm sorry. I would guess it would be somewhere around like two to three and a half inches.
Mark Geragos: Looks like on here, this isn't your handwriting. This is Mr. Johns' handwriting?
David Weber: This isn't.
Mark Geragos: Looks likes two and half inches.
David Weber: Yes, two and half inches that's exactly what it is.
Mark Geragos: And then on,
David Weber: On the port side that appears to be four and a quarter inches.
Mark Geragos: Then eight and a half inches?
David Weber: Eight and a half, and seven and a half, which as we talked about the heel again, that's approximately the one degree of heel, I believe.
Mark Geragos: So when you load just 285 in, you are two and a half inches from water to the top of the boat?
David Weber: That's when the boat is fully submerged.
Mark Geragos: And, once again, this is a test that was not done when there is no water in the boat, correct?
David Weber: No. This test is when the boat is with water.
Mark Geragos: With water?
David Weber: Yes.
Mark Geragos: You did not do a test, any test when there wasn't water in the boat?
David Weber: No, we did not.

[TopGunner]

Correct me if I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) but isn't the boat a MOOT point?

If touching/rocking the boat is what convicted ISP then I could see the debate, but to my knowledge it didn't influence the outcome one way or another.

Also, a professional fisherman (of sturgeon) testified and said he could easily throw a 150lb + fish over the side, anchored or coasting, no problem. So (to me) that was validation (for the jurors) that it could be done.

[deputydi]

Correct me if I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) but isn't the boat a MOOT point?

If touching/rocking the boat is what convicted ISP then I could see the debate, but to my knowledge it didn't influence the outcome one way or another.

Also, a professional fisherman (of sturgeon) testified and said he could easily throw a 150lb + fish over the side, anchored or coasting, no problem. So (to me) that was validation (for the jurors) that it could be done.
You're not wrong. The NGs are looking for ANY error, but that won't get Scott a new trial. It has to be an error that could have changed the outcome -- and this ain't it.

[ekg]

David Weber testified that they test gamefisher boats for side/center stability and level of flotation in a swimming pool..

snipped


.



Thanks AW2B......

Hubby's boat is just a little bigger... different type tho.. its a bass tracker boat...... looks a little like this
http://severinghaus.org/gallery/d/1966-2/DSCF0811_bass_tracker_sm.jpg

like I said... his is longer.... it's close to 18ft..and there is NO WAY I would walk myself next to the side of it..much less doing it while holding 150-200+ lbs .... I don't know if it would tip, but it would sink down enough for water to come over the side and scare the bejesus out me..standing up with that much weight in the center of the boat would be dicey enough.... but doing it on the side? no-no-way..I'd fall in or tip the boat.

[attorneywan2be]

You're not wrong. The NGs are looking for ANY error, but that won't get Scott a new trial. It has to be an error that could have changed the outcome -- and this ain't it.

DD..it is not a matter of the NGs looking for any error..several prominent attorneys stated that the boat experiment conducted by the jury will be a very powerful appeal issue...


Los Angeles, Calif.: Is the jurors' experiment during deliberations -- climbing into the boat on the trailer and trying to rock it -- likely to get Peterson a new trial when it's appealed? It seems to me that they created evidence by conducting an unlawful experiment, something the defense wasn't able to answer. I think that it would be a travesty if that were to happen -- he's guilty as sin, but I think that's the law in California.

Jeralyn Merritt: I think the jurors' boat experiment is among Scott Peterson's best appellate arguments. The jurors were told not to conduct experiments. They are not allowed to conduct experiments that go beyond the purpose for which the evidence was admitted.

The Judge allowed the boat into evidence to show the placement of a body, not stability of the boat.

In addition, the Judge refused to allow a video of a defense experiment with the boat that did go to the issue of stability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40569-2005Mar16.html?nav=rss_liveonline/nation

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

Question from Go: How much will the boat rocking experiment come into play in the appeal process?

Robert Gottlieb: I guarantee that it will be point on appeal because the judge was wrong in allowing it to occur. The reason it was wrong is because the jury is not allowed to conduct their own experiment outside the evidence presented in the courtroom.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/1112peterson-gottlieb.html

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

Greta stated on her show that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..Bernie and Ted Williams agreed..

Link :see my initial post..

[TopGunner]

DD..it is not a matter of the NGs looking for any error..several prominent attorneys stated that the boat experiment conducted by the jury will be a very powerful appeal issue...


Los Angeles, Calif.: Is the jurors' experiment during deliberations -- climbing into the boat on the trailer and trying to rock it -- likely to get Peterson a new trial when it's appealed? It seems to me that they created evidence by conducting an unlawful experiment, something the defense wasn't able to answer. I think that it would be a travesty if that were to happen -- he's guilty as sin, but I think that's the law in California.

Jeralyn Merritt: I think the jurors' boat experiment is among Scott Peterson's best appellate arguments. The jurors were told not to conduct experiments. They are not allowed to conduct experiments that go beyond the purpose for which the evidence was admitted.

The Judge allowed the boat into evidence to show the placement of a body, not stability of the boat.

In addition, the Judge refused to allow a video of a defense experiment with the boat that did go to the issue of stability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40569-2005Mar16.html?nav=rss_liveonline/nation

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

Question from Go: How much will the boat rocking experiment come into play in the appeal process?

Robert Gottlieb: I guarantee that it will be point on appeal because the judge was wrong in allowing it to occur. The reason it was wrong is because the jury is not allowed to conduct their own experiment outside the evidence presented in the courtroom.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/1112peterson-gottlieb.html

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

Greta stated on her show that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..Bernie and Ted Williams agreed..

Link :see my initial post..



For some reason AW2B my computer isn't allowing me to open up websites tonight. I'm sure my child is behind it, but I'm too lazy to restart at the moment. However, isn't Greta, Bernie, and TW just stating their OPINIONS? For as many talking heads that say the boat is an issue, there's equally as many (if not more) that say it's not. Common sense tells me that since it didn't have any influence on the verdit, it won't come into play.

[TopGunner]

OK, I resarted:

"I personally think it's OK that the judge allowed the jury to get into that boat, but you never quite know how the court of appeals will view it," FOX News legal analyst Stan Goldman said.

Question from PLCfl: Is there any chance that something described in this book by the Peterson jurors will trigger an appeal by Scott's family?

Catherine Crier: Having read through it, I don't anticipate so.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it is worth focusing for a minute -- you know, a lot of times we talk about appeal issues. Could something be an appeal issue? And you know, appeals courts have, I think, a sense of perspective, that some things really are trivial and even if a mistake is made it doesn't matter. For example, earlier in the week we had a minor controversy over whether jurors could get into the boat that's in evidence and did they get inside, did they pretend to rock the boat, did they do an experiment? That was basically a nonserious controversy.



This isn't a quick process. Unless his conviction and sentence are overturned on appeal — an unlikely scenario even though the evidence against him is weak and the trial was often marred by bizarre events — he probably will be kicking around the state's penal system for decades, a generation perhaps, before he is executed. And that assumes no major changes in the dynamics of the death penalty between now and then.

(CBS) Attorney Andrew Cohen

I believe Gloria Allred (on Greta) also said she feels ISP won't win an appeal.

[deputydi]

DD..it is not a matter of the NGs looking for any error..several prominent attorneys stated that the boat experiment conducted by the jury will be a very powerful appeal issue...
<snip>

The judge didn't "allow" the experiment -- it just happened. I don't call it an experiment at all but, for lack of a better term . . .

The jurors wanted to see the boat. The judge agreed to that and that alone. When the jurors jumped into the boat and jumped around, it was a spontaneous act. They were admonished and that was the end of it. This "experiment" didn't influence their deliberations one way or the other. They were told and they all understood this was not a controlled test of the boat's stability or buoyancy. Even if the appellate court finds it to be an error, it was a harmless error. That's not enough to get a new trial.

As for Mark's request to film the reenactment, the judge correctly denied the motion. The conditions cannot be replicated and, therefore, this could not be used as evidence to prove or disprove anything.

[ekg]

OK, I resarted:

"I personally think it's OK that the judge allowed the jury to get into that boat, but you never quite know how the court of appeals will view it," FOX News legal analyst Stan Goldman said.

Question from PLCfl: Is there any chance that something described in this book by the Peterson jurors will trigger an appeal by Scott's family?

Catherine Crier: Having read through it, I don't anticipate so.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it is worth focusing for a minute -- you know, a lot of times we talk about appeal issues. Could something be an appeal issue? And you know, appeals courts have, I think, a sense of perspective, that some things really are trivial and even if a mistake is made it doesn't matter. For example, earlier in the week we had a minor controversy over whether jurors could get into the boat that's in evidence and did they get inside, did they pretend to rock the boat, did they do an experiment? That was basically a nonserious controversy.



This isn't a quick process. Unless his conviction and sentence are overturned on appeal — an unlikely scenario even though the evidence against him is weak and the trial was often marred by bizarre events — he probably will be kicking around the state's penal system for decades, a generation perhaps, before he is executed. And that assumes no major changes in the dynamics of the death penalty between now and then.

(CBS) Attorney Andrew Cohen

I believe Gloria Allred (on Greta) also said she feels ISP won't win an appeal.

Toobin said pretty much the same thing for cnn...


JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's obviously teetering on the edge of a mistrial and big problems. It may not go over that edge. They may be able to pull it together, settle on these 12 jurors to be the people who deliberate Scott Peterson's fate and then reach a verdict.

I think it is worth focusing for a minute -- you know, a lot of times we talk about appeal issues. Could something be an appeal issue? And you know, appeals courts have, I think, a sense of perspective, that some things really are trivial and even if a mistake is made it doesn't matter. For example, earlier in the week we had a minor controversy over whether jurors could get into the boat that's in evidence and did they get inside, did they pretend to rock the boat, did they do an experiment? That was basically a nonserious controversy.

but he went on to say the juror replacements could cause the convitcion to be overturned



This business about excusing jurors is a very serious matter to appeals courts. That is something they will look very hard at. And if these jurors were thrown off the jury for inappropriate reasons, or even questionable reasons, that is something that could get a conviction reversed if there is a conviction.



Hammer is saying what we have been saying..


DORNIN: Earlier, attorneys battled over a key piece of evidence when the jury rocked the boat, literally. Jurors were taken to see Scott Peterson's boat up close. Apparently two jurors got inside the boat and began rocking it from side to side, possibly to see for themselves whether the boat would capsize. Prosecutors claim Peterson dumped his wife's body over the side of the boat.

JIM HAMMER, LEGAL ANALYST: If that is seen as an experiment, that is absolutely forbidden under California law and there is case after case that have been reversed on appeal after a conviction for juries conducting experiments


and again Hammer says



JEFF HAMMER, LEGAL ANALYST: The question is, were they simply examining it, or were they doing an experiment? If it turns out this was an experiment, that can be a fatal error. So although Geragos sounds angry, he's going to be the happiest lawyer in that courtroom now, because it goes badly and there's a conviction, he's got a ripe issue on appeal.

MATTINGLY: The jurors could have been trying to determine if it were possible for Peterson to dump his wife Laci's body weighted with cement anchors into San Francisco Bay, an act the defense claims would have caused the boat to capsize. The judge rejected a request from Geragos to show the jury a tape made by the defense demonstrating their point

This is interesting...it's Toobin again


COLLINS: So if there's just one or two people, possibly holding out, would they -- is it possible they can be replaced with alternates?

TOOBIN: No, no. I mean, if they are deliberating, if they are actually participating in the deliberation process and just simply disagree about the evidence, you can't replace them. If you had a situation where a jury would, a juror wouldn't enter the jury room or something like that, then maybe. But in a death penalty case, you probably wouldn't even be able to get a replacement for that kind of juror.


I think it's going to hinge on whether the boat thing was an experiment or not...if it was the verdict is out....

and 2nd, the jurors who were replaced(who might have been NG's, since they were telling the judge they were divided until those 2 were bumped) could be another winnable appeals issues...

[deputydi]

<snip>I think it's going to hinge on whether the boat thing was an experiment or not...if it was the verdict is out....

and 2nd, the jurors who were replaced(who might have been NG's, since they were telling the judge they were divided until those 2 were bumped) could be another winnable appeals issues...
It goes without saying that the boat issue hinges on how the appeals ct defines an experiment and whether it had any impact in the jury room. I honestly don't see how this ill advised, spontaneous act could be defined as an experiment.

If the boat had been towed to the bay and two jurors allowed to jump around in the boat to test stability, THAT would be an experiment and would most certainly be judged reversible error. This is why the judge denied MGs request to conduct a test like this and enter it as evidence. What the jurors did wasn't smart, but they were given an admonishment by the judge and they all understood this was not a valid test and could not be used as evidence of anything during deliberations. This is what makes it harmless error -- if anything.

I'm not sure which two jurors you are speaking of, but J Delucci had valid reasons for dismissing each of the three jurors (there were three, weren't there?). Justin Falconer was dismissed for initiating contact with a member of the Rocha family. Frances Gorman was dismissed for conducting independent research on her home computer. Gregory Jackson was dismissed because (according to the other jurors) he refused to deliberate and, as jury foreman, would not agree to taking an early vote to see where everyone stood. I haven't heard any of the other jurors claim that they were dismissed to avoid a hung jury.

[ekg]

I haven't heard any of the other jurors claim that they were dismissed to avoid a hung jury.

I didn't say that...... Toobin said

If you had a situation where a jury would, a juror wouldn't enter the jury room or something like that, then maybe. But in a death penalty case, you probably wouldn't even be able to get a replacement for that kind of juror.


and this was in an interview that was talking about how the jurors had just sent the judge a note sayng they were helplessly divided..... after the jd/md and Gorman were bumped off..... the verdict came in... it looks suspicious no matter how you look it.... even tho there might have been cause to bump Gorman off, Toobin said that even if the juror wouldn't deliberate you probably couldn't replace them in a DP case....and the jd/md did want to deliberate... it was the rest of the jury who didn't...

[deputydi]

I didn't say that...... Toobin said

If you had a situation where a jury would, a juror wouldn't enter the jury room or something like that, then maybe. But in a death penalty case, you probably wouldn't even be able to get a replacement for that kind of juror.


and this was in an interview that was talking about how the jurors had just sent the judge a note sayng they were helplessly divided..... after the jd/md and Gorman were bumped off..... the verdict came in... it looks suspicious no matter how you look it.... even tho there might have been cause to bump Gorman off, Toobin said that even if the juror wouldn't deliberate you probably couldn't replace them in a DP case....and the jd/md did want to deliberate... it was the rest of the jury who didn't...
I don't remember any note from the jurors saying they were hopelessly divided. What I do remember is a lot of speculation on the part of the THs.

[cookiewench]

The judge didn't "allow" the experiment -- it just happened. I don't call it an experiment at all but, for lack of a better term . . .

The jurors wanted to see the boat. The judge agreed to that and that alone. When the jurors jumped into the boat and jumped around, it was a spontaneous act. They were admonished and that was the end of it. This "experiment" didn't influence their deliberations one way or the other. They were told and they all understood this was not a controlled test of the boat's stability or buoyancy. Even if the appellate court finds it to be an error, it was a harmless error. That's not enough to get a new trial.

As for Mark's request to film the reenactment, the judge correctly denied the motion. The conditions cannot be replicated and, therefore, this could not be used as evidence to prove or disprove anything.


Exactly. Ever trial might have some type of error, but it has to rise to the level of "reversible error" for it to make a difference.

Would the jurors have voted differently during the guilt phase if some of them had not sat in that boat?

No. Of course not. It is not a reversible error by any means.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Exactly. Ever trial might have some type of error, but it has to rise to the level of "reversible error" for it to make a difference.

Would the jurors have voted differently during the guilt phase if some of them had not sat in that boat?

No. Of course not. It is not a reversible error by any means.

Good point!

[Hey Paula]

I agree with the posters who commented that Judge Delucchi immediately stopped Beratlis and Jackson when the jumping inside the boat commenced, reminding them about buoyancy.

However, wouldn't the boat be more stable on pavement than on a rough sea? If so, wouldn't that assist Scott Peterson?

IMO

[deputydi]

I agree with the posters who commented that Judge Delucchi immediately stopped Beratlis and Jackson when the jumping inside the boat commenced, reminding them about buoyancy.

However, wouldn't the boat be more stable on pavement than on a rough sea? If so, wouldn't that assist Scott Peterson?

IMO
:biggrin: Never thought of it quite that way.

[Hey Paula]

:biggrin: Never thought of it quite that way.

I think that alone would render it a weak appellate issue.

IMO

[ekg]

I don't remember any note from the jurors saying they were hopelessly divided. What I do remember is a lot of speculation on the part of the THs.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/08/acd.01.html

COLLINS: Good evening again from New York. I'm Heidi Collins. Anderson is off tonight.

Emotions in the Scott Peterson trial are running high tonight. The six men and six women of the jury are apparently deeply divided, and cannot agree whether Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child.

Today the jury -- or the judge, that is, ordered the jury back into court and told them to set aside personal biases to reach a verdict.

later in the same link


COLLINS: But something that is not so meaningless is this division among...

TOOBIN: Absolutely, that's very serious.

COLLINS: ... the jury. I mean, could we really be talking about a hung jury here?

TOOBIN: Can you imagine? (UNINTELLIGIBLE), we could. Now, it doesn't mean that we are going to have a mistrial, because, you know, it often works out that when a judge says, Come on, folks, you know, listen to each other, it works, and they get to a verdict.

But what's so unusual about this is, this is only the third day...

COLLINS: Right.

TOOBIN: ... of deliberation in a trial that went on for more than 20 weeks. That the judge is worried enough about a split at this early stage suggests something is seriously wrong with the jury.

COLLINS: Now, what about this dynamite charge now, or this Allen charge that we've been hearing a little bit about? Explain that.

TOOBIN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it's called a dynamite charge because judges use it to try to break through a logjam, and they say things -- it varies state by state, but the gist is the same, which is, they say, Look, don't give up your conscience, but listen to the other jurors, consider the evidence, don't be afraid to change your mind based on the evidence, basically encouraging hold-out jurors to get with the program, but sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

COLLINS: So if there's just one or two people, possibly holding out, would they -- is it possible they can be replaced with alternates?

TOOBIN: No, no. I mean, if they are deliberating, if they are actually participating in the deliberation process and just simply disagree about the evidence, you can't replace them. If you had a situation where a jury would, a juror wouldn't enter the jury room or something like that, then maybe. But in a death penalty case, you probably wouldn't even be able to get a replacement for that kind of juror.





The allegation of possible outside research by one of the jurors came a day after the panel appeared to hit a snag, prompting Delucchi to summon the jury to the courtroom during Monday's deliberations.

It was impossible for anyone outside the jury room and the judge's chambers to know immediately whether the dismissed juror was the one the judge was referring to Monday when he lectured the panel about the importance of keeping an open mind, but lawyers for both sides left the courtroom smiling.

Monday's lecture came after the jury indicated that the panel was deeply divided and unable to reach a consensus on the murder charges. "It is rarely helpful for a juror at the beginning of deliberations to express an emphatic opinion on the case," the judge said before sending the panel back to the jury room on Monday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138001,00.html



IIRC it wasn't much longer after this that the jd/md was booted and they had their verdict....






yep, 8 hrs later in fact

....After the final replacement -- Greg Jackson, the jury's foreperson -- the "new" jury reached its verdict in less than eight hours

The last minute removal of the final two jurors, followed by such a quick verdict, shocked many pundits. "The biggest issue is juror removals," said San Francisco prosecutor and trial observer Jim Hammer. "Kicking someone off the jury is one of the riskiest things you can do in a trial... Two jurors in two days? I've never heard of that happening before."

it just looks hinkey...:shrug:

[cookiewench]

Hinkey doesn't get you a new trial.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

I haven't heard any of the other jurors claim that they were dismissed to avoid a hung jury.

Quote:

In an exclusive interview, John Guinasso, juror No. 8, told ABC News that the original foreman had been leading the jury in a pro-defense direction before he was dismissed one week into the panel's deliberations.
"My personal opinion is … if he was to remain on the case I think we would have had a hung jury," Guinasso told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/Story?id=529820&page=1

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

However, wouldn't the boat be more stable on pavement than on a rough sea? If so, wouldn't that assist Scott Peterson?

IMO

Hi Paula..

How would that assist Scott?

The boat being more stable on pavement would give the jury the wrong conclusion as to the stability of the boat..more stable = Scott could have done it without the boat tipping over..

[Hey Paula]

Quote:

In an exclusive interview, John Guinasso, juror No. 8, told ABC News that the original foreman had been leading the jury in a pro-defense direction before he was dismissed one week into the panel's deliberations.
"My personal opinion is … if he was to remain on the case I think we would have had a hung jury," Guinasso told ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/Story?id=529820&page=1

Hi A2WB!

Was Gregory Jackson trying to play Juror #8? (the role played by Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men") :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

Hi A2WB!

Was Gregory Jackson trying to play Juror #8? (the role played by Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men") :biggrin:

Hi Paula..

LOL..since you mentioned it..I think he should have stood his ground and not let the other jurors intimidate him as Henry Fonda did..! :D

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

How would that assist Scott?

The boat being more stable on pavement would give the jury the wrong conclusion as to the stability of the boat..more stable = Scott could have done it without the boat tipping over..

Hi again AW2B!

That's why Judge Delucchi stopped them and cautioned them about the boat behaving differently on pavement than the sea, using the word buoyancy, thus bringing attention to the difference in stability. It assists Scott because Delucchi made them realize the boat wouldn't be as stable on the sea.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Hi again AW2B!

That's why Judge Delucchi stopped them and cautioned them about the boat behaving differently on pavement than the sea, using the word buoyancy, thus bringing attention to the difference in stability. It assists Scott because Delucchi made them realize the boat wouldn't be as stable on the sea.

IMO

Hi Paula..

The stability of the boat is a vital issue in this case..

Scott's boat is unstable = Scott could not have done it without tipping over the boat
Scott's boat is stable = Scott could have done it...

According to Beratlis, there were questions in their minds about the stability of the boat that were not addressed in court..so they decided to find the answers to those questions by climbing into the boat, rocking it and so forth..there is a possibility that judge Delucchi's reminder to them made them reflect on how much would the stability of the boat be different in water...IMO, the appellate court would not take that chance..jury are not supposed to create their own evidence...they were trying to determine facts not presented in court--->the stability of Scott's boat

[cookiewench]

Hi Paula..

The stability of the boat is a vital issue in this case..

Scott's boat is unstable = Scott could not have done it without tipping over the boat
Scott's boat is stable = Scott could have done it...

According to Beratlis, there were questions in their minds about the stability of the boat that were not addressed in court..so they decided to find the answers to those questions by climbing into the boat, rocking it and so forth..there is a possibility that judge Delucchi's reminder to them made them reflect on how much would the stability of the boat be different in water...IMO, the appellate court would not take that chance..jury are not supposed to create their own evidence...they were trying to determine facts not presented in court--->the stability of Scott's boat


There's not a shot in h*ll that "the appellate court would not take that chance".

Reversible error would HAVE TO BE something that would have changed the outcome of the trial.

If you paid attention to the jurors statements, they said that they reached their decision because of the totality of the evidence presented in court - the main piece of it being where the bodies where eventually found.

The getting-into-the-boat thing is very minor, and there's no way an appellate court is going to let a convicted, proven, double murderer get a new trial because of something so slight.

Darlie Routier's been grasping at the same type of straws for years, and all she's gotten is closer to her execution.

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

The stability of the boat is a vital issue in this case..

Scott's boat is unstable = Scott could not have done it without tipping over the boat
Scott's boat is stable = Scott could have done it...

According to Beratlis, there were questions in their minds about the stability of the boat that were not addressed in court..so they decided to find the answers to those questions by climbing into the boat, rocking it and so forth..there is a possibility that judge Delucchi's reminder to them made them reflect on how much would the stability of the boat be different in water...IMO, the appellate court would not take that chance..jury are not supposed to create their own evidence...they were trying to determine facts not presented in court--->the stability of Scott's boat

I don't know how this issue will ultimately play out in the appellate court. Will the momentary jumping in the boat override Judge Delucchi actually drawing more attention to the boat being more unstable in the sea, which actually assisted Scott?

The testimony re Scott's Gamefisher model boat was that it was indeed very stable. That, coupled with Scott's last minute morning decision to go trolling in lieu of his golfing plan on the day Laci disappeared, and then the bodies of Laci and Conner washing ashore where Scott went trolling is so incriminating that whether or not they momentarily jumped in the boat or not wouldn't have altered the outcome of the verdict. For these reasons, perhaps this wouldn't be considered a reversible error.

I've always thought the ultimate result might be that Scott's penalty would be reduced to LWOP, which I believe the 9th Circuit Court might decide upon. However, I'm not that confident Scott will be granted a new trial.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

The testimony re Scott's Gamefisher model boat was that it was indeed very stable.

Snip

IMO

I don't think we can say with certainty that the testimony proved that the boat was indeed very stable as it relates to the evidence in this case..according to Beratlis, the testimony regarding the stability of the Gamefisher boat didn't address the questions the jury had in their minds which compelled them to experiment with the boat..the testimony didn't address :

1-The stability of the boat if 400 pounds is on one side of the boat..
2-The stability of the boat in saltwater
3-The stability of the boat in bay water where there would be tides, currents and waves..etc..etc..
4-The stability of the boat if there isn't water in it..
5-The side stability of the boat if the weight is not spread evenly along the side..


Mark Geragos: You try and do this with the weight evenly spread out, correct?
David Weber: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Did you ever try and put 400 pounds in one area, like right there?
David Weber: No, we haven't.

---------------------
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the boat, so that it's clear, it's your testimony that the way that you test this is, the boat is more stable than if there isn't water in there, correct?
David Weber: That would be correct.

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

Mark Geragos: Have you ever done any test to see if you put weight on the side at all, if there wasn't any water in the boat?
David Weber: Just, no, we have not. Just complied with NMMA standards.

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. And when you test it when it is more stable, and you spread 142 pounds evenly, it goes under water an inch and change, right? Is that, do I understand correctly?
David Weber: Correct.

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

Mark Geragos: Worst-case condition. However, there is no test that takes into account in salt water on a bay with waves, or current, or with wind, correct?
David Weber: No

[cookiewench]

Pudge-boy weighed 250 lbs.?

Even I know that you wouldn't put your full body on one side of a boat if you were removing something heavy from it.

You would stay as close to the middle as possible, maybe even standing or crouching to stabilize yourself.

And you wouldn't throw all of the anchors in at once, either. They most likely had several feet of wire or rope attaching them to the body.

The appellate courts aren't stupid.

And again: a Gamefisher is a fishing boat. It, of course, is both stable and bouyant, or the Gamefisher company would have gone out of business a long time ago, as fisherman tumbled into the water every time they tried to pull a heavy fish in, or throw one back in.

LE knew from day one that it would be possible to dispose of a body from that boat, which is why they (correctly) searched the bay.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

LE knew from day one that it would be possible to dispose of a body from that boat, which is why they (correctly) searched the bay.

Why didn't they do a demonstration to prove that it was possible for someone to throw off a body from Scott's boat?

Mark Geragos: Did you at that point talk to, or had you talked to Dodge Hendee about the, specifically about doing a demonstration in the boat with a weighted object to see if the boat would flip when you tried to push it out?
Craig Grogan: Did I talk to Dodge Hendee about that?
Mark Geragos: Yes.
Craig Grogan: That's possible. We have had discussions about that.
Mark Geragos: You say "we". Did that include members of the DA's office?
Birgit Fladager: Objection. Relevance.
Judge Delucchi: Pardon me?
Birgit Fladager: Objection. Relevance.
Judge Delucchi: Overruled.
Craig Grogan: Yes. Early on, I think, in the investigation, and later.
Mark Geragos: And a decision was made to not to try to attempt to push an, either a body or a weight out of the boat; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.

[One2Snoop]

Why didn't they do a demonstration to prove that it was possible for someone to throw off a body from Scott's boat?

Mark Geragos: Did you at that point talk to, or had you talked to Dodge Hendee about the, specifically about doing a demonstration in the boat with a weighted object to see if the boat would flip when you tried to push it out?
Craig Grogan: Did I talk to Dodge Hendee about that?
Mark Geragos: Yes.
Craig Grogan: That's possible. We have had discussions about that.
Mark Geragos: You say "we". Did that include members of the DA's office?
Birgit Fladager: Objection. Relevance.
Judge Delucchi: Pardon me?
Birgit Fladager: Objection. Relevance.
Judge Delucchi: Overruled.
Craig Grogan: Yes. Early on, I think, in the investigation, and later.
Mark Geragos: And a decision was made to not to try to attempt to push an, either a body or a weight out of the boat; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.

My only question is - if Geragos wanted to prove it wasn't possible because he knew his client was "stone cold innocent" why didn't he pay to have the experiement done and enter it into testimony? :shrug:

[Hey Paula]

Why didn't they do a demonstration to prove that it was possible for someone to throw off a body from Scott's boat?

Mark Geragos: Did you at that point talk to, or had you talked to Dodge Hendee about the, specifically about doing a demonstration in the boat with a weighted object to see if the boat would flip when you tried to push it out?
Craig Grogan: Did I talk to Dodge Hendee about that?
Mark Geragos: Yes.
Craig Grogan: That's possible. We have had discussions about that.
Mark Geragos: You say "we". Did that include members of the DA's office?
Birgit Fladager: Objection. Relevance.
Judge Delucchi: Pardon me?
Birgit Fladager: Objection. Relevance.
Judge Delucchi: Overruled.
Craig Grogan: Yes. Early on, I think, in the investigation, and later.
Mark Geragos: And a decision was made to not to try to attempt to push an, either a body or a weight out of the boat; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.

The conditions on the sea, including weather and wind, which prevailed on the day Scott disposed of Laci's body, cannot be duplicated. Therefore any demo wouldn't be accurate.

Judge Delucchi disallowed Geragos' demo because not only was his boat an older and less stable Gamefisher model than Scott's, but it was rigged with a platform and seats sitting atop which rendered the boat top heavy and more prone to tipping.

IMO

[ekg]

My only question is - if Geragos wanted to prove it wasn't possible because he knew his client was "stone cold innocent" why didn't he pay to have the experiement done and enter it into testimony? :shrug:


I get what your saying...... and everytime I see this kind of reply "why didn't MG do this, that, or the other" I agree.... but it does bother me that we are putting the 'prove it' on the defense.... when the only one who should have to prove anything is the State.

again, I understand and agree with you........ but it is troublesome.. especially when you factor in the money situtation.... the state has unlimited funds to do these kinds of tests, whereas the defendant doesn't. And the 'why didn't he pay for this expert or that expert" is another thing I don't like....I get it, I just don't like it.....

I think MG was brilliant in his ability to turn most all of the states witnesses and experts into defense witnesses..... and I remember the TH agreed and were in fact stunned that he was repeatedly able to do this... and until Amber testified it was working...after Amber? Nothing would have saved him, IMO....

[Thinking]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.

[enlightenme]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.


Really? Would you mind posting something from the transcripts that demonstates Ron Granski's murderous intent toward Laci?

BTW, I heard Ron call in to one of the news shows I was watching yesterday. He was calling to lend his support and sympathy for the family of Jessie Davis and her unborn child. He said the family needs to band together and that we shouldn't be speculating until facts come out in court. Parphrasing here, but that was the gist of it. Sounds like a very nice, caring man to me!

JMO

[Wearing A Halo]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.

Who are these "a lot of people" and where is "out here"?

[attorneywan2be]

My only question is - if Geragos wanted to prove it wasn't possible because he knew his client was "stone cold innocent" why didn't he pay to have the experiement done and enter it into testimony? :shrug:

I'm confused!! Mark Geragos did the experiment and had a video of it..the judge didn't allow it..

[attorneywan2be]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.

I did hear about the theory regarding Ron..but I have to strongly disagree, IMO, based on the trial record, there is ZERO evidence pointing to Scott..AND there is ZERO evidence pointing to Ron...I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of murder without hard evidence..!

I also disagree that the judge would intentionally make a mistake in his ruling to give Scott grounds for an appeal...

[Wearing A Halo]

I did hear about the theory regarding Ron..but I have to strongly disagree, IMO, based on the trial record, there is ZERO evidence pointing to Scott..AND there is ZERO evidence pointing to Ron...I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of murder without hard evidence..!

I also disagree that the judge would intentionally make a mistake in his ruling to give Scott grounds for an appeal...

"I did hear about the theory regarding Ron."

Where did you hear about this theory regarding Ron?

[attorneywan2be]

"I did hear about the theory regarding Ron."

Where did you hear about this theory regarding Ron?


It's a theory that has been floating around on various message boards...I would not name the boards or the posters..but I strongly disagree with it..!

[deputydi]

<snip>I've always thought the ultimate result might be that Scott's penalty would be reduced to LWOP, which I believe the 9th Circuit Court might decide upon. However, I'm not that confident Scott will be granted a new trial.

IMO
I agree with everything in this post, but I only wanted to address the last paragraph.

I fully expect the 9th circuit to reduce his sentence to LWOP, but it is extremely unlikely (IMO, of course) they will find grounds for reversal.

[cookiewench]

Doing independent research has nothing to do with the jurors handling, touching, turning, or sitting in the evidence.

I think that has already been stated on this board - many, many times.

The judge could have (rightly) let ALL of the jurors get into the boat if he'd wanted to - but he was bending over backwards to be overly fair to the defense side.

The argument that the jurors shouldn't have gotten into the boat becuase Geragos wasn't permitted to show his fake experiment that involved plywood in the bottom of the boat and people TRYING to tilt the boat over is bogus.

The judge would have been within his rights to both ban Geragos's experiment AND let the jurors into the boat, if he'd wanted to.

[Hey Paula]

Doing independent research has nothing to do with the jurors handling, touching, turning, or sitting in the evidence.

I think that has already been stated on this board - many, many times.

The judge could have (rightly) let ALL of the jurors get into the boat if he'd wanted to - but he was bending over backwards to be overly fair to the defense side.

The argument that the jurors shouldn't have gotten into the boat becuase Geragos wasn't permitted to show his fake experiment that involved plywood in the bottom of the boat and people TRYING to tilt the boat over is bogus.

The judge would have been within his rights to both ban Geragos's experiment AND let the jurors into the boat, if he'd wanted to.

ITA, as the boat, like every other piece of evidence passed around to the jurors for their inspection, is expected to be handled.

IMO

[cookiewench]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.


Oh my goodness! Where do you live? There are doctors....lawyers....even judges walking around with hair dyed in unusual colors......tatoos.....piercings. To think that a judge would look at Richelle's hair color and make a judgement on what her opinions would be because of that is absurd, IMO.

And how about if you give us a definition on what constitutes "a lot" of people? A lot of people believe the alien autopsy was real, too. There will always be "a lot" (as in.....a fringe element) who has a weird take on anything that happens in the world.

[frydaddy]

*snipped*

I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of murder without hard evidence!

*snipped*



Could you define "hard evidence"?

TIA

[frydaddy]

Dint know where to put this...

For sale! (http://thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070625/NEWS06/706250319/1050)

[frydaddy]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.

Are they wearing these? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Foil_Hat)

[Hey Paula]

Dint know where to put this...

For sale! (http://thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070625/NEWS06/706250319/1050)

Hi FD!

After he bought the house, Roberts was in the media, first claiming he found a knife (IIRC) in the house, which was tested. Later on, he was on TV, giving a tour of the house, stating his dog wouldn't go into Laci's bedroom. I think he shrunk to market after those two revelations. You can't have your house and sell it too, LOL! What price fame?

IMO

[Luke Davis]

Hi FD!

After he bought the house, Roberts was in the media, first claiming he found a knife (IIRC) in the house, which was tested. Later on, he was on TV, giving a tour of the house, stating his dog wouldn't go into Laci's bedroom. I think he shrunk to market after those two revelations. You can't have your house and sell it too, LOL! What price fame?

IMO

Hi Paula. That area is very depressed about 5,000 homes have been repossessed in the past six months. IIRC that county has the third most repos in the USA. But I was sad when I heard about the lawn all yellow and the trees dying. :rose:

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula. That area is very depressed about 5,000 homes have been repossessed in the past six months. IIRC that county has the third most repos in the USA. But I was sad when I heard about the lawn all yellow and the trees dying. :rose:

Hi Luke!

Thanks for the info.

That is sad indeed, especially recalling Laci's love of horticulture. :rose:

I think the RE market in general has declined somewhat.

IMO

[adnoid]

Could you define "hard evidence"?

I think it's evidence you have to take to the doctor if it stays that way for more than 4 hours.

[TopGunner]

I think it's evidence you have to take to the doctor if it stays that way for more than 4 hours.

LOL Adnoid, good to see you! :seeya:

[adnoid]

As for Mark's request to film the reenactment, the judge correctly denied the motion. The conditions cannot be replicated and, therefore, this could not be used as evidence to prove or disprove anything.

More importantly, it would be proof of absolutely nothing. You could get 100 people to stand in the boat & tip it over if you told them that's what you wanted. I'm sure that I could get a load the same size and shape as Laci out of a boat like Scott's without tipping it over, but I'm equally sure that I could tip it over and make a big splash if someone was paying me to do so.

So the judge was right in keeping that (alleged) film Geragos made out - because it would prove nothing.

As far as the prosecution doing a test? Well, the defense would have certainly objected on the grounds you stated - they could not reproduce the conditions exactly, and would have to conjecture about what exactly Scott did. Any guess they made the defense would have objected to - and rightly so.

Instead, they showed the jury the boat. The jury made up their own minds - which is what we have them for.

[adnoid]

LOL Adnoid, good to see you! :seeya:

Thanks.

All I've ever seen - and all I've ever heard real judges and attorneys refer to - is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. However, I have seen laypersons in this case state that nobody should be convicted without one or more of the following:

--real evidence;
--hard evidence;
--DNA evidence;
--factual evidence;
--actual evidence;
--physical evidence

and some others I don't recall off the top of my head. Despite asking I have never been given a legal definition of any of these terms, not have I been able to find one on my own.

My favorites are the ones that claim that "you should only convict someone with DNA, not circumstantial evidence".

[deputydi]

<snip>LOL..since you mentioned it..I think he should have stood his ground and not let the other jurors intimidate him as Henry Fonda did..! :D
I don't think you've watched this movie lately. Henry Fonda wasn't intimidated by any of the other jurors. He was the lone holdout for a conviction and managed to convince the other 11 that the boy was not guilty. He stood his ground just fine. This is one of my all time fav movies.

[attorneywan2be]

Could you define "hard evidence"?

TIA


Evidence that would prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt..

[attorneywan2be]

I don't think you've watched this movie lately. Henry Fonda wasn't intimidated by any of the other jurors. He was the lone holdout for a conviction and managed to convince the other 11 that the boy was not guilty. He stood his ground just fine. This is one of my all time fav movies.

Maybe my post was not properly worded..but I meant that he should have stood his ground as Henry Fonda did in the movie..! I watched that movie so many times.. it is one of my favorite movies..!

[enlightenme]

ITA, as the boat, like every other piece of evidence passed around to the jurors for their inspection, is expected to be handled.

IMO


Hi Hey Paula!

I didn't know where to put this but I wanted to mention that not ONLY did Scott have a secret boat, he had a secret fishing license. I find it very odd that he told none of his family or friends about his plan to go fishing on either the 23rd or 24th of Dec. He mentioned to LE that the fishing trip was "a morning decision", as it was too cold out to go golfing. I might have said, "I had bought a license for 2 days and this was the last day I could use it."

I mean, did he buy it ahead of time and then just decided to waste it? Except for, oh yeah, it's too cold out, I should use that license I bought and go to the bay which will be MUCH warmer! :rolleyes:

[Hey Paula]

Hi Hey Paula!

I didn't know where to put this but I wanted to mention that not ONLY did Scott have a secret boat, he had a secret fishing license. I find it very odd that he told none of his family or friends about his plan to go fishing on either the 23rd or 24th of Dec. He mentioned to LE that the fishing trip was "a morning decision", as it was too cold out to go golfing. I might have said, "I had bought a license for 2 days and this was the last day I could use it."

I mean, did he buy it ahead of time and then just decided to waste it? Except for, oh yeah, it's too cold out, I should use that license I bought and go to the bay which will be MUCH warmer! :rolleyes:

Hi EM!

ITA! And in addition to what you've said, how could Scott tell Amy on the 23rd, that he was going to golf and pick up the basket on the 24th when he knew that was the last day he could use the fishing license?

IMO

It's always great to see you!

[attorneywan2be]

According to testimony, the fishing license could have been used in 2002 or 2003..given that fact, IMO, when he purchased the fishing license he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank..no one testified from the store that they entered those dates nor did anyone testify that they recognized the handwriting..the cashier that processed the sale transaction was new.. they just hired her as Christmas help..so there is a possibility she didn't follow the proper procedures..this is just my theory regarding the fishing license..from my own experience, I've purchased fishing licenses before where I asked the cashier to leave the dates blank because I was undecided as to the exact dates we were going fishing..and they did..!

[Hey Paula]

According to testimony, the fishing license could have been used in 2002 or 2003..given that fact, IMO, when he purchased the fishing license he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank..no one testified from the store that they entered those dates nor did anyone testify that they recognized the handwriting..the cashier that processed the sale transaction was new.. they just hired her as Christmas help..so there is a possibility she didn't follow the proper procedures..this is just my theory regarding the fishing license..from my own experience, I've purchased fishing licenses before where I asked the cashier to leave the dates blank because I was undecided as to the exact dates we were going fishing..and they did..!

Hi AW2B!

But since Scott already filled in the dates as 12/23 - 12/24/002, wouldn't he have been compelled to use it by 12/24/02? IIRC, the license contained those dates which means Scott knew, when he told Amy on the evening of 12/23, that he would pick up the fruit basket after golfing the next day, that the 24th was the last day he could use that fishing license.

IMO

[enlightenme]

According to testimony, the fishing license could have been used in 2002 or 2003..given that fact, IMO, when he purchased the fishing license he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank..no one testified from the store that they entered those dates nor did anyone testify that they recognized the handwriting..the cashier that processed the sale transaction was new.. they just hired her as Christmas help..so there is a possibility she didn't follow the proper procedures..this is just my theory regarding the fishing license..from my own experience, I've purchased fishing licenses before where I asked the cashier to leave the dates blank because I was undecided as to the exact dates we were going fishing..and they did..!


Hi AW2B.

But HE filled out the dates of the 23rd and 24th of Dec. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean 2003. I can't remember now, was there a year also filled in? I don't remember either that it could have been used in 2003.

[Hey Paula]

Hi AW2B.

But HE filled out the dates of the 23rd and 24th of Dec. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean 2003. I can't remember now, was there a year also filled in? I don't remember either that it could have been used in 2003.

IIRC, the dates filled in did contain the year.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

IIRC, the dates filled in did contain the year.

IMO

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/79.jpg

[Hey Paula]

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/79.jpg

Hi JMO!

Thanks for posting the link. I can't open it for some reason. Here is the message appearing on my screen:

403 forbidden

Server configuration does not allow access to this page. Please go back and try again.

[frydaddy]

Hi FD!

After he bought the house, Roberts was in the media, first claiming he found a knife (IIRC) in the house, which was tested. Later on, he was on TV, giving a tour of the house, stating his dog wouldn't go into Laci's bedroom. I think he shrunk to market after those two revelations. You can't have your house and sell it too, LOL! What price fame?

IMO

Hi Sweet P...yep, I think it was obvious that Roberts was an opportunist with a flawed sense of what was to him, a novelty that could make him rich. Guess when he gets back on his feet from bankruptcy, he might think twice next time? Or do you think he's at the library doing an E-Bay search on bridges and swamp land?

[frydaddy]

I think it's evidence you have to take to the doctor if it stays that way for more than 4 hours.

:eek: :lol:

[frydaddy]

Hi JMO!

Thanks for posting the link. I can't open it for some reason. Here is the message appearing on my screen:

403 forbidden

Server configuration does not allow access to this page. Please go back and try again.


Heading out the door...FYI...none of the links to SII exhibits work on this site. One must go to SII and navigate to them. Have a good day!

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi JMO!

Thanks for posting the link. I can't open it for some reason. Here is the message appearing on my screen:

403 forbidden

Server configuration does not allow access to this page. Please go back and try again.

Y/W HeyPaula. I guess the links to that site don't work. If you go to the site, click on Prosecution Exhibits ( menu far left of main page, scroll down)
it's People's 79...IIRC.

[adnoid]

Evidence that would prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt..

OK, so the "hard" adjective is one that is applied to the evidence after a verdict as a characterization of the body of evidence, rather than a classification of evidence? Would we find the actual definition in Black's somewhere (I don't have a copy handy)?

The jury comes to a conclusion about whether the evidence presented proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during their deliberations which occur after all the evidence is presented, so there can be no way to know until after the conclusion of deliberations if the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore there is no way to know if a particular piece of evidence is "hard" at the time it is presented to the Court - correct?

So...where does this characterization come into play? If a defendant is found guilty, does that therefore mean all evidence presented at the trial is then characterized as "hard"? What are the ramifications of this for appeals? It would seem that if "hard" evidence is evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, then every case that's appealed would consist of "hard" evidence, so the appeals courts could not use that characterization in any meaningful way.

[adnoid]

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/79.jpg

Unfortunately, the quality of the image hosted there is so poor that there's no way I could find to enhance it that made it legible.

[JustMyOpinion]

Unfortunately, the quality of the image hosted there is so poor that there's no way I could find to enhance it that made it legible.

Hi adnoid.. So NICE to see/read you, again !
Thanks for trying & sharing the info. I couldn't read it either, but I'm not skilled at enhancing images.

[adnoid]

Really? Would you mind posting something from the transcripts that demonstates Ron Granski's murderous intent toward Laci?...

One of the posters on the now-private SII board maintains that Ron went looking for Laci in his truck and ran her over when she was walking McKenzie. This poster claims Ron hit her with one of the side-view mirrors, and that explains the broken ribs. (I suppose, based on the difference in heights, she was walking the dog while on stilts.) What happened after that appears to be undefined, but this scenario is considered reasonable by some in the SII community.

[Hey Paula]

One of the posters on the now-private SII board maintains that Ron went looking for Laci in his truck and ran her over when she was walking McKenzie. This poster claims Ron hit her with one of the side-view mirrors, and that explains the broken ribs. (I suppose, based on the difference in heights, she was walking the dog while on stilts.) What happened after that appears to be undefined, but this scenario is considered reasonable by some in the SII community.

Hi Adnoid!

Welcome back! I'm so happy to see you posting again!

I had read that "theory" quite awhile ago on the f r a t pack board. YIKES!!!!

[enlightenme]

A question about the appeal. Appeals in general, I guess.

All I ever hear of other cases is "Mr. X's first appeal was denied" or something similar.

Are appeals info. available to the public, or are they sealed? Will we ever get to know the details of the appeal, if denied?

TIA

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

But since Scott already filled in the dates as 12/23 - 12/24/002, wouldn't he have been compelled to use it by 12/24/02? IIRC, the license contained those dates which means Scott knew, when he told Amy on the evening of 12/23, that he would pick up the fruit basket after golfing the next day, that the 24th was the last day he could use that fishing license.

IMO

Hi Paula..

The point of my theory is that he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank including the year....David Browne testified that the fishing license was a 2003 license...in other words, Scott could have used it anytime from the date of his purchase until Dec 31st of 2003...IMO, Scott entered the dates when he was sure he was going fishing, so I think he entered those dates on Dec 24th....he wrote "12/23/2002 AND 12/24/2002" because he had to enter 2 consecutive dates....

[adnoid]

Hi Adnoid!...

:seeya:

I had read that "theory" quite awhile ago on the f r a t pack board. YIKES!!!!

Don't go there. It's icky-poo.

I've seen it other places (I've never posted on FP) - probably from the same poster, although he/she/it uses different names on different boards.

[adnoid]

A question about the appeal. Appeals in general, I guess.

All I ever hear of other cases is "Mr. X's first appeal was denied" or something similar.

Are appeals info. available to the public, or are they sealed? Will we ever get to know the details of the appeal, if denied?

TIA

Appeal court decision are published.

However, just to clarify: nobody is entitled to have an appeal heard, so there may be nothing to see. As a function of California law, because Scott has been sentenced to execution he will have the State's assistance in presenting a direct appeal of his conviction - but there is NO GUARANTEE that any appeals court will hear the appeal. They can reject it without comment.

Scott's conviction is not "conditional" pending appeal, he is convicted and will be executed unless some affirmative action is taken by another court.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

If a defendant is found guilty, does that therefore mean all evidence presented at the trial is then characterized as "hard"? What are the ramifications of this for appeals? It would seem that if "hard" evidence is evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, then every case that's appealed would consist of "hard" evidence, so the appeals courts could not use that characterization in any meaningful way.

Of course not!!!..

Jury SUPPOSED to convict based on evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime..but unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that way..convictions had been reversed by appellate courts due to insufficient evidence...people had been exonerated after serving years in prison for a crime they didn't commit...

[enlightenme]

Hi Paula..

The point of my theory is that he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank including the year....David Browne testified that the fishing license was a 2003 license...in other words, Scott could have used it anytime from the date of his purchase until Dec 31st of 2003...IMO, Scott entered the dates when he was sure he was going fishing, so I think he entered those dates on Dec 24th....he wrote "12/23/2002 AND 12/24/2002" because he had to enter 2 consecutive dates....

I know you said it was just your theory but there's no evidence that Scott asked the clerk to leave the dates blank. It sounded like she was just temporary Christmas help and did not properly follow the store rules.

He must have known beforehand that he was going to take the boat to the bay since he bought the SW enhancement for the license. That just doesn't sound like a "morning decision", spur of the moment decision like he told LE that first night.

JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi Paula..

The point of my theory is that he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank including the year....David Browne testified that the fishing license was a 2003 license...in other words, Scott could have used it anytime from the date of his purchase until Dec 31st of 2003...IMO, Scott entered the dates when he was sure he was going fishing, so I think he entered those dates on Dec 24th....he wrote "12/23/2002 AND 12/24/2002" because he had to enter 2 consecutive dates....

Who asked the cashier, IYO, Scott? Since Scott chose not to testify, on what evidence do you base this conclusion?
Who is David Browne, could you provide his testimony on this? TIA

[Hey Paula]

Hi Paula..

The point of my theory is that he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank including the year....David Browne testified that the fishing license was a 2003 license...in other words, Scott could have used it anytime from the date of his purchase until Dec 31st of 2003...IMO, Scott entered the dates when he was sure he was going fishing, so I think he entered those dates on Dec 24th....he wrote "12/23/2002 AND 12/24/2002" because he had to enter 2 consecutive dates....

Hi AW2B!

I agree with you that Scott filled in the dates, and that they were 12/23/2002 and 12/24/2002. However, it is my understanding the license could only be used once for two days. If Scott filled the dates in on 12/24, why didn't he use 12/24 and 12/25, in lieu of 12/23, a date which had already passed? Maybe Scott thought he could get out to the Bay on the evening of the 23rd?

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

He must have known beforehand that he was going to take the boat to the bay since he bought the SW enhancement for the license. That just doesn't sound like a "morning decision", spur of the moment decision like he told LE that first night.

JMO

I'm in total agreement.

[adnoid]

Of course not!!!..

Jury SUPPOSED to convict based on evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime..but unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that way..convictions had been reversed by appellate courts due to insufficient evidence...people had been exonerated after serving years in prison for a crime they didn't commit...

Well, I understand that. But what I was trying to figure out is what the definition of "hard" evidence is and what it means, since I've never seen it used in any legal context. I asked you because you used the term.

Does this mean that if the defendant is found guilty, and subsequently all the appeals courts agree, we can THEN consider all the evidence presented to be "hard"?

[Hey Paula]

:seeya:


Don't go there. It's icky-poo.

I've seen it other places (I've never posted on FP) - probably from the same poster, although he/she/it uses different names on different boards.

Hi again! :seeya:

I never posted there either, and didn't have the stomach to read there much, but I'd heard about that "theory" and wanted to read it for myself, much to my dismay.

[adnoid]

H...However, it is my understanding the license could only be used once for two days. If Scott filled the dates in on 12/24, why didn't he use 12/24 and 12/25, in lieu of 12/23, a date which had already passed? Maybe Scott thought he could get out to the Bay on the evening of the 23rd?

You are correct - a 2 day permit is good for 2 CONSECUTIVE days and CF&G regulations are that those dates are to be filled in at the time the permit is issued. The failure of the clerk to write them in is an error in following the CF&G regulations, not her employer's policy.

The Salt Water enhancement is not required to fish on the SF bay, by the way. It IS required everywhere else you are on salt water, the Bay is a special exception in the statutes.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Paula..

The point of my theory is that he asked the cashier to leave the valid dates blank including the year....David Browne testified that the fishing license was a 2003 license...in other words, Scott could have used it anytime from the date of his purchase until Dec 31st of 2003...IMO, Scott entered the dates when he was sure he was going fishing, so I think he entered those dates on Dec 24th....he wrote "12/23/2002 AND 12/24/2002" because he had to enter 2 consecutive dates....

To make a correction..

Looking at the exhibit..I think he just entered 23/24..he didn't enter the year..the fishing license was a 2003 license..!

The issue date says 12/23/2002..the cashier made a mistake..that date should have been 12/20/2002 which is the day he purchased the license..!

[adnoid]

...I'd heard about that "theory" and wanted to read it for myself, much to my dismay.

Did the poster figure out how many people were involved in the conspiracy to frame Scott, why they were doing so, and if the conspiracy went all the way to the White House?

[Hey Paula]

You are correct - a 2 day permit is good for 2 CONSECUTIVE days and CF&G regulations are that those dates are to be filled in at the time the permit is issued. The failure of the clerk to write them in is an error in following the CF&G regulations, not her employer's policy.

The Salt Water enhancement is not required to fish on the SF bay, by the way. It IS required everywhere else you are on salt water, the Bay is a special exception in the statutes.

Thanks for the info!

Scott must have "charmed" the clerk into failing in their responsibility. I wasn't aware of the SW enhancement requirement and exception rule.

[attorneywan2be]

Well, I understand that. But what I was trying to figure out is what the definition of "hard" evidence is and what it means, since I've never seen it used in any legal context. I asked you because you used the term.

Does this mean that if the defendant is found guilty, and subsequently all the appeals courts agree, we can THEN consider all the evidence presented to be "hard"?

I was not using "hard evidence" as a legal term...read the post where I used it..to me, "hard evidence" means evidence that proves someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

[Miss Bootsie]

A question about the appeal. Appeals in general, I guess.

All I ever hear of other cases is "Mr. X's first appeal was denied" or something similar.

Are appeals info. available to the public, or are they sealed? Will we ever get to know the details of the appeal, if denied?

TIA

Hi EM, I think this site is updated daily.
:seeya:

FindLaw archives summaries of opinions issued since September, 2000 by the U.S.Supreme Court, all thirteen Federal Circuit Courts, the California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the Texas Supreme Court and Criminal Court of Appeal, and the New York Court of Appeals.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/9th.html

[attorneywan2be]

Would these boards be: F-rat Pack, SII, TAI/TAC and CCADP?

Would these posters be: Marlene, amongst others?

I'm sorry I can't help you on that... I don't discuss other boards or other posters...

[Wearing A Halo]

I'm sorry I can't help you on that... I don't discuss other boards or other posters...

"I'm sorry"

No need to apologize. We all know the other boards and posters.:tongue::D:)

[Wearing A Halo]

I was not using "hard evidence" as a legal term...read the post where I used it..to me, "hard evidence" means evidence that proves someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

"to me, "hard evidence"

This is your own made-up difinition of what would be the CSI effect, isn't it?

[Wearing A Halo]

To make a correction..

Looking at the exhibit..I think he just entered 23/24..he didn't enter the year..the fishing license was a 2003 license..!

The issue date says 12/23/2002..the cashier made a mistake..that date should have been 12/20/2002 which is the day he purchased the license..!

"the cashier made a mistake"

Are you sure about that? DRISP more than likely told the cashier, "Kristin or Kate or whatever her name was" (actually her name is Kim), that he would fill it in since he wasn't sure what day(s) he would be using it and she agreed.

[frydaddy]

Unfortunately, the quality of the image hosted there is so poor that there's no way I could find to enhance it that made it legible.

Any better? (http://www.findlaci2003.us/evidence-pictures-trial2.html)

[frydaddy]

Evidence that would prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt..

I see! This is very subjective then, this hard evidence? Could you provide some examples of what examples of hard evidence you would have needed to convict Scott?

[adnoid]

I was not using "hard evidence" as a legal term...read the post where I used it..to me, "hard evidence" means evidence that proves someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

You wrote:

Evidence that would prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt..

So I must have misread the part where you said it was your opinion. Sorry.

[adnoid]

Any better? (http://www.findlaci2003.us/evidence-pictures-trial2.html)

Dang - not really.

[frydaddy]

Of course not!!!..

Jury SUPPOSED to convict based on evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime..but unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that way..convictions had been reversed by appellate courts due to insufficient evidence...people had been exonerated after serving years in prison for a crime they didn't commit...

If you eliminate DNA testing and eyewitness recant, how many such reversals have been made in the last ten years?

[frydaddy]

Dang - not really.

It appears the date issued is 12/23/02 and the dates valid say 23/24 with no year. Oddly enough, the handwriting looks the same for both! IMO

[frydaddy]

You are correct - a 2 day permit is good for 2 CONSECUTIVE days and CF&G regulations are that those dates are to be filled in at the time the permit is issued. The failure of the clerk to write them in is an error in following the CF&G regulations, not her employer's policy.

The Salt Water enhancement is not required to fish on the SF bay, by the way. It IS required everywhere else you are on salt water, the Bay is a special exception in the statutes.

Unless the law has changed since 2002, I do not think an Ocean Enhancement was required on a two-day fishing license. Also, this year there is a Bay/Delta stamp required to fish SF bay, not an OE stamp. It says the OE stamp is for southern California ocean waters. Think he was undecided on a dump site?

[adnoid]

...Think he was undecided on a dump site?

Oh my, yes.

[I'mSun]

My favorites are the ones that claim that "you should only convict someone with DNA, not circumstantial evidence".
Hi there, Adnoid!

I guess people who think that way don't realize that circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

[adnoid]

...I guess people who think that way don't realize that circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence...

I was thinking more fundamentally - that they don't understand that DNA IS circumstantial evidence.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Unless the law has changed since 2002, I do not think an Ocean Enhancement was required on a two-day fishing license. Also, this year there is a Bay/Delta stamp required to fish SF bay, not an OE stamp. It says the OE stamp is for southern California ocean waters. Think he was undecided on a dump site?Hi frydaddy :seeya: LTNS. Just passing through and happened to notice this. Wasn't the clerk a seasonal employee with no experience?

Ann Rule has a new book out, Too Late to Say Goodbye, where she mentions the murder of Laci's cousin Mary. Didn't get much attention but happened about the same time. Mary's boyfriend was a suspect but never convicted, now in prison for assault on another woman.

imo

[Heyes]

I get what your saying...... and everytime I see this kind of reply "why didn't MG do this, that, or the other" I agree.... but it does bother me that we are putting the 'prove it' on the defense.... when the only one who should have to prove anything is the State.

again, I understand and agree with you........ but it is troublesome.. especially when you factor in the money situtation.... the state has unlimited funds to do these kinds of tests, whereas the defendant doesn't. And the 'why didn't he pay for this expert or that expert" is another thing I don't like....I get it, I just don't like it.....

I think MG was brilliant in his ability to turn most all of the states witnesses and experts into defense witnesses..... and I remember the TH agreed and were in fact stunned that he was repeatedly able to do this... and until Amber testified it was working...after Amber? Nothing would have saved him, IMO....
Wow I never ever thought I'd see the words MG and brilliant in the same sentence. lol
Actualy it"seemed" to work for him until it was his turn to put on his case. He kinda went down in flames after that.
Scott had no trouble retaining (paying) for henry lee and c.wecht. Why didn't he use them?????? money wasted again.

[Heyes]

I believe the judge allowed the jurors in the boat ON PURPOSE to give a crack for appeal! Once one saw the "jurist" (used loosely) the so-called Strawberry Shortcake woman, he knew the outcome would not be based on evidence or lack of, but on a pre formed biased opinion.
There are still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski had the means, opportunity and murderous intent toward Laci Pederson. And it is all in the transcripts.


:shrug: I doubt very much there are "still a lot of people out here who believe Ron Grantski ....blah blahblah...
IMO that's just more crazy jackie/lee talk.

[enlightenme]

I was thinking more fundamentally - that they don't understand that DNA IS circumstantial evidence.

I'm sure of that because I've seen posts (not here!) where someone has proclaimed, "No one should get the death penalty on CE!"

DNA, forensic, etc. are all CE. The prosecutor still has to try and prove how the defendant's DNA got where it was and how it proves his guilt, for example.

[frydaddy]

Hi frydaddy :seeya: LTNS. Just passing through and happened to notice this. Wasn't the clerk a seasonal employee with no experience?

Ann Rule has a new book out, Too Late to Say Goodbye, where she mentions the murder of Laci's cousin Mary. Didn't get much attention but happened about the same time. Mary's boyfriend was a suspect but never convicted, now in prison for assault on another woman.

imo

Heya Sturge! It has been awhile! I thought that the clerk was either seasonal or was a rookie (FNG, if you will). Though I readily admit that my recall of minor details like this is shallow!

WOW! I had no idea Laci's cousin was murdered. I will certainly look into this book (maybe I'll have my wife read it - I'm more of a TV guy :o ) and I do appreciate the heads up on it!

:beer:

[adnoid]

Actually AW2B is responding to Frydaddy no? It seems from the context that it is, indeed, his opinion (IMO). Or was that not the sequence of events.

Well, tracing back I read it as follows:

My #176 (which you quoted) is in response to aw2b's #168

Aw2b's #168 is in response to my #162

My #162 is in response to aw2b's #157

Aw2b's #157 is in response to my #148

My #148 is in response to aw2b's #134

Aw2b's #134 is in response to frydaddy's #123

Frdaddy's #123 is in response to aw2b's #116

So, as I read it frydaddy asked a question of aw2b, aw2b responded, and the thread that ended in the post you quoted was me asking aw2b for clarification of the definition given to frydaddy in post #134. Aw2b finally said the term is not defined in the law, but is a term she uses to express an opinion. I was not aware that aw2b was expressing an opinion until the final post, I thought that aw2b was referring to classification of evidence of which I was unaware. I now understand.

[frydaddy]

Actually AW2B is responding to Frydaddy no? It seems from the context that it is, indeed, his opinion (IMO). Or was that not the sequence of events.

I think the question is one of the most critical ones of this case, don't you agree? The whole crux of the debate is what evidence made SIG's feel guilt and what evidence would be necessary to convert SNG's and SII's to agree. Hard evidence is vague (no disrepect intended) and I think we are trying to figure out a more specific answer. To me and perhaps me alone, the specific answer is important to the integrity of the criminal justice system. If some people hold LE or DA's to such a high standard on the guilt phase, I for one worry about the criminals who might escape justice. This is a critical issue that is actually much bigger than the Peterson case. IMO, of course!

[Hey Paula]

I think the question is one of the most critical ones of this case, don't you agree? The whole crux of the debate is what evidence made SIG's feel guilt and what evidence would be necessary to convert SNG's and SII's to agree. Hard evidence is vague (no disrepect intended) and I think we are trying to figure out a more specific answer. To me and perhaps me alone, the specific answer is important to the integrity of the criminal justice system. If some people hold LE or DA's to such a high standard on the guilt phase, I for one worry about the criminals who might escape justice. This is a critical issue that is actually much bigger than the Peterson case. IMO, of course!

Hi FD!

I agree with you on this because a large number of cases, especially those of spousal murder or murders committed by household members, (soft-kill in particular) are largely circumstantial. I, for one, have always favored CE because it doesn't err and it doesn't lie, unlike the dangers of DE.

The coincidences, behavior, demeanor, inconsistent statements of suspects/defendants, etc, prior to and following a crime, are crucial pieces of evidence, which should be viewed in the aggregate, but often not, as some will try to explain each one away, disregarding their totality. A few things can always be explained as chance, but not when they fall into double digits.

Since most murderers don't videotape their crimes, it is up to jurors to use their common sense and logic (which the Court instructs them to do) to arrive at a just verdict, which in turn will serve the victim as well.

The favored CE scenario is a perfect example: If you go to sleep at night and the ground is dry, and when you wake the ground wet or white, then you can believe BARD that it either rained or snowed while you were asleep even though you didn't actually witness the event.

IMO

[TopGunner]

Hi FD!

I agree with you on this because a large number of cases, especially those of spousal murder or murders committed by household members, (soft-kill in particular) are largely circumstantial. I, for one, have always favored CE because it doesn't err and it doesn't lie, unlike the dangers of DE.

The coincidences, behavior, demeanor, inconsistent statements of suspects/defendants, etc, prior to and following a crime, are crucial pieces of evidence, which should be viewed in the aggregate, but often not, as some will try to explain each one away, disregarding their totality. A few things can always be explained as chance, but not when they fall into double digits.

Since most murderers don't videotape their crimes, it is up to jurors to use their common sense and logic (which the Court instructs them to do) to arrive at a just verdict, which in turn will serve the victim as well.

The favored CE scenario is a perfect example: If you go to sleep at night and the ground is dry, and when you wake the ground wet or white, then you can believe BARD that it either rained or snowed while you were asleep even though you didn't actually witness the event.

IMO


Hi HP, I agree - and when it's 98 degrees out (like it is here, gag me...), you can narrow it down even further: Rain.

Ya know....I actually understand (but don't agree with), the NG's call for hard evidence, i.e., the smoking gun. I'm sure if it were my family member, the call would be even louder. However, unlike Perry Mason, the reality is there are so many variables used to solve crimes...from "intuition" (because really, how many criminals confess - they all say they didn't do it), to dogs, fingerprints, time frames, demenor, etc. Basically what you've already said. My question is: Should the LE ignore CE? And why? I'm sure the answer is "well, umm, no...." because that would be impossible, so that would mean you don't ignore it right? (Can't have it both ways). Based on not ignoring CE, all roads lead to ISP. I wish they led elsewhere.

You can't have a smoking gun if a gun wasn't used. What DNA evidence would be found if someone was strangled in their own home? No eye-wittness means (to me) premeditation.

[Hey Paula]

Hi HP, I agree - and when it's 98 degrees out (like it is here, gag me...), you can narrow it down even further: Rain.

Ya know....I actually understand (but don't agree with), the NG's call for hard evidence, i.e., the smoking gun. I'm sure if it were my family member, the call would be even louder. However, unlike Perry Mason, the reality is there are so many variables used to solve crimes...from "intuition" (because really, how many criminals confess - they all say they didn't do it), to dogs, fingerprints, time frames, demenor, etc. Basically what you've already said. My question is: Should the LE ignore CE? And why? I'm sure the answer is "well, umm, no...." because that would be impossible, so that would mean you don't ignore it right? (Can't have it both ways). Based on not ignoring CE, all roads lead to ISP. I wish they led elsewhere.

You can't have a smoking gun if a gun wasn't used. What DNA evidence would be found if someone was strangled in their own home? No eye-wittness means (to me) premeditation.

Hi TG!

If I were to name the "smoking gun" in this case, it would be the bodies of Laci and Conner washing ashore, 90 miles from home, where Scott went trolling on the day Laci disappeared because it was too cold to golf.

CE can never be ignored when it's a plentiful as it was in this case. There was a mountain of it, along with an incredible amount of coincidences, which for me were too many coincidences to be a coincidence.

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

I did hear about the theory regarding Ron..but I have to strongly disagree, IMO, based on the trial record, there is ZERO evidence pointing to Scott..AND there is ZERO evidence pointing to Ron...I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of murder without hard evidence..!

I also disagree that the judge would intentionally make a mistake in his ruling to give Scott grounds for an appeal...

To Adnoid:

This is the post (see above) where I used the word "hard evidence"..so I didn't use it as a legal term ..it is my opinion..! Frydaddy asked me to explain what I meant by "hard evidence"..

[attorneywan2be]

Well, tracing back I read it as follows:

My #176 (which you quoted) is in response to aw2b's #168

Aw2b's #168 is in response to my #162

My #162 is in response to aw2b's #157

Aw2b's #157 is in response to my #148

My #148 is in response to aw2b's #134

Aw2b's #134 is in response to frydaddy's #123

Frdaddy's #123 is in response to aw2b's #116

So, as I read it frydaddy asked a question of aw2b, aw2b responded, and the thread that ended in the post you quoted was me asking aw2b for clarification of the definition given to frydaddy in post #134. Aw2b finally said the term is not defined in the law, but is a term she uses to express an opinion. I was not aware that aw2b was expressing an opinion until the final post, I thought that aw2b was referring to classification of evidence of which I was unaware. I now understand.

Great!

I just quoted my post #116 for you...I didn't realize that you have already found it..:D

[attorneywan2be]

Who asked the cashier, IYO, Scott? Since Scott chose not to testify, on what evidence do you base this conclusion?
Who is David Browne, could you provide his testimony on this? TIA

It is my theory that Scott asked the cashier to leave the dates blank..it is also quite possible she left them blank because she was new and didn't know that she was supposed to enter the valid dates..

David Browne is the store manager of Big 5 in Modesto..this is the store where Scott purchased the fishing license, fishing rod and lures..


Rick Distaso: Who, do you, can you tell by the document there who actually did this transaction?
David Browne: There is a number, an employee number on the receipt.
Rick Distaso: Do you know who that is?
David Browne: I know who it was, yes.
Rick Distaso: Okay. Who was it?
David Browne: Her name was Kim Porter, I believe.
Rick Distaso: Okay.
David Browne: She no longer works for Big 5.
Rick Distaso: At the time was she a new employee?
David Browne: Yes, she was. We hired her for Christmas help.
Rick Distaso: All right. And this is a 2003 two-day license. If someone had wanted to go fishing in 2002, should she have sold them a 2002 license?
David Browne: No, she can do that 2003.
Rick Distaso: She can use it, even late in the year she can use a 2003?
David Browne: Correct.
Rick Distaso: And if this license was sold on the 20th, the date issued should have been 12-20; is that right?
David Browne: Correct.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B!

I agree with you that Scott filled in the dates, and that they were 12/23/2002 and 12/24/2002. However, it is my understanding the license could only be used once for two days. If Scott filled the dates in on 12/24, why didn't he use 12/24 and 12/25, in lieu of 12/23, a date which had already passed? Maybe Scott thought he could get out to the Bay on the evening of the 23rd?

IMO

Hi Paula..

I think he just put any 2 consecutive dates.. as long as the 24th was one of them....yes, the 23rd had already passed..but the 25th was Christmas day anyhow...so it didn't really matter...

Reading the exhibit (fishing license) it appears that he didn't put the month or the year..he just wrote: 23/24...am I right?

[attorneywan2be]

"the cashier made a mistake"

Are you sure about that? DRISP more than likely told the cashier, "Kristin or Kate or whatever her name was" (actually her name is Kim), that he would fill it in since he wasn't sure what day(s) he would be using it and she agreed.

Exactly.. that's my theory that I talked about in one of my previous posts..but the mistake she made that I was referring to is the "issue date" NOT the valid dates..the issue date should be the date the purchase was made which was on Dec 20, 2002..


Rick Distaso: Who, do you, can you tell by the document there who actually did this transaction?
David Browne: There is a number, an employee number on the receipt.
Rick Distaso: Do you know who that is?
David Browne: I know who it was, yes.
Rick Distaso: Okay. Who was it?
David Browne: Her name was Kim Porter, I believe.
Rick Distaso: Okay.
David Browne: She no longer works for Big 5.
Rick Distaso: At the time was she a new employee?
David Browne: Yes, she was. We hired her for Christmas help.
Rick Distaso: All right. And this is a 2003 two-day license. If someone had wanted to go fishing in 2002, should she have sold them a 2002 license?
David Browne: No, she can do that 2003.
Rick Distaso: She can use it, even late in the year she can use a 2003?
David Browne: Correct.
Rick Distaso: And if this license was sold on the 20th, the date issued should have been 12-20; is that right?
David Browne: Correct.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi there, Adnoid!

I guess people who think that way don't realize that circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

Circumstantial evidence could be very powerful evidence indeed..victim's blood...fingerprints..murder weapon...all forensic evidence..etc..etc..are all circumstantial evidence...

Confession and/or..eyewitness to the crime..are the only direct evidence..

However, IMO, there is ZERO evidence in this case...circumstantial or otherwise...the fact that he bought a boat using his correct name and address..and the fact that he stored it in his warehouse indicate to me that he was not hiding the boat..the fact that he didn't try to get rid of the boat..kept it in his warehouse..and informed the police about it on Dec 24th..indicates to me that he had nothing to hide and there was nothing sinister about the purchase of the boat..the fact that the bodies were found near where he went fishing is the only cicumstantial evidence that IMO could have been very powerful.. BUT..if I take into consideration the conditions of the bodies..+..the twine that was knotted around Conner's neck..+..the lack of fish bite marks on both bodies..+..the fact that Dr. Cheng could not explain Laci's location in light of the tidal condition..he simply could not prove that both bodies traveled to shore from the same point of origin..+..Conner's location, he was found passed the debris line and 24' from the breaker line..+..Conner's gestational age..IMO, the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Conner died when he was 33 weeks old..+..the fact that they didn't find the bodies after extensive search using the most sophisticated sonar equipments..+..the fact that no one saw the bodies floating or washing ashore..----> conclusion: IMO, it is more likely than not the bodies were planted where they were found..

[Wearing A Halo]

Exactly.. that's my theory that I talked about in one of my previous posts..but the mistake she made that I was referring to is the "issue date" NOT the valid dates..the issue date should be the date the purchase was made which was on Dec 20, 2002..


Rick Distaso: Who, do you, can you tell by the document there who actually did this transaction?
David Browne: There is a number, an employee number on the receipt.
Rick Distaso: Do you know who that is?
David Browne: I know who it was, yes.
Rick Distaso: Okay. Who was it?
David Browne: Her name was Kim Porter, I believe.
Rick Distaso: Okay.
David Browne: She no longer works for Big 5.
Rick Distaso: At the time was she a new employee?
David Browne: Yes, she was. We hired her for Christmas help.
Rick Distaso: All right. And this is a 2003 two-day license. If someone had wanted to go fishing in 2002, should she have sold them a 2002 license?
David Browne: No, she can do that 2003.
Rick Distaso: She can use it, even late in the year she can use a 2003?
David Browne: Correct.
Rick Distaso: And if this license was sold on the 20th, the date issued should have been 12-20; is that right?
David Browne: Correct.

It was not so much a mistake as it was an omision beacause DRISP convinced her that he would fill it out. There is no way that "Kristen or Kate or whatever her name is" (her actual name is Kim) would just fill out the 23rd when it was the 20th. Now had she been the one to fill in the 23rd it would be on DRISP telling her to, but, I don't think it was Kim who filled in the dates.

[attorneywan2be]

I see! This is very subjective then, this hard evidence? Could you provide some examples of what examples of hard evidence you would have needed to convict Scott?

Examples of circumstantial evidence that would point to guilt:

1-If he used a fictitious name and wrong address when he bought the boat..
2-If he rented storage area outside of Modesto to store his boat..
3-If he tried to get rid of his boat on Dec 24th..in other words, if he tried to conceal that he had a boat
4-If he left the leash on McKenzie..if he was staging Laci's abduction by letting McKenzie loose with his leash attached..he would have left the leash attached to show it to the police...
5-If he lied to the police about his alibi..
6-If incriminating evidence was found in his house..his truck..his warehouse..

Having said that..I consider the prosecution theory totally unrealistic..IMO, he could not have done it alone..and the boat would have capsized..
To me his actions indicate consciousness of innocence not the other way around..

[attorneywan2be]

It was not so much a mistake as it was an omision beacause DRISP convinced her that he would fill it out. There is no way that "Kristen or Kate or whatever her name is" (her actual name is Kim) would just fill out the 23rd when it was the 20th. Now had she been the one to fill in the 23rd it would be on DRISP telling her to, but, I don't think it was Kim who filled in the dates.

I'm referring to the issue date..the date of purchase..he had nothing to gain by leaving it blank..or by filling in the wrong date..!

[enlightenme]

Examples of circumstantial evidence that would point to guilt:

1-If he used a fictitious name and wrong address when he bought the boat..
2-If he rented storage area outside of Modesto to store his boat..
3-If he tried to get rid of his boat on Dec 24th..in other words, if he tried to conceal that he had a boat
4-If he left the leash on McKenzie..if he was staging Laci's abduction by letting McKenzie loose with his leash attached..he would have left the leash attached to show it to the police...
5-If he lied to the police about his alibi..
6-If incriminating evidence was found in his house..his truck..his warehouse..

Having said that..I consider the prosecution theory totally unrealistic..IMO, he could not have done it alone..and the boat would have capsized..
To me his actions indicate consciousness of innocence not the other way around..


It sounds to me that, in hindsight, you have thought of better ways that Scott could have committed this crime. None of us can get into Scott's head and exactly what he was thinking/planning.

1)
Perhaps he thought if he bought the boat in a fictitious name and the seller happened to read about disappearance of Laci and saw his picture in the news, he might call LE and say, "Hey, I sold that guy a boat only a few weeks before this happened." That would look REAL bad for Scott.

2 & 3)
Similar to #1. If LE found out about a rented storage area or that he tried to "dump" the boat right away, it looks pretty suspicious.

4)
Leaving the leash on Mac wouldn't seem like "hard" evidence to me at all. He knew whoever returned Mac to his yard would be able to say they found him that way, dragging a leash.

5)
He was seen at the Marina by at least 2 men. If they had contacted LE and said they saw him that day, BIG trouble for Scott. I think he thought it would be a good alibi since he was 90 miles away when Laci supposedly was abducted in Modesto. Also, since he had the boat in the warehouse, he might have thought that LE would go there that night and see it and could tell it had been in the water recently.

6)
If Laci was straggled or smothered and wrapped in a tarp right away, what forensic or DNA evidence would there be? Sometimes there really ISN'T any, despite was Law & Order or Forensic Files show us on TV repeatedly. There's plenty of cold cases where no DNA was found. They sometimes get solved years later with purely CE.

__________________________________________________ _____

CE that I think points directly to Scott and does not have an "innocent" explanation:

Boat tarp in furthest shed from house, conveniently placed under a leaking leaf blower.

5 clandestine trips to the bay, using rental cars, not staying more than 5 minutes, lying to 3 people as to his whereabouts (verified by cell tower/cell phone records and GPS too, on some trips).

The bodies washing ashore, after a 2 day storm, in the condition they were in, about 2 miles from where he claimed to go fishing/testing the boat out.

Evidence of flight:

Buying the car in Jackie's name. Jackie's explanation of "they keep impounding Scott's vehicles" is not true. They had ONE vehicle, the truck. He wanted something that DID NOT have GPS installed, which he knew his new truck did and that's why he let John buy it out and then purchase his escape-mobile. It was loaded to the gills with just about everything, but worst of all was having John's driver's license and credit cards not in his name.

Those are just a tiny fraction of the CE that I see points to guilt but they are the strongest, I guess, in a long list.

JMO

[Wearing A Halo]

I'm referring to the issue date..the date of purchase..he had nothing to gain by leaving it blank..or by filling in the wrong date..!

12/23/02 was not the wrong date to DRISP. This is a two-day license, the 23rd is day one and 24th is day two. Do the math.

[frydaddy]

Examples of circumstantial evidence that would point to guilt:

1-If he used a fictitious name and wrong address when he bought the boat..
2-If he rented storage area outside of Modesto to store his boat..
3-If he tried to get rid of his boat on Dec 24th..in other words, if he tried to conceal that he had a boat
4-If he left the leash on McKenzie..if he was staging Laci's abduction by letting McKenzie loose with his leash attached..he would have left the leash attached to show it to the police...
5-If he lied to the police about his alibi..
6-If incriminating evidence was found in his house..his truck..his warehouse..

Having said that..I consider the prosecution theory totally unrealistic..IMO, he could not have done it alone..and the boat would have capsized..
To me his actions indicate consciousness of innocence not the other way around..

Enlightenme summed up a lot of my surface thoughts with her astute post. But, I'd add this...

Your list of six examples indicate a murderer who was oblivious to being caught or unconcerned with trying to get away with his act. I've never portrayed Scott as ignorant in his premeditation of Laci's murder. If you or I were to try and kill someone and get away with it, isn't the idea to make our acts appear as normal and innocent looking as possible?

Forget Scott and his guilt or innocence for a minute...

is it plausible that he was planning a golfing alibi until he was spotted at the bay, in your opinion?

is it plausible that in his haste to adjust to the change of alibi, his plan unraveled in regards to the boat and where it was located, in your opinion?

do you know the size of the storage unit in Modesto?

Also, I'd add that a) a theory has been leveled that allows Scott to have pulled this off, alone, without capsizing the boat, that is very plausible to me, b)that he did lie in regards to certain aspects of his alibi and he did lie to police on other issues, and c) that there was somewhat incriminating evidence at the house, warehouse, truck, boat, and marina. That evidence is largely ignored or explained away by advocates, but to say it did not exist is inaccurate and to say it wasn't incriminating is wrong until an appeal proves otherwise. The hair in the pliers, the scenting dogs, the blood in/on the truck, the gas drops on the boat cover, the rings on the flat bed, the mop and bucket at Covena, the clothes in the washer - all are incriminating in my eyes. In fact, Scott's lack of concern for not speaking to Laci all day and then coming home to an empty, dark house, with the dog's leash on, with no baking odors and no note from her or messages, is quite incriminating to me.

[attorneywan2be]

12/23/02 was not the wrong date to DRISP. This is a two-day license, the 23rd is day one and 24th is day two. Do the math.

We are talking about 2 different things..

The issue date = the date of purchase

The valid dates = 2 consecutive dates ..they could be any 2 consecutive dates from the day of the purchase until Dec 31st 2003..

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

I've never portrayed Scott as ignorant in his premeditation of Laci's murder.

Snip



Exactly..that's why I don't buy the prosecution theory "bought a boat to dump his wife's body" How many killers have you heard about that went out shopping for a boat as part of the murder plan to dump their victim's body? IMO, the premise of the prosecution theory is ridiculous to begin with..

-There was no need for him to buy a boat and create a paper trail..if he killed her he could have dumped her body in a remote area, after all, he supposedly staged her abduction...
-There was no need to take the body 90 miles to dump in one of the most busiest Marina in Northern California where he could be seen, I think there are over 30 marinas in the bay area...in addition to lakes closer to his home..one of the lake is 600' deep...you stated "I've never portrayed Scott as ignorant in his premeditation of Laci's murder" then why you believe he was forced to change his alibi..do you think he expected to go to the busiest Marina in the bay area and not be seen? why select the busiest marina in the bay area?
-There was no need for him to make sure the body will never be found...what for? he was supposedly staging an abduction, how about collecting the insurance money?...
-There was no need to use a boat and risk getting caught with a body on board..why take a risk of the boat capsizing as he was supposedly dumping a body with anchors attached (193 pounds total weight)...
-Why go thru such complicated risky plan only to dump her body in one of the most shallowest area of the bay? (that's the prosecution theory because they couldn't prove otherwise)
-Why study tides/currents ( according to the prosecution theory..I don't believe he did) only to dump her body where it would have washed ashore and not out to sea...
-Why attend parties with Amber where he interacted with a number of her friends and guests..why expose his relationship with Amber if murdering his wife was on his mind...why create potential witnesses...(he had already purchased the boat)

[frydaddy]

Exactly..that's why I don't buy the prosecution theory "bought a boat to dump his wife's body" How many killers have you heard about that went out shopping for a boat as part of the murder plan to dump their victim's body? IMO, the premise of the prosecution theory is ridiculous to begin with..

-There was no need for him to buy a boat and create a paper trail..if he killed her he could have dumped her body in a remote area, after all, he supposedly staged her abduction...
-There was no need to take the body 90 miles to dump in one of the most busiest Marina in Northern California where he could be seen, I think there are over 30 marinas in the bay area...in addition to lakes closer to his home..one of the lake is 600' deep...you stated "I've never portrayed Scott as ignorant in his premeditation of Laci's murder" then why you believe he was forced to change his alibi..do you think he expected to go to the busiest Marina in the bay area and not be seen? why select the busiest marina in the bay area?
-There was no need for him to make sure the body will never be found...what for? he was supposedly staging an abduction, how about collecting the insurance money?...
-There was no need to use a boat and risk getting caught with a body on board..why take a risk of the boat capsizing as he was supposedly dumping a body with anchors attached (193 pounds total weight)...
-Why go thru such complicated risky plan only to dump her body in one of the most shallowest area of the bay? (that's the prosecution theory because they couldn't prove otherwise)
-Why study tides/currents ( according to the prosecution theory..I don't believe he did) only to dump her body where it would have washed ashore and not out to sea...
-Why attend parties with Amber where he interacted with a number of her friends and guests..why expose his relationship with Amber if murdering his wife was on his mind...why create potential witnesses...(he had already purchased the boat)

Shopping for a boat...what does that mean? How does one acquire a boat if they do not have one?

What paper trail? A release of liability form sent to the state? Where does that paper trail lead?

Are you suggesting that no body to ever be found is a safer play than a body that could be?

What defines a busy marina and bay area on Christmas Eve? Busiest and busy that day are relative terms…Berkeley marina was neither that day. How many of the marinas allow for a swift journey to a shipping channel that leads out to sea? Do you think there’s a difference between a face to face conversation and a stranger’s glance at a boater? Do you anticipate a conversation with someone each time you go do something in public alone (walk in the park, a bike ride, etc.?

Insurance money? What does that have to do with Scott wanting freedom from family obligations?

Who said most shallow area? I didn’t! In fact, few here have. What does prosecution theory have to do with whether he did this? If we are discussing the act…their theory is irrelevant.

Been plenty of plausible theories on how this was done without capsizing the boat.

Are you at all familiar with the storm?

Potential witnesses to what? Expose his relationship to others? Amber had been doing that all along, since she thought Scott was genuine and single. That cat was already out of the bag. Plus, Scott did have an air of arrogance, IMO.

The problem I have with your post here is that all these points have been fully addressed just since I have been here. So, either you have ignored them, dismissed them, or haven’t read them. So, what is your purpose for this debate if you are unwilling to be objective? Is this an exercise in proving your debating skills? Seriously, why are you here in this specific forum on this case?

[frydaddy]

Hi FD!

I agree with you on this because a large number of cases, especially those of spousal murder or murders committed by household members, (soft-kill in particular) are largely circumstantial. I, for one, have always favored CE because it doesn't err and it doesn't lie, unlike the dangers of DE.

The coincidences, behavior, demeanor, inconsistent statements of suspects/defendants, etc, prior to and following a crime, are crucial pieces of evidence, which should be viewed in the aggregate, but often not, as some will try to explain each one away, disregarding their totality. A few things can always be explained as chance, but not when they fall into double digits.

Since most murderers don't videotape their crimes, it is up to jurors to use their common sense and logic (which the Court instructs them to do) to arrive at a just verdict, which in turn will serve the victim as well.

The favored CE scenario is a perfect example: If you go to sleep at night and the ground is dry, and when you wake the ground wet or white, then you can believe BARD that it either rained or snowed while you were asleep even though you didn't actually witness the event.

IMO


Sorry Sweet P, don't know how I overlooked this. Excellent points as always! Time the victims have someone fight as hard for their rights as criminals have. And it's also time for people in general to live up to their responsibilities to obey our laws and live a respectable life. Those who do, in this day and age, seldom end up in Scott's position. IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped

The problem I have with your post here is that all these points have been fully addressed just since I have been here. So, either you have ignored them, dismissed them, or haven’t read them. So, what is your purpose for this debate if you are unwilling to be objective? Is this an exercise in proving your debating skills? Seriously, why are you here in this specific forum on this case?

*Snipped



You know,it's pretty darn difficult to ignore, that after you and EM addressed each comment in post #202 -only one insignificant comment in your post was addressed.:confused:

It seems reponses are addressed by the same repetitive statements and questions over and over.:shrug:

[I'mSun]

-There was no need for him to buy a boat and create a paper trail..

Paying cash for a boat and not registering it does NOT create a paper trail.

According to the DMV, When the release of liability form is properly completed and the information is recorded by DMV, liability for parking and/'or traffic violations and civil litigation resulting from operation after the date of sale becomes the responsibility of the subsequent purchasers(s).
TO REMOVE YOUR NAME FROM DMV'S RECORDS, THE NEW OWNER MUST APPLY FOR TRANSFER USING THE ENDORSED CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP (TITLE) RECEIVED FROM YOU.

There was no need to take the body 90 miles to dump in one of the most busiest Marina in Northern California where he could be seen, I think there are over 30 marinas in the bay area...in addition to lakes closer to his home..one of the lake is 600' deep...

The Marina was anything BUT busy that day.* There were only 3 tickets sold between the 24th and 27th.* You can't see what is going on in another boat out there unless you are right next to it, anyway.* That area is HUGE. There are far busier Marinas in the area like Sausalito, Tiburon and even Alameda.

There was no need for him to make sure the body will never be found...what for? he was supposedly staging an abduction, how about collecting the insurance money?...

Where does it say this? Link?

Why go thru such complicated risky plan only to dump her body in one of the most shallowest area of the bay? (that's the prosecution theory because they couldn't prove otherwise)

He didn't.* He was aiming for the shipping channel and Gene Ralston is sure he saw the body in 10 feet of water.* The shipping channel is "V" shaped.

Why attend parties with Amber where he interacted with a number of her friends and guests..why expose his relationship with Amber if murdering his wife was on his mind...why create potential witnesses...(he had already purchased the boat)

Why lie to Amber about his whereabouts?* I think he was addicted to Amber.* She was the opposite of Laci....thin, blond, and more gullible.* He continued to interact with her because his trips to the Bay made him believe they'd never find Laci.* Simply, he thought his scheme had worked.

Why did he have John's drivers license on him when he told Joe early that morning that he was NOT going golfing.* Was John driving around with Scott's license?* He sure didn't have his own.

Why lead police on a 160 mile wild goose chase, flipping them off, if he wasn't trying to escape.* He KNEW they weren't media - the media had no idea where he was.* Why did he ask the one person what "agency" they were from.* Media doesn't have "agencies."

Why carry a new water purifier if he was merely going golfing.* The golf club didn't have potable water?

Why meet his mother in a clandestine meeting at a museum to exchange money?* Why such a large sun of money - the maximum you can remove from a bank account WITHOUT triggering an IRS notification?*

I have more "whys" that speak to his guilt than speak to his innocence.

[frydaddy]

You know,it's pretty darn difficult to ignore, that after you and EM addressed each comment in post #202 -only one insignificant comment in your post was addressed.:confused:

It seems reponses are addressed by the same repetitive statements and questions over and over.:shrug:

This, as you know, is not uncommon. I'm glad I'm not alone in noticing this! It's a shame really, how folks have blocked out the possibility in their mind that a murderer received the justice he deserved. It gives hope to other criminals or those considering becoming one, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

Paying cash for a boat and not registering it does NOT create a paper trail.

According to the DMV, When the release of liability form is properly completed and the information is recorded by DMV, liability for parking and/'or traffic violations and civil litigation resulting from operation after the date of sale becomes the responsibility of the subsequent purchasers(s).
TO REMOVE YOUR NAME FROM DMV'S RECORDS, THE NEW OWNER MUST APPLY FOR TRANSFER USING THE ENDORSED CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP (TITLE) RECEIVED FROM YOU.

Birgit Fladager: The documents, are they ready. Detective, I'm going to ask you to take look, if you would, at People's Exhibit 263, which is a series of documents from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Did you have a chance to look at those a little while ago?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And do those documents include a release of liability form for the boat that was located in Scott Peterson's warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes. Appears that they go back in the history of that vessel quite a ways. But it shows, there is a certified printout from DMV showing that a 91 Sears vessel, which is the boat in this case, with a license number. Had a release of liability transfer date of 12-9 of 02.
Birgit Fladager: On December 9th of 02?
Craig Grogan: Transfer date, yes. The receipt date is 12-17. The buyer was the defendant Scott Peterson.

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.


The Marina was anything BUT busy that day.* There were only 3 tickets sold between the 24th and 27th.* You can't see what is going on in another boat out there unless you are right next to it, anyway.* That area is HUGE. There are far busier Marinas in the area like Sausalito, Tiburon and even Alameda.

Scott had no way of knowing how busy the Marina would have been on that day..IMO, the number of tickets sold doesn't indicate how many people were there that day..simply because there are people that live on their boats in the Marina..there are joggers..people walking their dogs..baywatchers..etc..etc..the question is...why select one of the most frequented Marina in the bay??

Suasalito, Tiburon and Alameda are far busier than Berkeley?! please provide a link...TIA

Pat Harris: In the brochure it states that the Berkeley Marina is the largest marina in Northern California, is that correct?
Cliff Marchetti: Based on the information I have, yes.
Pat Harris: It's the marina in Northern California with the most traffic, isn't it?
Cliff Marchetti: It's the marina in Northern California that has a thousand slips, which is greater than most other marinas in Northern California, most likely. Other than Santa Barbara, Long Beach, the biggest.

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

Pat Harris: The Bay. When you said the marina is the largest marina in Northern California, it's not the only marina on the Bay, is it?
Cliff Marchetti: No, it's not.
Pat Harris: In fact, there are approximately 34 other marinas on the Bay, is that right?
Cliff Marchetti: Could be.
Pat Harris: Refer you to what's been marked as BBB. Do you recognize this as a document that your office provides?
Cliff Marchetti: Looks familiar.
Pat Harris: Okay. And is it a list of the Bay Area Marinas? Is that the title of it?
Cliff Marchetti: Yes, it does.
Pat Harris: Does the appear to list approximately somewhere between 30 and 35 marinas?
Cliff Marchetti: Yes.
Pat Harris: With their phone numbers. Berkeley Marina is not the only place to gain access to The Bay?
Cliff Marchetti: No, it's not.
Pat Harris: It's just the most crowded?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation.
Judge Delucchi: Sustained.
Pat Harris: Have you had a chance to go to the other marinas?
Cliff Marchetti: Yes.
Pat Harris: Any other marinas have this kind of traffic?
Cliff Marchetti: What kind of traffic are you, what kind of traffic?
Pat Harris: The number of boats that are put there.
Cliff Marchetti: They don't have that many boats in the marina.
Pat Harris: They don't have that many, these other marinas have as large a park, as big as Cesar Chavez Park?
Cliff Marchetti: No.
Pat Harris: People walk all around?
Cliff Marchetti: No.

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

Pat Harris: You're very familiar with this area?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: And one of the things you're familiar with is the boat launch where you actually put your boat into the water and go down a ramp, correct?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: Okay. And on both sides, before you go down the ramp, there are boats on both sides, correct?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: There are boats in slips all throughout the area, right?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: And you're aware that in these, on these boats, a number of people live full time on these boats, don't they?
Alonzo Chess: There are people who live on those boats. I wouldn't know specifying which ones, though.
Pat Harris: They're called, if I've got the phrase wrong, live-aboards or live-aboards, I'm not sure?
Alonzo Chess: Live-aboards.
Pat Harris: And those refer to people who actually live on the boat 24 hours a day; it's their home?
Alonzo Chess: Correct.
Pat Harris: And the Berkeley Marina, in fact, there are approximately a thousand, a little over a thousand slips for people to park their boats; is that correct?
Alonzo Chess: Yeah, I would say, yeah. I'm not a marina attendant, but I, you know, count and looking at the numbers, yeah.

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

Pat Harris: In either case, wherever you park, when you are parking you are actually tying up the boat and leaving the boat there; is that right?
Alonzo Chess: Correct.
Pat Harris: Then you drive off and either you are parking here, depending on availability, or you are parking in this parking lot. During that time the boat is just sitting in the water; is that correct?
Alonzo Chess: Correct.

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

Pat Harris: And this area right through here, specifically I'm pointing to, this is an area that's frequented by people jogging, walking, and walking their dogs, correct?
Alonzo Chess: Creek.
Pat Harris: And it's very heavily trafficked, isn't it?
Alonzo Chess: At times, yes, correct.
Pat Harris: There are a lot of people who come out here and play Frisbee? Just walk up and down the area; is that right?
Alonzo Chess: That would be the primary area.
Pat Harris: And the people walking in this area, walk on this pathway and in the park here, this area of the park, specifically have a wide open view of the Bay, don't they?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.


He didn't.* He was aiming for the shipping channel and Gene Ralston is sure he saw the body in 10 feet of water.* The shipping channel is "V" shaped.

You can speculate that he went to the shipping channel but the jury cannot speculate that he went there simply because the prosecution didn't provide evidence that he went to the shipping channel....what's the evidence that supports your theory?

[I'mSun]

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.


---------------------
I can't begin to tell you how many times we have been through this, how many times the same ole argument has been discussed, but I can tell you that for ME this is the LAST time.

Read carefully: The release of liability is on file with DMV because Bruce Peterson sent it in. This does NOT register the boat in Scott's name. Scott had to do that himself, but never did. He needed to fill out the paperwork and pay the fees. The date of 12-09-02 is the date that Scott purchased the boat.
The DMV has Scott's name as the BUYER of the boat, because his name is on the TRANSFER OF LIABILITY, but Scott never registered it in his own name.

[Miss Bootsie]

* Snipped *




Scott had no way of knowing how busy the Marina would have been on that day..IMO, the number of tickets sold doesn't indicate how many people were there that day..simply because there are people that live on their boats in the Marina..there are joggers..people walking their dogs..baywatchers..etc..etc..the question is...why select one of the most frequented Marina in the bay??

* Snipped *



People talk - they discuss. Does it ever occur to you, at some point in Scott's adult life, someone may have told him how isolated the Marina is on Christmas Eve.

It's really irrelevant if Berkeley Marina is the largest Marina in the world or it has 500 slips, the point is, Berkeley Marina was not busy on Christmas Eve, Dec. 24th, 2002.

Now, do you agree or disagree, Chess testified the Marina was not busy at all?



DISTASO: Okay. The, on, on that day, on, on that day in particular, what was the people traffic at the marina? I mean how busy was it?

CHESS: It wasn't that busy at all. That time of the year, it's Christmas just about, so it wasn't very many people around. Just a few.

DISTASO: Okay. When you, did you drive through the boat launch area?

CHESS: Yes. Yes.

DISTASO: Did you see any boats or trailers or trucks there of people who had launched their boats that day?

CHESS: Maybe one or two, or a few.

DISTASO: Is, was, is this time of year at the marina a busy time of year? Or not busy time?

CHESS: Not so busy.

[attorneywan2be]

I can't begin to tell you how many times we have been through this, how many times the same ole argument has been discussed, but I can tell you that for ME this is the LAST time.

Read carefully: The release of liability is on file with DMV because Bruce Peterson sent it in. This does NOT register the boat in Scott's name. Scott had to do that himself, but never did. He needed to fill out the paperwork and pay the fees. The date of 12-09-02 is the date that Scott purchased the boat.
The DMV has Scott's name as the BUYER of the boat, because his name is on the TRANSFER OF LIABILITY, but Scott never registered it in his own name.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree..the point is there was a DMV official record of Scott's name as the buyer of the boat..that is the paper trail I was referring to where I said that he didn't need to buy a boat and create a paper trail, if he wanted to kill his wife he could have simply dumped her body in a remote area..anyhow, I was not referring to the boat registration..

[attorneywan2be]

People talk - they discuss. Does it ever occur to you, at some point in Scott's adult life, someone may have told him how isolated the Marina is on Christmas Eve.

It's really irrelevant if Berkeley Marina is the largest Marina in the world or it has 500 slips, the point is, Berkeley Marina was not busy on Christmas Eve, Dec. 24th, 2002.

Now, do you agree or disagree, Chess testified the Marina was not busy at all?

He did testify to that ..but it is a subjective matter...no one knows what would constitute "not busy" in his mind..maybe on a busy day there are thousands of people in the Marina...so relatively speaking, 100 or 200 people would be considered " a not busy day"..he also testified that there were people that live on their boats 24 hours a day...he also testified that there were people walking around..

He was supposedly dumping a body..right? which is a very risky thing to do..the point is: why take a chance? would he depend on someone's comment that the Marina was isolated on a Christmas eve? IMO, it is totally irrelevant, if for example, in year 2000 the Marina was isolated on Christmas eve..that doesn't not necessarily mean that it would be isolated in 2002..he had a choice to go to another marina that is not as popular..there are 30 to 35 marinas in the bay area...but he didn't, because IMO, he went to the bay to get his boat in the water and do a little bit of fishing..he was not concerned about how many people might see him there...

[TopGunner]

He did testify to that ..but it is a subjective matter...no one knows what would constitute "not busy" in his mind..maybe on a busy day there are thousands of people in the Marina...so relatively speaking, 100 or 200 people would be considered " a not busy day"..he also testified that there were people that live on their boats 24 hours a day...he also testified that there were people walking around..

He was supposedly dumping a body..right? which is a very risky thing to do..the point is: why take a chance? would he depend on someone's comment that the Marina was isolated on a Christmas eve? IMO, it is totally irrelevant, if for example, in year 2000 the Marina was isolated on Christmas eve..that doesn't not necessarily mean that it would be isolated in 2002..he had a choice to go to another marina that is not as popular..there are 30 to 35 marinas in the bay area...but he didn't, because IMO, he went to the bay to get his boat in the water and do a little bit of fishing..he was not concerned about how many people might see him there...



Since we're discussing "risky things", would you agree that if ISP didn't murder his wife, someone else took the "risk" to kidnap Laci in broad daylight, in her own neighborhood, while she was with her dog - who more than likely would bark? And riskier still, to hide her body for 4 months and then dump her (after some how getting Conner out of her without cutting her), and dumping her with search teams, divers and the LE all over the bay?

Who would do that? And why? Who would go to such EXTREME measures to frame a fertilizer salesman, and where's the hard evidence pointing in that direction?

[attorneywan2be]

Since we're discussing "risky things", would you agree that if ISP didn't murder his wife, someone else took the "risk" to kidnap Laci in broad daylight, in her own neighborhood, while she was with her dog - who more than likely would bark? And riskier still, to hide her body for 4 months and then dump her (after some how getting Conner out of her without cutting her), and dumping her with search teams, divers and the LE all over the bay?

Who would do that? And why? Who would go to such EXTREME measures to frame a fertilizer salesman, and where's the hard evidence pointing in that direction?

IMO, it was a spur of the moment decision to kidnap Laci..I believe that she did confront the burglars as they were burglarizing the Medina's house...they didn't know what do with her..so they kept her alive possibly for weeks..they decided to plant their bodies close to where Scott went fishing so the police would end the investigation..in other words, they wanted to give the police the evidence that would solve the crime..
Anyhow, people have been kidnapped and killed without a trace..it happens..

Here is the question:

Why would Scott take the risk to go to the Berkeley Marina where he had a choice to go to other less popular marina?? do you agree that he had a choice?

As to the kidnappers, if they wanted to pin it on Scott so the police would end the investigation, they had no choice but to plant the bodies where he went..IMO, they figured that it is more risky to keep the body in a place that would exonerate Scott if the body is found..because that would mean the police would keep looking for the killers..they also knew that sooner or later their burglars friends might start talking about their involvement..the Aponte's report is evidence of that...!

As to the evidence pointing to the burglars: please read my first post on "evidence that points to other suspects" thread..

[TopGunner]

IMO, it was a spur of the moment decision to kidnap Laci..I believe that she did confront the burglars as they were burglarizing the Medina's house...they didn't know what do with her..so they kept her alive possibly for weeks..they decided to plant their bodies close to where Scott went fishing so the police would end the investigation..in other words, they wanted to give the police the evidence that would solve the crime..
Anyhow, people have been kidnapped and killed without a trace..it happens..

Here is the question:

Why would Scott take the risk to go to the Berkeley Marina where he had a choice to go to other less popular marina?? do you agree that he had a choice?

As to the kidnappers, if they wanted to pin it on Scott so the police would end the investigation, they had no choice but to plant the bodies where he went..IMO, they figured that it is more risky to keep the body in a place that would exonerate Scott if the body is found..because that would mean the police would keep looking for the killers..they also knew that sooner or later their burglars friends might start talking about their involvement..the Aponte's report is evidence of that...!

As to the evidence pointing to the burglars: please read my first post on "evidence that points to other suspects" thread..



AW2B, I'm going to keep this short because I worked too many hours today and I'm tired.

The burglars passed the lie detector tests. The "friends" that talked were criminals who had no proof, just a "story". Diane Jackson couldn't possibly have seen anyone from where she lived, people from that area have stated there's no possible way she could see. She totally misidentified the appearance of the burglars, and weren't they on bikes?

I can't wrap my mind around you believing ISP wouldn't take the risk, when clearly he's a risk taker - multiple affairs, pathalogical lying to family, LE, and the media while his wife is missing. Continuing to see Amber while his wife was missing, trying to sell the car and home fully furnished...I'd say that's risky. Making a run for the mexican boarder was pretty risky too.

Now we've got 3 bumbling burglars on bikes who passed a lie detector test, (keeping in mind, only ISP refused to take one out of everyone who was asked), and you want me to believe that they plotted this incredible 4 month long kidnapping/murder plan to frame the poor guy?

Why not just dump Laci on the front lawn...? And where's the hard evidence?

[Wearing A Halo]

He did testify to that ..but it is a subjective matter...no one knows what would constitute "not busy" in his mind..maybe on a busy day there are thousands of people in the Marina...so relatively speaking, 100 or 200 people would be considered " a not busy day"..he also testified that there were people that live on their boats 24 hours a day...he also testified that there were people walking around..

He was supposedly dumping a body..right? which is a very risky thing to do..the point is: why take a chance? would he depend on someone's comment that the Marina was isolated on a Christmas eve? IMO, it is totally irrelevant, if for example, in year 2000 the Marina was isolated on Christmas eve..that doesn't not necessarily mean that it would be isolated in 2002..he had a choice to go to another marina that is not as popular..there are 30 to 35 marinas in the bay area...but he didn't, because IMO, he went to the bay to get his boat in the water and do a little bit of fishing..he was not concerned about how many people might see him there...

"He was not concerned about how many people might see him there."

That is right and the less people, if any, the better. It was worth the risk because he was not concerned about how many people might see him there. The operative word being "might." The operative phrase being "not concerned."

[Chocoholic]

Here is the question:

Why would Scott take the risk to go to the Berkeley Marina where he had a choice to go to other less popular marina?? do you agree that he had a choice?



Because he had the motive and the opportunity to do so and circumstantial evidence shows that he is the most likely person to have killed her.

If I had a husband who I KNEW had a boat asked me to come and assist him with making some concrete anchors I'd assist. Why would ISP spend all this time and money on making a bunch of useless anchors if it is cheaper to buy just decent one? Why didn't he tell his wife he bought a boat?

Nah, useless discussing it.

[Miss Bootsie]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8885843]He did testify to that ..but it is a subjective matter...no one knows what would constitute "not busy" in his mind..maybe on a busy day there are thousands of people in the Marina...so relatively speaking, 100 or 200 people would be considered " a not busy day


DISTASO: Okay. The, on, on that day, on, on that day in particular, what was the people traffic at the marina? I mean how busy was it?

CHESS: It wasn't that busy at all. That time of the year, it's Christmas just about, so it wasn't very many people around. Just a few.

Yes, we do know.;)

[I'mSun]

(snip)
However, IMO, there is ZERO evidence in this case...circumstantial or otherwise.Well, there were 12 jurors who found there was enough CE proving BARD that ISP was guilty of murdering his wife and baby. Fortunately, their opinions mattered.

[adnoid]

Well, there were 12 jurors who found there was enough CE proving BARD that ISP was guilty of murdering his wife and baby. Fortunately, their opinions mattered.

Well, that's the thing. I can see somebody saying the evidence does not convince them of Scott's guilt and explain in detail why they come to that conclusion, but when someone can look at a trial that lasted 5 months with 189 witnesses and over 400 exhibits and say there is NO evidence whatsoever, the other conclusions they reach start to seem suspect. In my opinion.

[Miss Bootsie]

Here is the question:

Why would Scott take the risk to go to the Berkeley Marina where he had a choice to go to other less popular marina?? do you agree that he had a choice?



For Scott, launching the boat from Berkeley Marina was probably the wisest choice.

Conditions vary in different locations/Marinas along the Bay.

[enlightenme]

For Scott, launching the boat from Berkeley Marina was probably the wisest choice.

Conditions vary in different locations/Marinas along the Bay.

If I could get into Scott's head (which I wouldn't WANT to, yeesh!), I would say he was looking for the closest bay or inlet that would hopefully wash Laci and Conner out to sea, never to be found.

I find it funny that the name Scott Peterson is now an American icon (NOT idol, LOL!) for a wife and baby killer. I have even heard him mentioned twice on a series. I think one was Law & Order, where someone was accused of doing the same and said, "I'm no Scott Peterson!" :D

[adnoid]

If I could get into Scott's head...

That's unapproachable.

[I'mSun]

Here is the question:

Why would Scott take the risk to go to the Berkeley Marina where he had a choice to go to other less popular marina?? IMO he went to the Berkeley Marina because it is the closest to the deep water channel.

[I'mSun]

That's unapproachable.And potentially frightening.

[frydaddy]

He did testify to that ..but it is a subjective matter...no one knows what would constitute "not busy" in his mind..maybe on a busy day there are thousands of people in the Marina...so relatively speaking, 100 or 200 people would be considered " a not busy day"..he also testified that there were people that live on their boats 24 hours a day...he also testified that there were people walking around..

He was supposedly dumping a body..right? which is a very risky thing to do..the point is: why take a chance? would he depend on someone's comment that the Marina was isolated on a Christmas eve? IMO, it is totally irrelevant, if for example, in year 2000 the Marina was isolated on Christmas eve..that doesn't not necessarily mean that it would be isolated in 2002..he had a choice to go to another marina that is not as popular..there are 30 to 35 marinas in the bay area...but he didn't, because IMO, he went to the bay to get his boat in the water and do a little bit of fishing..he was not concerned about how many people might see him there...

100-200 people? Please provide a breakdown of these 100-200 people. Or, simply a breakdown of how many you can factually prove were there that day. Thanks in advance!

As for this bay business. Use your own argument and logic as to why Scott picked the bay to get his boat in the water and do a little fishing, with all these other locations that would have been infinitely more convenient and proper to do both. Choosing the bay to dump a body is much more logical than choosing the bay to get a boat in the water and fish, given what we know. How much more logical is subjective, but I'd put it at nearly 100%.

[Miss Bootsie]

* Snipped *

...he also testified that there were people walking around..

* Snipped*



He did?? Will you please quote the testimony.

[margaritaville]

If I could get into Scott's head (which I wouldn't WANT to, yeesh!), I would say he was looking for the closest bay or inlet that would hopefully wash Laci and Conner out to sea, never to be found.

I find it funny that the name Scott Peterson is now an American icon (NOT idol, LOL!) for a wife and baby killer. I have even heard him mentioned twice on a series. I think one was Law & Order, where someone was accused of doing the same and said, "I'm no Scott Peterson!" :D



LOL--- They had that is the Sopranos too...
Tony was trying to convince his wife Carmella that Christopher didn't kill his Fiancé by saying "he's not Fck'n Scott Peterson"......

[I'mSun]

I find it funny that the name Scott Peterson is now an American icon (NOT idol, LOL!) for a wife and baby killer. I have even heard him mentioned twice on a series. I think one was Law & Order, where someone was accused of doing the same and said, "I'm no Scott Peterson!" :DScott is even mentioned on JibJab's "What We Call The News"

[attorneywan2be]

He did?? Will you please quote the testimony.

As I said before..there are people that live on their boats..

Rick Distaso: I mean did you see anybody in the park playing Frisbee, or walking around on the paths?
Alonzo Chess: No Frisbee. Maybe walking, but no Frisbee

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

Pat Harris: December 24th, was access to the park closed?
Alonzo Chess: No.
Pat Harris: Anyone can go in all day long if they wanted to?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: In fact, you testified that a few people were there; is that correct?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: So it wasn't vacant, park wasn't vacant?
Alonzo Chess: No.
Pat Harris: Just weren't people playing Frisbee?
Alonzo Chess: Wasn't that many people at all.
Pat Harris: But there were some?
Alonzo Chess: We have our regulars.
Pat Harris: That's all.

[frydaddy]

As I said before..there are people that live on their boats..

Rick Distaso: I mean did you see anybody in the park playing Frisbee, or walking around on the paths?
Alonzo Chess: No Frisbee. Maybe walking, but no Frisbee

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

Pat Harris: December 24th, was access to the park closed?
Alonzo Chess: No.
Pat Harris: Anyone can go in all day long if they wanted to?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: In fact, you testified that a few people were there; is that correct?
Alonzo Chess: Yes.
Pat Harris: So it wasn't vacant, park wasn't vacant?
Alonzo Chess: No.
Pat Harris: Just weren't people playing Frisbee?
Alonzo Chess: Wasn't that many people at all.
Pat Harris: But there were some?
Alonzo Chess: We have our regulars.
Pat Harris: That's all.

Maybe walking...strong testimony! A few...not many people at all...more stong testimony. How in the world did you make the leap to 100-200 people?

Perhaps you could go walk where the regulars stay or were walking and watch someone launch a boat from there and see what kind of details you can pick up on, especially when people launching their boat is likely such a regular part of life at a marina that the novelty of watching attentively likely faded after, oh, say the first few (NOT defined as a 100-200)out of THOUSANDS of launches. Are we to pretend that these folks were there with the idea of waiting for a murderer to drop by and dispose of a body? For the love, it was Christmas Eve, likely less than a dozen people around and most likely none were paying attention to what was going on. How many people saw Scott launch his boat into the water?

[Miss Bootsie]

* Snipped *

Maybe walking...strong testimony! A few...not many people at all...more stong testimony. How in the world did you make the leap to 100-200 people?

* Snipped *



We have testimony available from three people who worked at the Marina - that very clearly testified - the Marina was not busy - it was slow - only a few people out - hardly any people , it was a cold day - Not a lot of activity -and the focus for some people is on, "Maybe walking" and "We have our regulars".

What does "We have our regulars", have to do with people walking? Do you see any testimony that indicates anyone saw the regulars out walking?:shrug:

Not only was it Christmas Eve...it was a cold cloudy day.







DISTASO: What hours were you there at the marina?

MARCHETTI: I was there from about eight until five, eight until 4:30, something like that.

DISTASO: What was the amount of people or customer traffic coming into the office on that day?

MARCHETTI: We didn't have anybody that I recall come into the office.

DISTASO: Did, was that a slow day at the marina?

MARCHETTI: Yes.

DISTASO: And when you drove around the marina the one time, did you observe, what was the people activity that you observed at the marina, just driving around?

MARCHETTI: There really wasn't much going on that day. I had only seen two or three cars parked by the park, the big park, Cesar Chavez, which is at the bottom of that picture.

DISTASO: So that Cesar Chavez Park, when you drove around down there, you only saw two or three cars?

MARCHETTI: Right.

DISTASO: And what was the weather?

MARCHETTI: It was cold. It was cloudy.

DISTASO: And is that a normal, was it a normal December 24th day there at the marina?

MARCHETTI: Pretty normal.

DISTASO: I mean that's a normal day, cold, cloudy, not a lot of traffic?

MARCHETTI: Well, based on what I remember, it had rained a couple of days before. It was cold that day. It wasn't one of those days that I wanted to get out of the car and go do anything.

DISTASO: Okay. The, and is that because it's a slow time at the marina and there's not a lot of activity there?

MARCHETTI: Right. It's the holiday season, and, and generally my experience has been that there's not a lot of people down in the marina. That day our one marina assistant went home for a family emergency, and I locked the office because I just had nobody coming in to the office to do any business.






DISTASO: On December 24th of 2002 were you at work?

FREEDMAN: I was working late morning to early mid-afternoon.

DISTASO: And what's the amount of customer traffic that you had in and out of the shop that day?

FREEDMAN: Pretty light.

DISTASO: Is that, is December 24th a heavy usage time there at the marina?

FREEDMAN: No, it's not. Not for our shop, anyway.

DISTASO: As far as booking fishing trips, did any, did you have any bookings for fishing trips going out into the Bay or into the ocean or December 24th of 2002?

FREEDMAN: No, we didn't.


DISTASO: On the 24th of December, 2002, let me ask you this. Is that, was that a busy day at the marina?

GOOSBY: No.

DISTASO: Have you worked Christmas Eve in the past?

GOOSBY: Yes, I have.

DISTASO: And is that typically a busy time at the marina?

GOOSBY: It's pretty slow around that time.

DISTASO: And was December 24th, 2002, a pretty slow day there?

GOOSBY: Pretty slow. Just like during the, it's wintertime. It's real chilly and cold. Hardly any activity.

DISTASO: Let me ask you if you could take that laser pointer, and just push the little red button. If you could just show the jury just what your basic route was, or what your duties were throughout the day on the 24th. Just where did you start and where did you go? There you go. You got it.

GOOSBY: To be honest with you, I serviced the whole marina, the entire marina, so pretty much all over the place.

DISTASO: Mr. Goosby, counsel asked you a bunch of kind of general questions that people could do this, people could walk here, people could walk there. I'm only concerned, all, I want you to specify, on December 24th, 2002, that was a slow day at the marina, correct?

GOOSBY: It was. It was.

DISTASO: And as far as people, you know, running around and doing whatever, you didn't see a lot of that activity on the 24th?

GOOSBY: No, I didn't.

DISTASO: What was the traffic or the use there at the boat launch ramp area that you saw?

GOOSBY: I didn't see any.

[Hey Paula]

We have testimony available from three people who worked at the Marina - that very clearly testified - the Marina was not busy - it was slow - only a few people out - hardly any people , it was a cold day - Not a lot of activity -and the focus for some people is on, "Maybe walking" and "We have our regulars".

What does "We have our regulars", have to do with people walking? Do you see any testimony that indicates anyone saw the regulars out walking?:shrug:

Not only was it Christmas Eve...it was a cold cloudy day.

IIRC, only 5 marina parking receipts, including Scott's, were issued from 12/23 to 12/25, which is evidence of how slow it was during the Christmas holiday, when most people are either out of town, or busy preparing to have relatives and friends over for Christmas Eve, for them to go to be there. I have no doubt Scott took that into consideration when he made that "morning decision".

IMO

[ekg]

Did the poster figure out how many people were involved in the conspiracy to frame Scott, why they were doing so, and if the conspiracy went all the way to the White House?

if Scott could do it all by himself.... why couldn't someone else?

not agreeing with anything about Ron being the killer...... but I'm just wonder why you'd ask how many ppl would be needed to frame Scott..why would it take more than one?

[ekg]

If you eliminate DNA testing and eyewitness recant, how many such reversals have been made in the last ten years?

seems like an interesting place to put this article in today's online paper...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1

and I don't know the answer to your question... but even if it's just one it's too many IMO..

[TopGunner]

seems like an interesting place to put this article in today's online paper...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1

and I don't know the answer to your question... but even if it's just one it's too many IMO..



I am certainly not an advocate of innocent people being convicted, but I'm also pretty sure if there was a fool-proof way to decide, it'd be in place.

I'm also curious to know if because innocent people have been convicted (although the percentages are small), does that mean all the guilties should walk? I really don't understand the point.

The article was clear on where they came up with these stats. They said Northwest. They also said: The study did not look at enough cases to prove that these numbers are true across the country, Spencer cautioned.

[ekg]

Hi HP, I agree - and when it's 98 degrees out (like it is here, gag me...), you can narrow it down even further: Rain.

Ya know....I actually understand (but don't agree with), the NG's call for hard evidence, i.e., the smoking gun. I'm sure if it were my family member, the call would be even louder. However, unlike Perry Mason, the reality is there are so many variables used to solve crimes...from "intuition" (because really, how many criminals confess - they all say they didn't do it), to dogs, fingerprints, time frames, demenor, etc. Basically what you've already said. My question is: Should the LE ignore CE? And why? I'm sure the answer is "well, umm, no...." because that would be impossible, so that would mean you don't ignore it right? (Can't have it both ways). Based on not ignoring CE, all roads lead to ISP. I wish they led elsewhere.

You can't have a smoking gun if a gun wasn't used. What DNA evidence would be found if someone was strangled in their own home? No eye-wittness means (to me) premeditation.

the problem is you're assuming there wasn't a gun or a knife or a lamp...you're assuming that since there isn't any evidence of a crime it must be b/c the crime was a 'soft kill'...

the old saying of "When you hear hoof beats, think horses - not zebras" comes to mind....

Sure CE is good enough to convict someone... I believe it over DE like someone testifying how they felt, what they heard, what they thought when the heard someone else say something...that kind of stuff changes per your perception and how well your attorney preps you and how much $$ you want your book to make...

what I want of out CE tho is stuff that I can't give an innocent application to....... I cannot explain the Euro-trip call, I cannot explain the car selling and the porn.... I understand it yes, I can see how it could be innocent.. but IMO at the very least it leads me think he didn't care that she was missing...

what I also can't do is make the leap from there to he murdered her... I can't fathom a plan that cleans the house,truck,warehouse and boat so faultlessly that only one single strand of hair that matches her and 1 in 112 others is found, and nothing else....the plan was so well created and accomplished that there is no proof was even committed..... but a plan this intricate doesn't include a fool-proof body dump?

sure he "fixed" it so his fishing lic was legal... but he didn't care that the boat and trailer weren't legal? huh? and then he takes used equipment and hopes that it works 90 miles from home? huh? while at the same time methodically planning this death on arguably the biggest 'eve' of the year? huh? No, sorry, I can't buy it..

This is a person who has never had a parking ticket.... who up until Amber Frey everyone believed to be completely in love with and devoted to his wife... a person who never had any anger issues that anyone before and after Amber could come up with... and person who was faulted by his MIL b/f for being too nice and too giving and making him look bad....and this person murders his wife and baby, totes their body to his truck and lets them sit there a few feet away while he emails Christmas greetings?


I keep hearing that he was able to do this and able to fool everyone b/c he's got some mental faults.... says who? What shrink testified to these psychological problems of his? You can pay a shrink to say pretty much anything... just turn on the TV and you can see that...... but where is guy who actually examined Scott? what does this person say about him? Right.... there isn't one.... and the only way he could have done this crime is if he was a sociopath of some kind.... except by everyones accounts, including Sharon Rocha's he was a kind man who loved Laci was was devastated when she was missing..

it doesn't add up.... the CE for murder in the 1st isn't there..Voluntary manslaughter maybe....but premeditated 1st degree murder? Nope.... not a chance.. or the CE tells me they just got the wrong guy....:shrug:

[Luke Davis]

the problem is you're assuming there wasn't a gun or a knife or a lamp...you're assuming that since there isn't any evidence of a crime it must be b/c the crime was a 'soft kill'...

the old saying of "When you hear hoof beats, think horses - not zebras" comes to mind....

Sure CE is good enough to convict someone... I believe it over DE like someone testifying how they felt, what they heard, what they thought when the heard someone else say something...that kind of stuff changes per your perception and how well your attorney preps you and how much $$ you want your book to make...

what I want of out CE tho is stuff that I can't give an innocent application to....... I cannot explain the Euro-trip call, I cannot explain the car selling and the porn.... I understand it yes, I can see how it could be innocent.. but IMO at the very least it leads me think he didn't care that she was missing...

what I also can't do is make the leap from there to he murdered her... I can't fathom a plan that cleans the house,truck,warehouse and boat so faultlessly that only one single strand of hair that matches her and 1 in 112 others is found, and nothing else....the plan was so well created and accomplished that there is no proof was even committed..... but a plan this intricate doesn't include a fool-proof body dump?

sure he "fixed" it so his fishing lic was legal... but he didn't care that the boat and trailer weren't legal? huh? and then he takes used equipment and hopes that it works 90 miles from home? huh? while at the same time methodically planning this death on arguably the biggest 'eve' of the year? huh? No, sorry, I can't buy it..

This is a person who has never had a parking ticket.... who up until Amber Frey everyone believed to be completely in love with and devoted to his wife... a person who never had any anger issues that anyone before and after Amber could come up with... and person who was faulted by his MIL b/f for being too nice and too giving and making him look bad....and this person murders his wife and baby, totes their body to his truck and lets them sit there a few feet away while he emails Christmas greetings?


I keep hearing that he was able to do this and able to fool everyone b/c he's got some mental faults.... says who? What shrink testified to these psychological problems of his? You can pay a shrink to say pretty much anything... just turn on the TV and you can see that...... but where is guy who actually examined Scott? what does this person say about him? Right.... there isn't one.... and the only way he could have done this crime is if he was a sociopath of some kind.... except by everyones accounts, including Sharon Rocha's he was a kind man who loved Laci was was devastated when she was missing..

it doesn't add up.... the CE for murder in the 1st isn't there..Voluntary manslaughter maybe....but premeditated 1st degree murder? Nope.... not a chance.. or the CE tells me they just got the wrong guy....:shrug:

What would convince you?

[JustMyOpinion]

but even if it's just one it's too many IMO..

I agree. I also think if just one, guilty murderer walks free, it's one too many. JMO

[frydaddy]

seems like an interesting place to put this article in today's online paper...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1

and I don't know the answer to your question... but even if it's just one it's too many IMO..

In and of itself, your statement of "if it's just one, it's too many", is dead on and I agree with it. However, the next statement that usally follows that one is the "better that ten guilties go free...". I think that is nonsense, even if I am the sole person on this planet who thinks it. And yes, I've been through the "what if it were you or one of your kids" deals far too many times already.

Your link provides somewhat of an answer to my question. But there's not enough detail to determine the circumstances or the relevance. Thanks though, for posting it, it's worthy of the read.

[adnoid]

if Scott could do it all by himself.... why couldn't someone else?

not agreeing with anything about Ron being the killer...... but I'm just wonder why you'd ask how many ppl would be needed to frame Scott..why would it take more than one?

Because it depends on a couple of things. Give me your scenario - I'll give you mine:

I believe the evidence shows that Scott killed Laci sometime after she spoke with Sharon on 12/23 and the morning of 12/24, took her body to the bay with Conner still in her uterus, dumped them in the bay with weights attached, and months later their bodies washed up on the shore. Therefore I only need Scott, and I only need him active on 12/23 to 12/24.

Now, if you think Laci was kept alive and Conner was born alive, you've got to have enough people involved to watch her 24/7 so she doesn't escape, care for her and Conner (non trivial even for a routine delivery, to say nothing of a never before recorded method of C-section), get them food and water, etc. If some of those people are the burglars, you're going to need people to spell them while the burglars are in custody. If some of those people are Ron, Amber, Brent, Sharron, Dennis, etc. you're going to need people to spell them for all the time they were known to be searching for Laci.

If you think Laci and Conner's bodies were decomposed in a giant salt water tank also used for breeding barnacles to attach to Laci's body, you're going to need a location for such an installation, people that know how to keep salt water dwelling arthropods alive in an environment of decaying flesh, and enough people to move and transport the bodies to where they were "placed" on the shore.

Regardless, you've got to find people not motivated by the $500,000 reward that was offered, and criminals so honorable that not a one of them would turn in their conspirators for that same reward.

No, I'm not real bright, I'll admit that. But I just can't see how Scott could be framed. And I haven't even touched on WHY someone would want to frame Scott.

So, tell me what YOU think happened, and I'll tell you how many people I figure would have to conspire to do it.

[adnoid]

seems like an interesting place to put this article in today's online paper...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1

and I don't know the answer to your question... but even if it's just one it's too many IMO..

The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

:tongue:

[adnoid]

...who up until Amber Frey everyone believed to be completely in love with and devoted to his wife...

Well, that's not a trivial point, now is it? "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

[deputydi]

seems like an interesting place to put this article in today's online paper...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070628135531.31cukrus&show_article=1

and I don't know the answer to your question... but even if it's just one it's too many IMO..
This is an interesting article, but I'd like to know more. For instance -- of the 290 cases that were examined, how did they determine that 17% of the jury verdicts were wrong? Did someone look at the transcript and decide the defendant had to be innocent? Was it because they were found not guilty at a retrial? Were they actually exonerated and, if so, how?

The Innocence Project is a worthy endeavor and has freed many wrongly convicted men and women (not really sure about "many" women). It's unfair IMO to use this as an example of wrongful convictions TODAY, however. The vast majority of men being exonerated due to the Project were originally convicted of rape at a time when DNA testing was either non-existent or in its infancy. DNA testing has proven the eyewitness testimony that played a huge part in convicting them was WRONG.

I don't want to see any innocent man or woman railroaded into a conviction but I also don't want to see a guilty man go unpunished either. Scott's not going to be executed IMO -- ever. I truly believe the 9th Circuit will commute his sentence to LWOP. Even if they don't, he will have 20 years to prove he didn't murder Laci and Conner.

[deputydi]

<snip>I believe the evidence shows that Scott killed Laci sometime after she spoke with Sharon on 12/23 and the morning of 12/24, took her body to the bay with Conner still in her uterus, dumped them in the bay with weights attached, and months later their bodies washed up on the shore. Therefore I only need Scott, and I only need him active on 12/23 to 12/24.<snip>
I completely agree. The improbabilities connected to any other scenario make them impossible for me to believe. The kind of conspiracy needed to conceal a live Laci for 2, 3 or 4 months just can't be kept secret. Someone always gets ticked off and tells someone else who tells someone else who tells . . . . . This is exactly how those conspirators always get caught.