SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

[deputydi]

I live in NV now, which is like PA, but I used to live in CA. CA is different - plates stay with the vehicle unless they are personalized, and the transfer of ownership and liability is done via paperwork. So in CA, when I would sell a car, I always left the plates on it. In NV when I sell one I take a screwdriver out & take them off.

If a police officer were to have stopped Scott and done a casual check of the trailer it would have come back registered to Bruce Peterson from Modesto - and the ID of the guy driving the truck is Scott Peterson of Modesto. Probably wouldn't have rasied much of an alarm, and Scott could just say it belonged to a family member.

Serendipity for Pudge Boy.
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess when you live in one state it's kind of hard to wrap your mind around the differing laws of another.

How convenient for him that the previous owner was also named Peterson. I don't believe he planned it that way, but this stroke of luck fell right in his lap. You're right -- "Serendipity for Pudge Boy"!!

[Lavindar]

How do you get a license plate for an RV without registering it? Even getting a temp, the vehicle must be registered. Your neighbors must have done the same ILLEGAL thing I suspect Scott did. He had to have taken a plate off some other vehicle to put on the boat trailer in order to make his trip. All he had to do then was make darned sure he obeyed all traffic laws so as not to arouse suspicion. This is clearly illegal and carries with it a hefty fine if you're caught. Don't know about CA, but in PA it would NOT be dismissed once they registered it. The fine still stands and you are given a certain period of time to bring in proof you have complied.


Unless it's a handicapped license, the license stays with the vehicle in CA. There's are two tags on it, the month and the year. If there was still some time left on the tags, you could still drive it and probably get away with it. If the year has expired, you will get pulled over for sure. If the license tags have expired, you are given a red paper thing to put in the rear window. But that is only temporary until you get new tags for it. You can't get new tags unless you pay the fee and register the vehicle in your name. SCott had some time on the tags on his boat. Unless there had been an accident or he got pulled over, no one would know the boat was unregistered. Had he been pulled over or had an accident, he most likely would have been arrested on the spot, since the sale had occured 13 days prior and he had not registered the boat. As for long lines, DMV has gone to appointments in CA now, and the wait is not that long if you have an appointment.

[deputydi]

Unless it's a handicapped license, the license stays with the vehicle in CA. There's are two tags on it, the month and the year. If there was still some time left on the tags, you could still drive it and probably get away with it. If the year has expired, you will get pulled over for sure. If the license tags have expired, you are given a red paper thing to put in the rear window. But that is only temporary until you get new tags for it. You can't get new tags unless you pay the fee and register the vehicle in your name. SCott had some time on the tags on his boat. Unless there had been an accident or he got pulled over, no one would know the boat was unregistered. Had he been pulled over or had an accident, he most likely would have been arrested on the spot, since the sale had occured 13 days prior and he had not registered the boat. As for long lines, DMV has gone to appointments in CA now, and the wait is not that long if you have an appointment.
Thanks to you and adnoid, I think I understand now. The process here is way different. :)

[TopGunner]

Unless it's a handicapped license, the license stays with the vehicle in CA. There's are two tags on it, the month and the year. If there was still some time left on the tags, you could still drive it and probably get away with it. If the year has expired, you will get pulled over for sure. If the license tags have expired, you are given a red paper thing to put in the rear window. But that is only temporary until you get new tags for it. You can't get new tags unless you pay the fee and register the vehicle in your name. SCott had some time on the tags on his boat. Unless there had been an accident or he got pulled over, no one would know the boat was unregistered. Had he been pulled over or had an accident, he most likely would have been arrested on the spot, since the sale had occured 13 days prior and he had not registered the boat. As for long lines, DMV has gone to appointments in CA now, and the wait is not that long if you have an appointment.

Well, this explains why the risk he took wasn't so risky after all. :flamemad:

[deputydi]

Well, this explains why the risk he took wasn't so risky after all. :flamemad:
I never really understood how the process works in CA and was judging this on what I knew of PA laws. It sure explains a lot. You're right. As long as he obeyed all traffic laws, his risk of being pulled over was minimal. I'm sure he drove more carefully than he had ever driven before.

[Trixy]

8/27/07

Still no evidence that points to innocence.

Why is SII mentioned on the title of this thread? :shrug:

[Lili007]

Let's try again ----->

SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

With respect, Riviera...

Evidence that Points to Innocence?

Laci and Conner were the innocents.

JMO

[accordn2me]

With respect, Riviera...

Evidence that Points to Innocence?

Laci and Conner were the innocents.

JMO:LOL: "Evidence that Points to Innocence" No surprise an admonishment to "get back on topic" was a thread killer. :chicken:

What's so ironic....it's the longest running thread on the board considering the first one with 3,097 posts before being locked! :shrug:

[Spencer]

Also, another thing that received very little publicity was that on the very day Laci went missing, Scott emptied/cleaned out his commercial-sized tool box in the back of his truck. During the trial, the prosecutors used a pregnant young woman of similar size to demonstrate that Laci would fit well within that box.. She may have been carried in that tool box, then transferred to and from the truck and the boat with the cover/tarp. IMO, the umbrellas were not without purpose either. They may have been used to provide rigidity to assist in the moving of 153 lbs of dead weight. The American Indian used to make a cot-like apparatus between rigid poles or branches to assist in moving their sick or dead. The rigid cot can be dragged behind a single man or horse, whereas the weight might not be easily movable by a single man without it.

Imagine that.. a box big enough to carry a body is emptied the day Laci goes missing. And sure enough, her body ends up the very place he traveled that day. Coincidence?

As Distaso said, "How many of these coincidences does the defense want you to swallow and have you still call yourselves reasonable people?"


Rick Distaso: Going back to the 24th now. What -- you told us what you saw in the bed of the truck. Did you see anything in the toolbox area of the truck?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What was that?
Allen Brocchini: There was some rope, about fifty or a hundred feet of black and orange nylon rope. There was a bag of shotgun shells. There was some clothing. There was loose shotgun shells in the bottom of the box.
Rick Distaso: And was the rope that you saw, was it in a package, or was it out of the package?
Allen Brocchini: It was out of a package. It was rolled up, but it was just in the toolbox.

[Cadillakin]

Rick Distaso: Going back to the 24th now. What -- you told us what you saw in the bed of the truck. Did you see anything in the toolbox area of the truck?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What was that?
Allen Brocchini: There was some rope, about fifty or a hundred feet of black and orange nylon rope. There was a bag of shotgun shells. There was some clothing. There was loose shotgun shells in the bottom of the box.
Rick Distaso: And was the rope that you saw, was it in a package, or was it out of the package?
Allen Brocchini: It was out of a package. It was rolled up, but it was just in the toolbox.Well Spence.. You did alright on your last post in the other thread, regarding the ashtray, but you don't get any points on this one.. As to what Scott had in his toolbox after he buried Laci and came back into the neighborhood, who cares? Earlier in the day, as Scott related to the DOJ agent in his Dec 25 interview, Scott took the tools out of his toolbox.. And without the tools.. the body will go in..

Mark Geragos: And cleaned up his office, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He unloaded tools from his box?
Doug Mansfield: Uh-huh.
Mark Geragos: And that you understood that to be the green box in the back of the pickup truck?
Doug Mansfield: I did.
Mark Geragos: And when he, after unloading tools from the box, you asked him, did you talk to Laci? And he said he did not.
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: He said he left the office shortly after 11:00 o'clock, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He never spoke to Laci that morning after he left the house?
Doug Mansfield: That's correct.

Tell me Spence.. why do you figure on that particular day that Scott removed all his tools from the toolbox? Because if you tell us.. you'll have been more straightforward than Scott who never explained it..

[attorneywan2be]

Mark Geragos: And cleaned up his office, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He unloaded tools from his box?
Doug Mansfield: Uh-huh.
Mark Geragos: And that you understood that to be the green box in the back of the pickup truck?
Doug Mansfield: I did.
Mark Geragos: And when he, after unloading tools from the box, you asked him, did you talk to Laci? And he said he did not.
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: He said he left the office shortly after 11:00 o'clock, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He never spoke to Laci that morning after he left the house?
Doug Mansfield: That's correct.

Tell me Spence.. why do you figure on that particular day that Scott removed all his tools from the toolbox? Because if you tell us.. you'll have been more straightforward than Scott who never explained it..


Spencer is right..you stated in your initial post that Scott emptied and cleaned out his toolbox..in addition, the testimony you posted (above) doesn't state that Scott removed ALL his tools from his toolbox...



Also, another thing that received very little publicity was that on the very day Laci went missing, Scott emptied/cleaned out his commercial-sized tool box in the back of his truck.

Spencer posted the part of the testimony that proves that Scott didn't empty and clean out the toolbox...Brocchini found in the toolbox : 100 feet nylon rope + a bag of shotgun shells + clothings + loose shotgun shells...

In addition to what Spencer posted:

Mark Geragos: And approximately how many items were in that toolbox?
You've mentioned the glove, the gloves that you tested which were stained, that came back negative for blood; those two shoes that we saw. Were there a number of other items in there as well?
Dodge Hendee: There was a jumper cables, a tow truck box, I think, to help when you get stuck, or unstuck, if you're stuck in the mud, or something. And there were a number of items inside the tray in the box.
Mark Geragos: The, the tow truck in a box is a kind of a ramp, isn't it?
Dodge Hendee: I think so, yes.
Mark Geragos: And that was inside of this toolbox, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. In addition to that there were the, some rubber boots; is that correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: The golf shoes that we saw?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Some, these gloves that we talked about, the ramp, some channel-lock pliers, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Jumper cables?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Instructions for a portable sprayer?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A number of landscaping-type flags on metal rods?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Screwdriver?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Sealing tape?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Ralph's receipts?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Miscellaneous chemicals and solutions?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Shotgun cases?
Dodge Hendee: One.

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

Mark Geragos: You did not observe blood-like stains on the exposed bed of the truck after you removed the green toolbox; is that right?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: In the upper compartment of the toolbox, there were bottles, containers, plastic flags, tape, a tube, tools, paper, all in the upper toolbox, correct?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Main compartment had boots, shoes, jumper cable, a pair of stained work gloves, a pair of pliers, a box labeled, "Tow Truck in a Box". And you took presumptive tests for blood -- for blood on some of these items, didn't you?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Specifically you performed a presumptive test for blood on the work gloves that were inside of the toolbox, correct?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Came back negative.
Pin Kyo: That's what I stated.
Mark Geragos: You also found a pliers inside of the toolbox, which you also tested for blood, right?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Came back negative.
Pin Kyo: Yes.

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

Craig Grogan: That cardboard box, the same one that's in that photograph, and it's inside the Greenlee toolbox and photographed on 12-27 by Denise Ducot.
Mark Geragos: And, okay. That accurately would represent how the Greenlee box looked on the 27th when the truck was impounded, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I believe so.
Mark Geragos: You wouldn't have her go and pull a box and then put it into Greenlee, right?
Craig Grogan: I don't think that would happen, no.
Judge Delucchi: What's the date of that photograph?
Mark Geragos: 12-27-02, photos of the,
Judge Delucchi: How many you got there?
Mark Geragos: Two.
Judge Delucchi: All right. Be D7O-1 and D7O-2.
Mark Geragos: When the truck was impounded, this appears to be a picture taken on the 27th by Denise Ducot, is that, is this also in one of those Modesto Police evidence areas?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: You see that right there, what does that appear to be?
Craig Grogan: That appeared to be the edge of possibly that cardboard box.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then does it appear here once again that the cardboard box was originally, when the truck was seized, inside of the toolbox?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. Based on the dates on the photographs. I would say that's a fact, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Does it also appear that when the truck, so if I understand correctly, the truck was seized, that's how it looks. The cardboard box is inside of the toolbox. It's then removed, correct? Somebody takes it out, and then it's photographed as if basically it was never in there, correct? And then you do a demonstration where the cardboard box is nowhere to be seen. You didn't do it, but somebody did, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. All of those things happened. Pin Kyo's photographs would have been from one of her examinations, whenever her examination was.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, these rain gauges we don't have. And you are going to look to see whether this box is in evidence over the lunch hour.
Specifically the way you learned about the rain gauges in this box was, you talked to a woman by the name of Rosemary Ruiz, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

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

D70-1


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

[attorneywan2be]

Well Spence.. You did alright on your last post in the other thread, regarding the ashtray, but you don't get any points on this one.. As to what Scott had in his toolbox after he buried Laci and came back into the neighborhood, who cares? Earlier in the day, as Scott related to the DOJ agent in his Dec 25 interview, Scott took the tools out of his toolbox.. And without the tools.. the body will go in..

Mark Geragos: And cleaned up his office, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He unloaded tools from his box?
Doug Mansfield: Uh-huh.
Mark Geragos: And that you understood that to be the green box in the back of the pickup truck?
Doug Mansfield: I did.
Mark Geragos: And when he, after unloading tools from the box, you asked him, did you talk to Laci? And he said he did not.
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: He said he left the office shortly after 11:00 o'clock, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He never spoke to Laci that morning after he left the house?
Doug Mansfield: That's correct.

Tell me Spence.. why do you figure on that particular day that Scott removed all his tools from the toolbox? Because if you tell us.. you'll have been more straightforward than Scott who never explained it..

I would also like to add that IMO the fact that Scott told Mansfield that on the 24th he unloaded tools from his toolbox is an indication of consciousness of innocence...had he placed Laci's body in the toolbox he would not have mentioned that he removed tools from his toolbox before heading to the bay..

[TopGunner]

I would also like to add that IMO the fact that Scott told Mansfield that on the 24th he unloaded tools from his toolbox is an indication of consciousness of innocence...had he placed Laci's body in the toolbox he would not have mentioned that he removed tools from his toolbox before heading to the bay..

Naturally I disagree AW2B. Nothing the convicted murderer did pointed to a clear conscious. I never thought he put Laci in the tool box. I always believed he layed her right along those umbrella's that are manufacturerd for outdoors, yet he was going to store them at the warehouse, and yet he never did, TWICE, on Christmas Eve day when he told people he was going golfing. Yup, those umbrella's that would be pretty darn close to the size of Laci wrapped in a tarp. Could he be anymore obvious? :no:

[Cadillakin]

Spencer is right..you stated in your initial post that Scott emptied and cleaned out his toolbox..in addition, the testimony you posted (above) doesn't state that Scott removed ALL his tools from his toolbox...

Spencer posted the part of the testimony that proves that Scott didn't empty and clean out the toolbox...Brocchini found in the toolbox : 100 feet nylon rope + a bag of shotgun shells + clothings + loose shotgun shells...

I see.. so when a man says he removed his tools, it doesn't mean he removed ALL his tools.. If I say to you "I removed my clothes.. does that mean to you that I removed some of my clothes, but not all". If I tell my employee to remove the tools from the toolbox.. did I just tell him to remove only some of them?

I'm always amused that everything, without exception, even shotgun shells and a length of rope, as well as a loaded illegal gun in the glovebox, all found on the day his wife is murdered.. means nothing to you guys...

You buy anything he says.. anything anybody says, as long as it means Scott is innocent.

[Cadillakin]

I would also like to add that IMO the fact that Scott told Mansfield that on the 24th he unloaded tools from his toolbox is an indication of consciousness of innocence...I see, so when a criminal admits behavior to police.. he is innocent, otherwise he would be evasive and not admit or he would lie...So all a criminal has to do is admit he was at the scene of the bank robbery, and IN YOUR MIND, he is displaying consciousness of innocence and was not involved in the crime?

Where did you learn that?

[cookiewench]

I think it's pretty simple, really.

He used the umbrellas as a way to hide her body when he took her to the warehouse.

When he got there, he emptied his toolbox with the intent to put her in there - but he found that this was too hard to do, so he put her in the boat, put the boat cover on, and went that way.

[Cadillakin]

I think it's pretty simple, really.

He used the umbrellas as a way to hide her body when he took her to the warehouse.

When he got there, he emptied his toolbox with the intent to put her in there - but he found that this was too hard to do, so he put her in the boat, put the boat cover on, and went that way.It's a good point. I think the umbrellas were used for rigidity, stability, to help Scott move Laci. If I couldn't lift Laci, I might try and fashion something of that type to get her up and into the back of the truck.. For instance, I'd lay a long section of rope on the ground.. lay the umbrellas across it.. Then put Laci between the umbrellas and wrap her and the umbrellas tightly with the rope.. That way I could use the rigidity of the umbrella poles.. to get at least part of that weight on to the back of the truck.. by lifting the umbrella poles onto the back of the pickup gate, then I could push her up..

[cookiewench]

It's a good point. I think the umbrellas were used for rigidity, stability, to help Scott move Laci. If I couldn't lift Laci, I might try and fashion something of that type to get her up and into the back of the truck.. For instance, I'd lay a long section of rope on the ground.. lay the umbrellas across it.. Then put Laci between the umbrellas and wrap her and the umbrellas tightly with the rope.. That way I could use the rigidity of the umbrella poles.. to get at least part of that weight on to the back of the truck.. by lifting the umbrella poles onto the back of the pickup gate, then I could push her up..

I never thought of it that way. If something was rigid & stable like that, it would be easier to get it into the back of a truck.

I know that I could never lift a body into a truck, yet I could get a sofa into a couch if I could just lift one end of it high enough to catch onto the edge of the truck bed.

It's so horrifying and sad to think about this stuff. Scott had been planning this for weeks - at least.

And it sounds like, in his hurry & desperation, he kept changing the details of his plan - just like he kept changing his alibi story.

[Cadillakin]

I never thought of it that way. If something was rigid & stable like that, it would be easier to get it into the back of a truck.

Scott's a young man so he is much more suited to lifting weights and doing physical things than you and I.. But even when I was young and very fit, getting 150 lbs to chest height was no easy feat.. and thats using a bar to lift it... with my hands positioned and balanced between the ends, and my body in perfect position to do so.. If that 150 lbs was unevenly weighted, as a body would be.. no chance I could have lifted that onto a pickup gate by myself..

I think he had to use something to help get her up into that truck.. The umbrellas are likely. I think to myself now of doing something like Scott did.. It would NEVER occur to me to use umbrellas as some kind of cover.. Tarps, blankets, and other things come to mind.. So, I think those umbrellas served a specific purpose.. not just as junk covering Laci..

[attorneywan2be]

I see.. so when a man says he removed his tools, it doesn't mean he removed ALL his tools.. If I say to you "I removed my clothes.. does that mean to you that I removed some of my clothes, but not all". If I tell my employee to remove the tools from the toolbox.. did I just tell him to remove only some of them?




"when a man says he removed his tools" ????

Nice try..you misstated the testimony you quoted ..you just added the word "his"...

Somehow you quoted Mansfield's testimony on cross but failed to mention Grogan's testimony on direct on the very subject which makes it very clear that he unloaded SOME tools from his toolbox..with that said, the testimony you quoted didn't qualify the tools that he unloaded...MG asked Mansfield if Scott had told him that he unloaded tools from his toolbox..HE DIDN'T SAY "HIS TOOLS"..that would indicate to me that he unloaded some tools not all the tools..if Scott had said "I unloaded my tools" it would mean he unloaded all his tools..but that was not what he said...that is what you stated..!

Grogan's testimony that you failed to mention:

Craig Grogan: He told me that he when he arrived at his office he checked the e-mail on his computer and he received an e-mail about a golf bag that he was selling on E-Bay.
Birgit Fladager: And he said that was the computer at the warehouse?
Craig Grogan: Yes .
Birgit Fladager: The golf bag e-mail?
Craig Grogan: Yes .
Birgit Fladager: All right. Next.
Craig Grogan: He said he sent an e-mail to his employer and they put together a mortiser, a wood working tool.
Birgit Fladager: Okay. And after that.
Craig Grogan: I have here that he cleaned up his office, he unloaded some tools from his tool box and he left at about 11:00 a.m. for the Berkeley Marina
Birgit Fladager: And when he –
Craig Grogan: And I should say that he had attached his boat and trailer to his truck before he left for the marina
Birgit Fladager: And when he left to the Berkeley Marina did he tell you where it was that he went with the boat?
Craig Grogan: Once he arrived there?
Birgit Fladager: Yes.

[cookiewench]

Birgit Fladager: Okay. And after that.
Craig Grogan: I have here that he cleaned up his office, he unloaded some tools from his tool box and he left at about 11:00 a.m. for the Berkeley Marina



Ambiguous.

If he said that he unloaded some OF the tools from the box, that would mean that he partially unloaded it.

"Unloaded some tools from the box" could be taken either way - but I would take it that there had been "some tools" in the box, and that he unloaded them.

[frydaddy]

For crying out loud, now the advocates are using semantics to plead Scott's case? What a bunch of horse spit!

Whether Scott removed some tools, some of the tools, each and every tool is largely irrelevant in my book. For all we know, the only tools he removed were the pliers and wire cutters he used to attach anchors to Laci. There were at least three methods to get Laci to the bay and only Scott knows which of the three he utilized. All I know is, the umbrellas made the trip to the bay for a reason and it certainly wasn't because Scott forgot to unload them.

If we've arrived at the dissection of the King's English as the only thing left to support Scott, I'd say it's time to start flicking that vein in his arm! IMO

[cookiewench]

All I know is, the umbrellas made the trip to the bay for a reason and it certainly wasn't because Scott forgot to unload them.


Exactly. Who goes through all of that rigamorole to go fishing - making your own anchor(s), taking along waders, blah blah - but then leaves a bunch of umbrellas rattling around in the bed of the truck?

[I'mSun]

If we've arrived at the dissection of the King's English as the only thing left to support Scott, I'd say it's time to start flicking that vein in his arm! IMONo argument here. ;)

[Lavindar]

Spencer is right..you stated in your initial post that Scott emptied and cleaned out his toolbox..in addition, the testimony you posted (above) doesn't state that Scott removed ALL his tools from his toolbox...



Spencer posted the part of the testimony that proves that Scott didn't empty and clean out the toolbox...Brocchini found in the toolbox : 100 feet nylon rope + a bag of shotgun shells + clothings + loose shotgun shells...

In addition to what Spencer posted:

Mark Geragos: And approximately how many items were in that toolbox?
You've mentioned the glove, the gloves that you tested which were stained, that came back negative for blood; those two shoes that we saw. Were there a number of other items in there as well?
Dodge Hendee: There was a jumper cables, a tow truck box, I think, to help when you get stuck, or unstuck, if you're stuck in the mud, or something. And there were a number of items inside the tray in the box.
Mark Geragos: The, the tow truck in a box is a kind of a ramp, isn't it?
Dodge Hendee: I think so, yes.
Mark Geragos: And that was inside of this toolbox, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. In addition to that there were the, some rubber boots; is that correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: The golf shoes that we saw?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Some, these gloves that we talked about, the ramp, some channel-lock pliers, correct?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Jumper cables?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Instructions for a portable sprayer?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A number of landscaping-type flags on metal rods?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Screwdriver?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Sealing tape?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Ralph's receipts?
Dodge Hendee: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Miscellaneous chemicals and solutions?
Dodge Hendee: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Shotgun cases?
Dodge Hendee: One.

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

Mark Geragos: You did not observe blood-like stains on the exposed bed of the truck after you removed the green toolbox; is that right?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: In the upper compartment of the toolbox, there were bottles, containers, plastic flags, tape, a tube, tools, paper, all in the upper toolbox, correct?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Main compartment had boots, shoes, jumper cable, a pair of stained work gloves, a pair of pliers, a box labeled, "Tow Truck in a Box". And you took presumptive tests for blood -- for blood on some of these items, didn't you?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Specifically you performed a presumptive test for blood on the work gloves that were inside of the toolbox, correct?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Came back negative.
Pin Kyo: That's what I stated.
Mark Geragos: You also found a pliers inside of the toolbox, which you also tested for blood, right?
Pin Kyo: That’s right.
Mark Geragos: Came back negative.
Pin Kyo: Yes.

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

Craig Grogan: That cardboard box, the same one that's in that photograph, and it's inside the Greenlee toolbox and photographed on 12-27 by Denise Ducot.
Mark Geragos: And, okay. That accurately would represent how the Greenlee box looked on the 27th when the truck was impounded, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I believe so.
Mark Geragos: You wouldn't have her go and pull a box and then put it into Greenlee, right?
Craig Grogan: I don't think that would happen, no.
Judge Delucchi: What's the date of that photograph?
Mark Geragos: 12-27-02, photos of the,
Judge Delucchi: How many you got there?
Mark Geragos: Two.
Judge Delucchi: All right. Be D7O-1 and D7O-2.
Mark Geragos: When the truck was impounded, this appears to be a picture taken on the 27th by Denise Ducot, is that, is this also in one of those Modesto Police evidence areas?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: You see that right there, what does that appear to be?
Craig Grogan: That appeared to be the edge of possibly that cardboard box.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then does it appear here once again that the cardboard box was originally, when the truck was seized, inside of the toolbox?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. Based on the dates on the photographs. I would say that's a fact, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Does it also appear that when the truck, so if I understand correctly, the truck was seized, that's how it looks. The cardboard box is inside of the toolbox. It's then removed, correct? Somebody takes it out, and then it's photographed as if basically it was never in there, correct? And then you do a demonstration where the cardboard box is nowhere to be seen. You didn't do it, but somebody did, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. All of those things happened. Pin Kyo's photographs would have been from one of her examinations, whenever her examination was.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, these rain gauges we don't have. And you are going to look to see whether this box is in evidence over the lunch hour.
Specifically the way you learned about the rain gauges in this box was, you talked to a woman by the name of Rosemary Ruiz, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

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

D70-1


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

This picture is USELESS. It was taken AFTER Laci had been disposed of. And we only have Scott's (the truth teller NOT) say-so as to what he did with the items in the toolbox.

[attorneywan2be]

More "secret stuff." It's a shame that no one shares them with anyone who could get Scott out of prison instead of making him wait those long, long years before he gets an appeal. The people who have this "secret stuff" must hate him to force him to spend ONE DAY MORE in prison than he has to.

You will excuse my cynacism on this. There are many many cases where new evidence has been presented prior to appeal to get them out of prison. Too bad whoever has this "secret stuff" doesn't try to get him out.

His attorneys have all the details too..but it is my understanding that they have to go thru the appeal process anyway...I hope that is not the case..I hope they can have a special court proceeding to present the evidence they got...!

[cookiewench]

His attorneys have all the details too..but it is my understanding that they have to go thru the appeal process anyway...I hope that is not the case..I hope they can have a special court proceeding to present the evidence they got...!

I'm sorry - but that's just not believable. There would be no need to keep new evidence secret until they go through the appeal process - especially when you have a WEBSITE where you are scrambling every month to come up with a new "featured fact" (which is never a fact at all).

When attornies get "new evidence" they go to every media outlet available - BEGGING them to listen in the hope that it will sway public opinion and speed up the process.

[Pampster]

I'm sorry - but that's just not believable. There would be no need to keep new evidence secret until they go through the appeal process - especially when you have a WEBSITE where you are scrambling every month to come up with a new "featured fact" (which is never a fact at all).

When attornies get "new evidence" they go to every media outlet available - BEGGING them to listen in the hope that it will sway public opinion and speed up the process.

Absolutely. Convince the public that an error has been made and Scott is innocent and the outcry will be so great that the court system would have no choice but to schedule a special hearing. Of course that's not going to happen because there is no secret evidence.

[Cadillakin]

It is very true...I also believe that Scott is FACTUALLY innocent...unfortunately there are a lot of details we cannot reveal.. Seriously, I think the details are not revealed because you are afraid to get laughed at. The idea that somebody who is innocent must stay in jail because you think it necessary to keep relevant and crucial details a secret is a joke. Nobody believes that.. Why do you guys keep saying that stuff? It just makes you look silly...

[Cadillakin]

Spencer is right..you stated in your initial post that Scott emptied and cleaned out his toolbox..in addition, the testimony you posted (above) doesn't state that Scott removed ALL his tools from his toolbox...


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

Thanks for the picture! Seemingly, you're trying to prove to me and others that Scott didn't remove ALL the tools but then you post a pic of his toolbox taken shortly AFTER he stated he unloaded his tools.. and the pic reveals NO TOOLS.

Thanks for proving my point. Case closed!

[TopGunner]

His attorneys have all the details too..but it is my understanding that they have to go thru the appeal process anyway...I hope that is not the case..I hope they can have a special court proceeding to present the evidence they got...!

AW2B *major sigh*

I expect to hear something like this out of the handful of fruitloops that defend the killer, but not you. Until now, you have been literally the ONLY NG I've ever posted with during these past almost 5 years that I actually respected. The one and ONLY. I've never agreed with you and I always thought your posts were "out there", but with your passionate sincerity, I actually liked you.

What you say here is such a disappointment. Did you forget you were on CL and think you were posting on FreakPak? I'd expect this over there, with all the freaks that post.

To state that he's innocent is a blatent lie. To state that there's "secret" information that PROVES he's innocent, but he will "have to" suffer in a cage on Death Row for possibly 20 years in order to go thru the appeals process is just, well, pathetic.

I assure you AW2B, I'm no lawyer, and I'm no wannabe lawyer either, but this I know FOR SURE: If there was even a SHRED of "evidence" that could potentially exonerate the convicted killer, Jackie Peterson & herd would have their mugs on every talk show, in every paper...there'd simply be no PEACE in this world. Geregos would also be trying to recoup the end of his career and credibility, it'd be bigger than the original ordeal.

Not only that..........but if by chance (and there is NO chance) there WAS evidence that might exonerate this murderer in two more decades, I believe with all of my being that the very LAST people in the world that would know about this would be anonomous posters on a message board.

You drank the FP juice AW2B, you really let me down.

[I'mSun]

It is very true...I also believe that Scott is FACTUALLY innocent...unfortunately there are a lot of details we cannot reveal.. I can't wait to see Scott exonerated...however, it might take years because his attorneys will have to go thru the appeal process..JUSTICE will prevail... :beer:Justic already prevailed. The person who killed Laci and Conner is on DR and is going to stay there. I know you really want to believe he didn't do it, and that is your right, of course. However, I am amazed that you believe there is evidence that supposedly will exonerate Scott, but they want to keep it a secret! C'mon. IF there was any such evidence that is so concrete and proves Scott is innocent, I assure you it would be presented IMMEDIATELY. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Do you really want to know why it hasn't been presented?? Because there isn't any!

[I'mSun]

His attorneys have all the details too..but it is my understanding that they have to go thru the appeal process anyway...I hope that is not the case..I hope they can have a special court proceeding to present the evidence they got...!As a poster we all know would say, "(chuckle)"

[accordn2me]

His attorneys have all the details too..but it is my understanding that they have to go thru the appeal process anyway...I hope that is not the case..I hope they can have a special court proceeding to present the evidence they got...!WHY?

WHY?


WHY?

keep exculpatory evidence a secret? :confused: Why would you (whoever has it) sit on something that could exonerate someone, especially someone on death row, for years? What "harm" for lack of a better word...I'm actually almost at a loss for words over this "secret exonerating evidence"...what "harm" would come to "the secret evidence" if it were shared with the world? Would "the real killers" do something to it so that it would point back to SLP? Would the police do something to it?

NO!

The evidence cannot be changed! It is what it is. By all means, why not share it? :shrug:

Actually, when I think on it.....I realize....NOT sharing it is much more dangerous than sharing it ever could be! What if something happens to it? What if the building it's in is hit by a tsunami, or a bomb? :eek:

There you have it! Sharing the "secret evidence" cannot change it. NOT sharing it....and you could LOSE it! Now I know what the excuse is going to be! We had it....but it got lost. :seeya:

[adnoid]

...you are afraid to get laughed at...

History suggests this is not the case.

...Why do you guys keep saying that stuff? It just makes you look silly...

In the same sense that movie cameras make Vern Troyer look short.

[Wearing A Halo]

AW2B uses the collective "we" and still never corrects any of the group when "they" are wrong. Others in the group don't correct her. I think I know what the JD stands for, but, AW2B can let us all know.

BTW AW2B, you never replied about knowing Jane Hamilton and if you know where she got her source. Let me ask. did she get her info from you AW2B?

Also, do you know why MN didn't post People's 8 nor People's 111 on her site? These evidence photos are not sealed and they would otherwise be noted. If you have a link (or an answer) to these please do post it.

[TopGunner]

AW2B uses the collective "we" and still never corrects any of the group when "they" are wrong. Others in the group don't correct her. I think I know what the JD stands for, but, AW2B can let us all know.

BTW AW2B, you never replied about knowing Jane Hamilton and if you know where she got her source. Let me ask. did she get her info from you AW2B?

Also, do you know why MN didn't post People's 8 nor People's 111 on her site? These evidence photos are not sealed and they would otherwise be noted. If you have a link (or an answer) to these please do post it.


10 bucks says no reply....I take Visa.

:D

[enlightenme]

AW2B uses the collective "we" and still never corrects any of the group when "they" are wrong. Others in the group don't correct her. I think I know what the JD stands for, but, AW2B can let us all know.

BTW AW2B, you never replied about knowing Jane Hamilton and if you know where she got her source. Let me ask. did she get her info from you AW2B?

Also, do you know why MN didn't post People's 8 nor People's 111 on her site? These evidence photos are not sealed and they would otherwise be noted. If you have a link (or an answer) to these please do post it.

:seeya: Hi WAH!

What does People's 8 and 111 pertain to?

[accordn2me]

10 bucks says no reply....I take Visa.

:DWell, don't hold your breath. Adnoid still owes me about $35...for something or other. :chicken:

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B *major sigh*

I expect to hear something like this out of the handful of fruitloops that defend the killer, but not you. Until now, you have been literally the ONLY NG I've ever posted with during these past almost 5 years that I actually respected. The one and ONLY. I've never agreed with you and I always thought your posts were "out there", but with your passionate sincerity, I actually liked you.

What you say here is such a disappointment. Did you forget you were on CL and think you were posting on FreakPak? I'd expect this over there, with all the freaks that post.

To state that he's innocent is a blatent lie. To state that there's "secret" information that PROVES he's innocent, but he will "have to" suffer in a cage on Death Row for possibly 20 years in order to go thru the appeals process is just, well, pathetic.

I assure you AW2B, I'm no lawyer, and I'm no wannabe lawyer either, but this I know FOR SURE: If there was even a SHRED of "evidence" that could potentially exonerate the convicted killer, Jackie Peterson & herd would have their mugs on every talk show, in every paper...there'd simply be no PEACE in this world. Geregos would also be trying to recoup the end of his career and credibility, it'd be bigger than the original ordeal.

Not only that..........but if by chance (and there is NO chance) there WAS evidence that might exonerate this murderer in two more decades, I believe with all of my being that the very LAST people in the world that would know about this would be anonomous posters on a message board.

You drank the FP juice AW2B, you really let me down.


The real problem I see here..is the severe lack of understanding of California law as it relates to newly discovered evidence...to my knowledge (you don't have to take my word for it, you can research it) , if the evidence is discovered after the verdict but before sentencing, defense can file a motion for a new trial citing the newly discovered evidence...if the evidence is discovered after sentencing, the appellate attorney would file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the newly discovered evidence ..that is part of the appeal process and would still take years...

According to the info I have, Scott will be exonerated.. that is the simple truth..you don't have to believe it...time will tell....

[cookiewench]

The real problem I see here..is the severe lack of understanding of California law as it relates to newly discovered evidence...to my knowledge (you don't have to take my word for it, you can research it) , if the evidence is discovered after the verdict but before sentencing, defense can file a motion for a new trial citing the newly discovered evidence...if the evidence is discovered after sentencing, the appellate attorney would file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the newly discovered evidence ..that is part of the appeal process and would still take years...

According to the info I have, Scott will be exonerated.. that is the simple truth..you don't have to believe it...time will tell....

I do believe a separate write could be filed, and it could be filed immediately. The evidence certainly doesn't have to remain "secret" til then, and showing it to the public could help to speed up the process.

If compelling new evidence appears in a case, such as positive DNA for another person or a credible confession, a prisoner doesn't have to wait for the appeals process to take it up with the court.

Just face it that there is no other evidence, and that it would have been impossible for anyone but Scott to have done this.

[Wearing A Halo]

:seeya: Hi WAH!

What does People's 8 and 111 pertain to?

Hi Enl,

Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

Exhibit111: (A-K) Binder with Photos taken during search warrant on 12/26/02 and 12/27/02.

Exhibit 111G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

[Lavindar]

Scott's a young man so he is much more suited to lifting weights and doing physical things than you and I.. But even when I was young and very fit, getting 150 lbs to chest height was no easy feat.. and thats using a bar to lift it... with my hands positioned and balanced between the ends, and my body in perfect position to do so.. If that 150 lbs was unevenly weighted, as a body would be.. no chance I could have lifted that onto a pickup gate by myself..

I think he had to use something to help get her up into that truck.. The umbrellas are likely. I think to myself now of doing something like Scott did.. It would NEVER occur to me to use umbrellas as some kind of cover.. Tarps, blankets, and other things come to mind.. So, I think those umbrellas served a specific purpose.. not just as junk covering Laci..

Scott was, I believe over 200 lbs when he was arrested, not a scrawny guy at all. And he DID work out. Think leverage also. Getting her from the truck to the boat would be a downhill procedure, not hard to do. And I seriously doubt that the truck bed was chest high for him. Think adreniline also.

[Cadillakin]

Scott was, I believe over 200 lbs when he was arrested, not a scrawny guy at all. And he DID work out. Think leverage also. Getting her from the truck to the boat would be a downhill procedure, not hard to do. And I seriously doubt that the truck bed was chest high for him. Think adreniline also.Scott was pudge boy. His body was soft.. I was much more fit and bigger than Scott when I was his age...

153 pounds of dead weight plus any wraps he might have used, weighted unevenly, is damn hard to lift.. for any man..

[TopGunner]

The real problem I see here..is the severe lack of understanding of California law as it relates to newly discovered evidence...to my knowledge (you don't have to take my word for it, you can research it) , if the evidence is discovered after the verdict but before sentencing, defense can file a motion for a new trial citing the newly discovered evidence...if the evidence is discovered after sentencing, the appellate attorney would file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the newly discovered evidence ..that is part of the appeal process and would still take years...

According to the info I have, Scott will be exonerated.. that is the simple truth..you don't have to believe it...time will tell....


AW2B, you know the rules here. Either STATE that it's your opinion or provide a link.

Now, I am still annoyned about this. Not only because this is coming from YOU, but because I just spent 30 minutes of my time chasing (researching) this ridiculous statement.

What I found is exactly what I excpected to find. Your statement is false. I have researched the process of exonerating evidence after the verdict until my eyes started to burn. Not a single source in ANY state, including CA, says the prisoner has to go thru the appeals process. In fact, a governers pardon - especially in a high profile case, could easily occur as well.

Nor did I find anything stating that exonerating evidence must be kept SECRET from anonymous posters on a message board.


:cuss:

[Lavindar]

10 bucks says no reply....I take Visa.

:D I'll contribute $20 to that bet - on your side, of course. Another hit and run?

[TopGunner]

I'll contribute $20 to that bet - on your side, of course. Another hit and run?

Can you say red boots?
Grass Clippings?
Tote bag?
Uterus Horns?
Scratched watch?
Mineral stones?
Burglars on peddle bikes?
"Secret" papers?

Yuppers your Honorable Judge, based on all the exonerating evidence listed above, I respectfully request that my client, Death Row Inmate Scott Lee Peterson, receive a cell on a lower tier to make the rest of his stay/life here in SQ more comfortable/cooler.
:patriot:

[I'mSun]

Nor did I find anything stating that exonerating evidence must be kept SECRET from anonymous posters on a message board.
:cuss:LOL! TG, you won't find anything on keeping solid, exonerating evidence a secret because only a fool would attempt to do so. IF such evidence existed, a lawyer would present it right away to the court to get his/her client out of prison immediately. In a high profile case, most likely the evidence would also be 'leaked' to the media for even more support.

[I'mSun]

I'll contribute $20 to that bet - on your side, of course. Another hit and run? Most of them are, Lav :biggrin:

[Invrdv8]

Hi Enl,

Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

Exhibit111: (A-K) Binder with Photos taken during search warrant on 12/26/02 and 12/27/02.

Exhibit 111G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

Exhibit's 8 and 111G are not on MN's list of Peoples Exibits. Why do you think MN isn't making them available on her site?

Exhibit 111 is in black on the MN's list which indicates the exhibit is "not available" but it doesn't indicate it's "sealed". Why do you think MN isn't making this exhibit available on her site?

[Invrdv8]

Hi Enl,

Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

Exhibit111: (A-K) Binder with Photos taken during search warrant on 12/26/02 and 12/27/02.

Exhibit 111G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

Re: the sapphire ring shown in Exhibit 8. In Anne's book on page 62 she tells about while at Laci's baby shower seeing Laci wearing the "same sapphire cocktail ring" she (Anne) had given Jackie to sell for her. How do we know the ring shown in Exhibit 8 was a ring Laci inherited and not the ring that Anne said belonged to her?

[Spencer]

http://www.sanfran.com/archives/view_story/200/

All of these people were "obviously guilty" and had people like this forum yakking away about them too. They were wrong just as you are.

Innocence Lost - Not Guilty After All

Since 1989, at least 200 inmates have been released from California prisons after courts found that they were unjustly convicted. This figure includes mass exonerations in the Ramparts police scandal in Los Angeles and in the Kern County ritual child sex-abuse cases, as well as dozens of individual cases in which an innocent person was erroneously convicted of murder, sexual assault, robbery, a three-strikes violation, or a less serious crime. The figure does not include two other types of wrongful convictions that are more common: people who were denied a fair trial but were probably guilty, and people who were convicted on more serious charges than their actual crimes warranted.

In trying to understand the reasons behind California's wrongful conviction problem, San Francisco did a detailed analysis of 30 cases from around the state, culled from a variety of sources. All but one of the cases involved people serving life or very long sentences. We did not look at exonerations involving death sentences (the single exception: one inmate whose original sentence of death was reduced on appeal to life without parole; he served another 11 years before new evidence emerged, leading to his release). We left out the 100 to 150 Ramparts cases, which mostly involved shorter sentences, as well as most of the Kern County sex-abuse cases; both would have slanted the sample, especially the findings related to police and prosecutorial misconduct.

THE FINDINGS

Factors leading to wrongful conviction:

60 percent of the wrongful convictions involved at least one mistaken eyewitness
33 percent involved false testimony by a key witness at trial
20 percent involved false testimony by an informant at trial
63 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by police
50 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by prosecutors at trial
43 percent involved serious errors by defense lawyers at trial
13 percent involved incorrect lab results or faulty science


Appeals

10 percent of the wrongful convictions were overturned on direct appeal
63 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the state courts*
27 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the federal courts*
13 percent were overturned on a habeas petition by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals*
23 percent were overturned as a result of DNA testing
Average length of incarceration: 13 years
Average compensation theoretically owed by state (assuming $100 for each day of wrongful imprisonment): $474,500
*Includes cases that had multiple appeals.


Race

African American: 43 percent
White: 40 percent
Latino: 10 percent
Asian American: 3 percent
Other: 3 percent


Counties

Los Angeles: 37 percent (11 cases, including 4 from Long Beach, or 13 percent of total)
Orange County: 13 percent (4 cases)
San Diego County: 10 percent (3 cases)
Bay Area counties: 20 percent (6 cases)

[TopGunner]

You know what Spencer? Save your innocence project solicitation for another board, nobody here cares. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people on death row in the entire country are innocent. It has absolutely NO BEARING what-so-ever on the fact that Scott Lee Peterson premeditated and executed the cold blooded MURDER of his wife and son.:mad:

[Lavindar]

http://www.sanfran.com/archives/view_story/200/

All of these people were "obviously guilty" and had people like this forum yakking away about them too. They were wrong just as you are.

Innocence Lost - Not Guilty After All

Since 1989, at least 200 inmates have been released from California prisons after courts found that they were unjustly convicted. This figure includes mass exonerations in the Ramparts police scandal in Los Angeles and in the Kern County ritual child sex-abuse cases, as well as dozens of individual cases in which an innocent person was erroneously convicted of murder, sexual assault, robbery, a three-strikes violation, or a less serious crime. The figure does not include two other types of wrongful convictions that are more common: people who were denied a fair trial but were probably guilty, and people who were convicted on more serious charges than their actual crimes warranted.

In trying to understand the reasons behind California's wrongful conviction problem, San Francisco did a detailed analysis of 30 cases from around the state, culled from a variety of sources. All but one of the cases involved people serving life or very long sentences. We did not look at exonerations involving death sentences (the single exception: one inmate whose original sentence of death was reduced on appeal to life without parole; he served another 11 years before new evidence emerged, leading to his release). We left out the 100 to 150 Ramparts cases, which mostly involved shorter sentences, as well as most of the Kern County sex-abuse cases; both would have slanted the sample, especially the findings related to police and prosecutorial misconduct.

THE FINDINGS

Factors leading to wrongful conviction:

60 percent of the wrongful convictions involved at least one mistaken eyewitness
33 percent involved false testimony by a key witness at trial
20 percent involved false testimony by an informant at trial63 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by police
50 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by prosecutors at trial
43 percent involved serious errors by defense lawyers at trial
13 percent involved incorrect lab results or faulty science
Appeals

10 percent of the wrongful convictions were overturned on direct appeal
63 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the state courts*
27 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the federal courts*
13 percent were overturned on a habeas petition by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals*
23 percent were overturned as a result of DNA testing
Average length of incarceration: 13 years
Average compensation theoretically owed by state (assuming $100 for each day of wrongful imprisonment): $474,500
*Includes cases that had multiple appeals.


Race

African American: 43 percent
White: 40 percent
Latino: 10 percent
Asian American: 3 percent
Other: 3 percent
Counties

Los Angeles: 37 percent (11 cases, including 4 from Long Beach, or 13 percent of total)
Orange County: 13 percent (4 cases)
San Diego County: 10 percent (3 cases)
Bay Area counties: 20 percent (6 cases)

You do not say how many of them are on death row. These are just prisoners without that information. These could be
anything. I have bolded all that do not apply in this case.

BTW, not one cent that I am aware of has EVERY been paid to a prisoner wrongly convicted in CA.


Find something that applies, please

[lilmiss1960]

So we have two threads started by ATW2B and she still won't reveal the evidence that points to Scott's innocence??? OK, game over. No evidence that will exhonerate the double murderer on death row.

I'm running off happily to the beach now.

Enjoy the rest of today.

:seeya:


Actually, if ATW2B has anything, then it most certainly does not belong on a message board. All it would take is one person to inform the prosecution what's up so they could counter what ever evidence is there that could exonerate SP.
Sooner or later it will be reveled, if there is anything at all.

[I'mSun]

Actually, if ATW2B has anything, then it most certainly does not belong on a message board. All it would take is one person to inform the prosecution what's up so they could counter what ever evidence is there that could exonerate SP.
Sooner or later it will be reveled, if there is anything at all.OMG! I hope you don't really believe this.

[adnoid]

Actually, if ATW2B has anything, then it most certainly does not belong on a message board. All it would take is one person to inform the prosecution what's up so they could counter what ever evidence is there that could exonerate SP.
Sooner or later it will be reveled, if there is anything at all.

This is ridiculous. Does Scott have any supporters that actually understand how the justice system works?

1) The State will have a chance to counter it anyway when it is brought up in appeal (if ever);

2) If the evidence is clear and convincing, the prosecution has been known to go to a judge WITH THE DEFENSE and ask for the conviction to be overturned.

I have to laugh.

[I'mSun]

I have to laugh.I'm right there with you - it's definitely laughable. :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, you know the rules here. Either STATE that it's your opinion or provide a link.

Now, I am still annoyned about this. Not only because this is coming from YOU, but because I just spent 30 minutes of my time chasing (researching) this ridiculous statement.

What I found is exactly what I excpected to find. Your statement is false. I have researched the process of exonerating evidence after the verdict until my eyes started to burn. Not a single source in ANY state, including CA, says the prisoner has to go thru the appeals process. In fact, a governers pardon - especially in a high profile case, could easily occur as well.

Nor did I find anything stating that exonerating evidence must be kept SECRET from anonymous posters on a message board.


:cuss:

IMO, appellate attorneys in general thoroughly investigate the case including possible new evidence BEFORE filing a direct appeal or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus..it is a very complex and time consuming process...

1- Read my post again..I stated that it is "to my knowledge" I'm not obligated to provide a link..but out of courtesy I will provide one for you..

2-It is not a ridiculous statement...it is based on California law..

3-Quote:

In light of the time restrictions attached to new trial motions in
California state courts (i.e., the requirement that motions must be
made orally before judgment), this remedy is of little use to defendants
unable to find convincing new evidence in such short order. For
those California defendants who unearth newly discovered evidence of
innocence after the entry of judgment, there are two conceptually
overlapping, yet distinguishable, collateral options available to them:
a statutory remedy crafted in the nature of habeas corpus and the
common law writ of error coram nobis.

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

As an initial matter, coram nobis only applies to
previously unadjudicated errors of fact where no other remedy is
available, while habeas corpus addresses a vaster range of errors, both
factual and legal, and need not necessarily kowtow to any other
prospective remedy.140 In contrast to habeas corpus, moreover, coram
nobis does not mandate that petitioners be in custody at the time of
filing.141 Therefore, if the habeas corpus statutory remedy is available,
for instance, when a defendant remains incarcerated and wishes to
present new evidence of innocence, a defendant is prevented from
seeking a writ of error coram nobis

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/articles/Vol40/Issue4/DavisVol40No4_Medwed.pdf

[attorneywan2be]

Actually, if ATW2B has anything, then it most certainly does not belong on a message board. All it would take is one person to inform the prosecution what's up so they could counter what ever evidence is there that could exonerate SP.
Sooner or later it will be reveled, if there is anything at all.


Yep! sooner or later it will be revealed ...I just hope it is sooner rather than later because I believe that Scott is 100% FACTUALLY innocent..!

[attorneywan2be]

http://www.sanfran.com/archives/view_story/200/

All of these people were "obviously guilty" and had people like this forum yakking away about them too. They were wrong just as you are.

Innocence Lost - Not Guilty After All

Since 1989, at least 200 inmates have been released from California prisons after courts found that they were unjustly convicted. This figure includes mass exonerations in the Ramparts police scandal in Los Angeles and in the Kern County ritual child sex-abuse cases, as well as dozens of individual cases in which an innocent person was erroneously convicted of murder, sexual assault, robbery, a three-strikes violation, or a less serious crime. The figure does not include two other types of wrongful convictions that are more common: people who were denied a fair trial but were probably guilty, and people who were convicted on more serious charges than their actual crimes warranted.

In trying to understand the reasons behind California's wrongful conviction problem, San Francisco did a detailed analysis of 30 cases from around the state, culled from a variety of sources. All but one of the cases involved people serving life or very long sentences. We did not look at exonerations involving death sentences (the single exception: one inmate whose original sentence of death was reduced on appeal to life without parole; he served another 11 years before new evidence emerged, leading to his release). We left out the 100 to 150 Ramparts cases, which mostly involved shorter sentences, as well as most of the Kern County sex-abuse cases; both would have slanted the sample, especially the findings related to police and prosecutorial misconduct.

THE FINDINGS

Factors leading to wrongful conviction:

60 percent of the wrongful convictions involved at least one mistaken eyewitness
33 percent involved false testimony by a key witness at trial
20 percent involved false testimony by an informant at trial
63 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by police
50 percent entailed misconduct or serious error by prosecutors at trial
43 percent involved serious errors by defense lawyers at trial
13 percent involved incorrect lab results or faulty science


Appeals

10 percent of the wrongful convictions were overturned on direct appeal
63 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the state courts*
27 percent were overturned on a habeas petition in the federal courts*
13 percent were overturned on a habeas petition by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals*
23 percent were overturned as a result of DNA testing
Average length of incarceration: 13 years
Average compensation theoretically owed by state (assuming $100 for each day of wrongful imprisonment): $474,500
*Includes cases that had multiple appeals.


Race

African American: 43 percent
White: 40 percent
Latino: 10 percent
Asian American: 3 percent
Other: 3 percent


Counties

Los Angeles: 37 percent (11 cases, including 4 from Long Beach, or 13 percent of total)
Orange County: 13 percent (4 cases)
San Diego County: 10 percent (3 cases)
Bay Area counties: 20 percent (6 cases)


Spencer...great post!!..thanks for posting this info..it is so sad!! for example, Herman Atkins spent 4 years fighting to gain access to the biological evidence to prove his innocence...why didn't they immediately allow him to test the biological evidence...it's beyond me..he spent 12 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit!!!! I think this is outrageous..!!

Quote from your link:

NAME: Herman Atkins
Race: African American
Jurisdiction: Riverside County
Crime: 1986 forcible rape, oral copulation, and robbery of a shoe store clerk in Lake Elsinore
Date convicted: 1988
Sentence: 45 years
Release: 2000 (habeas writ, superior court); released by prosecution's request after FBI confirmed the DNA test results
Reason: exonerated by DNA evidence
D.A. response: for four years, fought efforts by the Innocence Project to gain access to the biological evidence
Reasons cited by court and/or attorneys for wrongful conviction/reversal: eyewitness error (two witnesses identified Atkins after seeing his face on a wanted poster on suspicion of another crime), outdated lab results, prosecution misconduct and error (falsely relied on test results to say they implicated Atkins, pointed him out to witness in a courtroom before he was identified)
Compensation/lawsuit: none
Years wrongfully imprisoned: 12
Other: In February 2001, Atkins unsuccessfully sued the County of Riverside and its D.A.s and other officials for violating his civil rights. His case helped push for state law allowing post-conviction DNA testing.

[Lavindar]

Spencer...great post!!..thanks for posting this info..it is so sad!! for example, Herman Atkins spent 4 years fighting to gain access to the biological evidence to prove his innocence...why didn't they immediately allow him to test the biological evidence...it's beyond me..he spent 12 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit!!!! I think this is outrageous..!!

Quote from your link:

NAME: Herman Atkins
Race: African American
Jurisdiction: Riverside County
Crime: 1986 forcible rape, oral copulation, and robbery of a shoe store clerk in Lake Elsinore
Date convicted: 1988
Sentence: 45 years
Release: 2000 (habeas writ, superior court); released by prosecution's request after FBI confirmed the DNA test results
Reason: exonerated by DNA evidence
D.A. response: for four years, fought efforts by the Innocence Project to gain access to the biological evidence
Reasons cited by court and/or attorneys for wrongful conviction/reversal: eyewitness error (two witnesses identified Atkins after seeing his face on a wanted poster on suspicion of another crime), outdated lab results, prosecution misconduct and error (falsely relied on test results to say they implicated Atkins, pointed him out to witness in a courtroom before he was identified)
Compensation/lawsuit: none
Years wrongfully imprisoned: 12
Other: In February 2001, Atkins unsuccessfully sued the County of Riverside and its D.A.s and other officials for violating his civil rights. His case helped push for state law allowing post-conviction DNA testing.


Wrong county and not a death penalty case. Where is the similarity? Was Scott convicted of rape???? Is Scott African-American? Were there any eyewitnesses to Scott's committing the murder? Did Scott commit a robbery? Did Scott rape someone? There's no DNA to exonerate him either (and I have to laugh at people who think the Innocence Project would even get involved in this case) I see NO similarities in this case whatsoever. NADA, ZIP, NOthing. Apples and oranges. Can't compare because there are NO similarities.

[TopGunner]

IMO, appellate attorneys in general thoroughly investigate the case including possible new evidence BEFORE filing a direct appeal or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus..it is a very complex and time consuming process...

1- Read my post again..I stated that it is "to my knowledge" I'm not obligated to provide a link..but out of courtesy I will provide one for you..

2-It is not a ridiculous statement...it is based on California law..

3-Quote:

In light of the time restrictions attached to new trial motions in
California state courts (i.e., the requirement that motions must be
made orally before judgment), this remedy is of little use to defendants
unable to find convincing new evidence in such short order. For
those California defendants who unearth newly discovered evidence of
innocence after the entry of judgment, there are two conceptually
overlapping, yet distinguishable, collateral options available to them:
a statutory remedy crafted in the nature of habeas corpus and the
common law writ of error coram nobis.

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

As an initial matter, coram nobis only applies to
previously unadjudicated errors of fact where no other remedy is
available, while habeas corpus addresses a vaster range of errors, both
factual and legal, and need not necessarily kowtow to any other
prospective remedy.140 In contrast to habeas corpus, moreover, coram
nobis does not mandate that petitioners be in custody at the time of
filing.141 Therefore, if the habeas corpus statutory remedy is available,
for instance, when a defendant remains incarcerated and wishes to
present new evidence of innocence, a defendant is prevented from
seeking a writ of error coram nobis

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/articles/Vol40/Issue4/DavisVol40No4_Medwed.pdf

AW2B, please provide a link that shows Califorina Law that states Death Row Inmates, those convicted of first degree murder, must stay in prision and go through the appeals process even when exonderating evidence has been found. This is what we're talking about, not the mumbo-jumbo you posted here.

:no:

[Lili007]

We're still waiting for you to back up your "factually innocent" statement.

So is his dream team.

JMO

[Lili007]

If any of you came home to a dark or otherwise unused house where your very heavily pregnant wife was supposed to be baking for Christmas breakfast next mornming, or mopping the floor, or taking the dog for a walk, last time you saw her... Would you think it strange that her cell and her purse were in plain sight? If a robber, they would have made away with that in seconds, let alone HOURS.

I don't know about you, but if I were EVER faced with ANY of my loved ones that I couldn't account for RIGHT THERE AND THERE, I'd be moving mountains and I'd be calling anyone and everyone. Not him - he was busy quoting poems to his mistress. Even that may be excused...

BUT Killing a pregnant woman who is carrying your child is that low, that I can't even envisage it. It's very low and very dark - I can't define it, I don't want to. I just run away from it.

JMO

[Lili007]

Wasn't aware he had a team. Who might they be? :seeya:


Geragos et co

JMO

[Lili007]

Wasn't aware he had a team. Who might they be? :seeya:

My post got lost somehow... Geragos were the defense attorneys in the case. If you followed it, you might remember it.

JMO

[Lili007]

Scott is as guilty as sin, IMO. But I feel sorry for him. He couldn't see a life where his son belonged. He found his mistress and behaved like a JA from there on. The thing is that he didn't have to kill Laci. That's the biggest thing of all. A young, beautiful, vibrant, loving and loved woman was killed just because. I hate the idea of the death penalty, but if anyone ever could contemplate it for any reason whatsoever, it would be Scott Peterson, in the matter of the murder of his wife Laci Rocha and her son Conner.

JMO

[Lili007]

Wasn't aware he had a team. Who might it be. I wonder.

Yes - so do we.

See you in our dreams..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, please provide a link that shows Califorina Law that states Death Row Inmates, those convicted of first degree murder, must stay in prision and go through the appeals process even when exonderating evidence has been found. This is what we're talking about, not the mumbo-jumbo you posted here.

:no:

mumbo-jumbo?? you disappoint me TopGunner..!!!

What I posted is from UC Davis School of Law website..it is exactly about California treatment of newly discovered evidence of innocence and the legal procedures for convicted defendants to present such evidence...that includes death penalty cases..if you do not understand it..I'm sorry I can't help you further...!

[attorneywan2be]

We're still waiting for you to back up your "factually innocent" statement. Thanks. Links Not sure why you are ignoring the rules. Show respect, please.




A link to my belief??

Please read the rules and understand them before asking people for links to support their beliefs..I stated that I believe he is 100% FACTUALLY innocent...

[attorneywan2be]

So is his dream team.

JMO


It is not a glitch..you need to make sure that the username you are quoting is there before you submit the post...

The post you quoted in post # 324 obviously is not mine..

[TopGunner]

mumbo-jumbo?? you disappoint me TopGunner..!!!

What I posted is from UC Davis School of Law website..it is exactly about California treatment of newly discovered evidence of innocence and the legal procedures for convicted defendants to present such evidence...that includes death penalty cases..if you do not understand it..I'm sorry I can't help you further...!

You got it AW2B, MUMBO JUMBO.

I just called a relative of my, 38 years in law enforcement... Told him what you're claiming and my ear still hurts from his laughing.

MUMBO JUMBO

California, unlike most states, has no law limiting when newly discovered evidence can be introduced. In theory, that makes it easier for an inmate to get DNA testing. But the path is not always swift.

In recent years, men convicted of sexual assaults in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties have been freed as a result of DNA tests.

[Lavindar]

You got it AW2B, MUMBO JUMBO.

I just called a relative of my, 38 years in law enforcement... Told him what you're claiming and my ear still hurts from his laughing.

MUMBO JUMBO

California, unlike most states, has no law limiting when newly discovered evidence can be introduced. In theory, that makes it easier for an inmate to get DNA testing. But the path is not always swift.

In recent years, men convicted of sexual assaults in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties have been freed as a result of DNA tests.


Geez, Top Gunner, where are all the men released from Sam Mateo, Stanislaus, and Santa Clara Counties? Could there possibly be NONE? I think it's very revealing the counties that have wrongful convictions are all in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, not Northern California. Maybe they need some reform in Southern California.

[Lavindar]

A link to my belief??

Please read the rules and understand them before asking people for links to support their beliefs..I stated that I believe he is 100% FACTUALLY innocent...

Here's the problem, Aw2b. Facts are not beliefs. When you say factually innocent, you are saying that the "facts" don't prove his guilt, not only that, but that the facts prove his innocence (not even his not-guilty). The facts AS SHOWN IN A COURT OF LAW proved him guilty. So you are not believing the facts, period. And facts are NOT beliefs. They are FACTS. So you are saying you believe a lie. There's not ONE FACT that proves him innocent. UUnless you are withholding factual information that could exhonerate him. And that makes you obstructing justice, which is, I believe, a crime.

[cookiewench]

Here's just one example of a request for a new trial based on "new evidence" in California:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/20040811-1726-tuitemotion.html


These requests are usually turned down, because the "new evidence" isn't evidence at all - just like whatever "new evidence" in the Peterson case will be.

It's probably something pulled out of Matt Dalton's totally inaccurate book.

Anyway - there is no waiting period, and the attorneys usually go straight to the media with the "new evidence". There is no need for secrecy, and in fact they want just the opposite - they want the public on their side.

[Riviera]

Let's stop with the insults and get back on topic please ----> SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

Thank you
R

[accordn2me]

Could someone explain what the rules for new evidence are?

The way I understand it, new evidence has to be just that....brand spankin' new, never heard about before and clearly exonerating evidence that a convict is indeed innocent.

This case was pretty big. There were a lot of claims made, and addressed before the guilty verdict was rendered. Am I correct that none of those can be revisited as new evidence just because MG didn't ask the right questions, or investigate properly, or call certain people?

If that's right, it means that nothing about:

the burglars - Todd, Pearce, et.al
the satanists
the vans
the estimated gestational age
the condition of the bodies
the mineral deposits
the dog walkers
the Laci sightings
the watch
the tape/twine/packing plastic
the Aponte tip
the fishing tackle
the boat
the pliers
the hair
the truck
the toolbox
the concrete
the curling iron
the clothes
......

nothing we heard during the trial can be brought up again as "new evidence?"

If the "new exonerating evidence" has something to do with burglars, for instance, they would have to be completely different, new burglars, right?

[Lili007]

It is not a glitch..you need to make sure that the username you are quoting is there before you submit the post...

The post you quoted in post # 324 obviously is not mine..

I'm sorry, and thanks for the heads-up. I don't know how it happened, I was replying to a post. If it wasn't yours, I apologise. In any case, whoever's post it was, I never meant anything mean, just a reply like any other. :seeya:

Lili

[Luke Davis]

:LOL: "Evidence that Points to Innocence" No surprise an admonishment to "get back on topic" was a thread killer. :chicken:

What's so ironic....it's the longest running thread on the board considering the first one with 3,097 posts before being locked! :shrug:


Natalee Holloway II Discussion Thread 2007 (2) was locked with 13,765 posts.

[Lili007]

Could someone explain what the rules for new evidence are?

The way I understand it, new evidence has to be just that....brand spankin' new, never heard about before and clearly exonerating evidence that a convict is indeed innocent.

This case was pretty big. There were a lot of claims made, and addressed before the guilty verdict was rendered. Am I correct that none of those can be revisited as new evidence just because MG didn't ask the right questions, or investigate properly, or call certain people?

If that's right, it means that nothing about:

the burglars - Todd, Pearce, et.al
the satanists
the vans
the estimated gestational age
the condition of the bodies
the mineral deposits
the dog walkers
the Laci sightings
the watch
the tape/twine/packing plastic
the Aponte tip
the fishing tackle
the boat
the pliers
the hair
the truck
the toolbox
the concrete
the curling iron
the clothes
......

nothing we heard during the trial can be brought up again as "new evidence?"

If the "new exonerating evidence" has something to do with burglars, for instance, they would have to be completely different, new burglars, right?

Good question. I wish we knew what this "new" evidence is about. But about the burglars, maybe it's not about new burglars, but about "new evidence" about the "old burglars" :shrug:

I personally don't believe that burglars, old or new, had anything to do with Laci's death. Burglars don't kill someone and leave their keys, jewellery and car behind. Burglers burgle, by definition. Otherwise, why bother?

And if Laci were kidnapped, she wouldn't be kidnapped for nothing, either. Kidnappers kidnap for profit.

Laci and Conner's bodies were found where Scott went "fishing" on the day they disappeared... and Scott was all set up to go to Mexico in his newly acquired car under his newly acquired name of Jackie, packing enough gear to last him months - this, right after his wife and son's bodies were found and identified.

Who on earth would take on an appeals case in THIS case, let alone believe a word of it?

Anyway, just my opinion, as always. Always appreciate yours, A2Me.

JMO,
Lili

[frydaddy]

Let's stop with the insults and get back on topic please ----> SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

Thank you
R

Good morning Rivvy! In the very least, could you re-title this thread to something more appropriate for the content...

SII: Top Secret Evidence that Points to Innocence

[deputydi]

AW2B *major sigh*
<snip>
I assure you AW2B, I'm no lawyer, and I'm no wannabe lawyer either, but this I know FOR SURE: If there was even a SHRED of "evidence" that could potentially exonerate the convicted killer, Jackie Peterson & herd would have their mugs on every talk show, in every paper...there'd simply be no PEACE in this world. Geregos would also be trying to recoup the end of his career and credibility, it'd be bigger than the original ordeal.
<snip>
I've been away for the weekend and am trying to catch up. I only read as far as this post and just had to respond.

TG -- you are absolutely, positively correct. For those who don't know about Clarence Elkins ( http://www.truthinjustice.org/elkins2.htm ) I'll give you the readers digest version:

Clarence Elkins was tried and convicted for the 1998 murder and rape of his mother in law and the sexual assault of his 6 or 7 year old niece. The little girl survived and her identification of "Uncle Clarence" was the main reason for his conviction. His wife never believed he was guilty and, obviously, caused a huge rift between the two sisters. The wife worked nonstop to prove his innocence and finally got DNA testing done which proved he could not have committed the sexual assault. She also claimed that the initial interview with her young, traumatized niece was done improperly. The pros and the appeals court refused to acknowledge this "new evidence" and she and his parents went to every media outlet that would hear them. Even after her little niece recanted her original identification, no one would listen. The sisters then joined forces and the two of them lobbied publicly for someone to pay attention. I've seen them on 60 Minutes, 20/20 and American Justice. Did they keep this new information secret? Not on your life!!

Am Justice did a segment not too long ago with the update. Clarence was finally released from prison due to this new evidence and they filmed his release and reunion with his family. I believe this was in 2006. Sadly, the years in prison took its toll on the marriage and they divorced some time after his release.

Clarence would still be in prison if his wife had kept this information secret. The pressure on the DA from all the media attention finally succeeded in getting someone to listen. Does anyone really believe the Petersons would NOT be shouting this "secret, exonerating evidence" from every rooftop they could find? That's crazy.

No one likes to admit they were wrong about something this serious. The prosecutors do not get some perverse satisfaction in convicting just anyone for a crime. Most sincerely want to see justice done and when they prosecute, they really believe they are prosecuting the right person. During the AJ interview, it was difficult for the DA to admit they probably prosecuted the wrong man. I got the impression that he still thought Clarence "might" have had some part in the murder but with the nieces recantation and the exonerating DNA evidence -- they had no case and had dropped all the charges.

[deputydi]

I remember watching this story recently. Irrc it was on Dateline. She certainly worked hard to free her husband. Good for her. Love people who take action and not sit around waiting for someone else to do it.

I have a question. When the Ps realize that people are claiming to have information that could free Scott, but is with holding it. What do you think they will/could do legally? Anyone know?

:shrug:
You could be right. I thought it was AJ because I love Bill Kurtis. LOL.

Point is, his wife worked tirelessly to get the new exonerating evidence known to the world. She certainly didn't sit on it waiting for -- whatever.

As for your question, I think it would all depend on what this evidence is and who it is being kept from. The Peterson "team" doesn't have a duty to keep the public informed and, since justice has already been served, it wouldn't be obstructing anything. The appeals attorneys would probably be pretty angry, but there isn't much they could do. So, I guess the answer is no matter how stupid and counter-productive it would be, keeping this new exonerating evidence secret wouldn't be a crime.

[adnoid]

...she and his parents went to every media outlet that would hear them...Did they keep this new information secret? Not on your life!...

Exactly. Nobody believes that if there was such evidence it would be kept secret and just vaguely alluded to on public message boards. Although...

...Does anyone really believe the Petersons would NOT be shouting this "secret, exonerating evidence" from every rooftop they could find? That's crazy..

There is that possibility..!

[Lavindar]

I've been away for the weekend and am trying to catch up. I only read as far as this post and just had to respond.

TG -- you are absolutely, positively correct. For those who don't know about Clarence Elkins ( http://www.truthinjustice.org/elkins2.htm ) I'll give you the readers digest version:

Clarence Elkins was tried and convicted for the 1998 murder and rape of his mother in law and the sexual assault of his 6 or 7 year old niece. The little girl survived and her identification of "Uncle Clarence" was the main reason for his conviction. His wife never believed he was guilty and, obviously, caused a huge rift between the two sisters. The wife worked nonstop to prove his innocence and finally got DNA testing done which proved he could not have committed the sexual assault. She also claimed that the initial interview with her young, traumatized niece was done improperly. The pros and the appeals court refused to acknowledge this "new evidence" and she and his parents went to every media outlet that would hear them. Even after her little niece recanted her original identification, no one would listen. The sisters then joined forces and the two of them lobbied publicly for someone to pay attention. I've seen them on 60 Minutes, 20/20 and American Justice. Did they keep this new information secret? Not on your life!!

Am Justice did a segment not too long ago with the update. Clarence was finally released from prison due to this new evidence and they filmed his release and reunion with his family. I believe this was in 2006. Sadly, the years in prison took its toll on the marriage and they divorced some time after his release.

Clarence would still be in prison if his wife had kept this information secret. The pressure on the DA from all the media attention finally succeeded in getting someone to listen. Does anyone really believe the Petersons would NOT be shouting this "secret, exonerating evidence" from every rooftop they could find? That's crazy.

No one likes to admit they were wrong about something this serious. The prosecutors do not get some perverse satisfaction in convicting just anyone for a crime. Most sincerely want to see justice done and when they prosecute, they really believe they are prosecuting the right person. During the AJ interview, it was difficult for the DA to admit they probably prosecuted the wrong man. I got the impression that he still thought Clarence "might" have had some part in the murder but with the nieces recantation and the exonerating DNA evidence -- they had no case and had dropped all the charges.


Funny you bring him up regarding new evidence. I just saw something on this case last week. I think it just takes a lawyer to bring a motion to get the wheels in motion. Of course, the court has to agree that it is enough to merit a new trial. But then judges aren't glued to thei outcome of another judge's trial.

Holding onto secret evidence could mean very simply that Scott would not even be around to exonerate. You alwys have to keep in mind that men are killed in prison all the time. So keeping this "new" evidence a "secret" is hurting Scott.

[deputydi]

Funny you bring him up regarding new evidence. I just saw something on this case last week. I think it just takes a lawyer to bring a motion to get the wheels in motion. Of course, the court has to agree that it is enough to merit a new trial. But then judges aren't glued to thei outcome of another judge's trial.

Holding onto secret evidence could mean very simply that Scott would not even be around to exonerate. You alwys have to keep in mind that men are killed in prison all the time. So keeping this "new" evidence a "secret" is hurting Scott.
You're right -- the wheels are set in motion by an attorney but he has to get a judge to listen to him. This is extremely difficult to do. Once a jury has spoken, the new evidence must be overwhelmingly exculpatory. In this case, IIRC, the DA argued against the motion to overturn because they felt he probably had an accomplice. My memory is a little foggy on how many Judges turned them down before they finally found one who would hear their new evidence. I'm going to do a little more research to refresh my memory.

[deputydi]

Here is the transcript of Larry King's interview with Melissa Elkins, Clarence Elkins, Brooke Sutton (the niece who was 6 at the time of the attack), and Mark Godsey (attorney for the Elkins family):

KING: Mark Godsey, as soon as Brooke recanted her identification and her statement why wasn't he let out of jail right away?

GODSEY: Well, yes, they went to court at that time with the recantation and the court rejected it and said that's not enough and that's pretty much par for the course. Judges are very reluctant to overturn these convictions and prosecutors stand by their convictions and, you know, they sort of jealously guard them and they don't let anything stand in their way.

In fact, you know, to take it even beyond that she recanted in 2002 and he wasn't let out of prison but then we did DNA testing and had results showing that he didn't commit this crime in 2004 and it wasn't until we actually went out and proved who the true perpetrator was in December of 2005 that he was let go. So, even once we had DNA evidence proving that he didn't do it, he remained in prison for another year and a half.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/26/lkl.01.html

[attorneywan2be]

Here's the problem, Aw2b. Facts are not beliefs. When you say factually innocent, you are saying that the "facts" don't prove his guilt, not only that, but that the facts prove his innocence (not even his not-guilty).

Exactly..I believe he is FACTUALLY innocent...I believe the facts presented in court prove his innocence not his guilt.. that is my belief..

I hope you do understand that:

Belief = Opinion

[attorneywan2be]

Here is the transcript of Larry King's interview with Melissa Elkins, Clarence Elkins, Brooke Sutton (the niece who was 6 at the time of the attack), and Mark Godsey (attorney for the Elkins family):


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/26/lkl.01.html

From your link:

[In fact, you know, to take it even beyond that she recanted in 2002 and he wasn't let out of prison but then we did DNA testing and had results showing that he didn't commit this crime in 2004 and it wasn't until we actually went out and proved who the true perpetrator was in December of 2005 that he was let go. So, even once we had DNA evidence proving that he didn't do it, he remained in prison for another year and a half. ]

Thanks DD for posting this..that proves my point...it is time consuming and it is a very complex process for a defendant to prove his innocence based on newly discovered evidence even when biological evidence is involved...based on the example above, the DNA results showed that he didn't commit the crime...yet he remained in prison for another year and a half until he was released AFTER his defense proved who the true perpetrator was...!!

IMO, this is outrageous...the process should be much easier than that..!

[deputydi]

From your link:

[In fact, you know, to take it even beyond that she recanted in 2002 and he wasn't let out of prison but then we did DNA testing and had results showing that he didn't commit this crime in 2004 and it wasn't until we actually went out and proved who the true perpetrator was in December of 2005 that he was let go. So, even once we had DNA evidence proving that he didn't do it, he remained in prison for another year and a half. ]

Thanks DD for posting this..that proves my point...it is time consuming and it is a very complex process for a defendant to prove his innocence based on newly discovered evidence even when biological evidence is involved...based on the example above, the DNA results showed that he didn't commit the crime...yet he remained in prison for another year and a half until he was released AFTER his defense proved who the true perpetrator was...!!

IMO, this is outrageous...the process should be much easier than that..!
I agree the process shouldn't be so laborious when DNA evidence can prove beyond any doubt that someone is innocent. I believe the Innocence Project is doing wonderful work. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of these convictions happened before DNA testing was an option. The Elkins case also proves how totally unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Brooke may have only been 6 at the time of the attacks, but she knew her Uncle Clarence and wasn't trying to identify a stranger. Yet, she was a scared, traumatized little girl who initially said the attacker "looked and sounded" like Uncle Clarence. This innocent statement was blown all out of proportion.

[Wearing A Halo]

Exactly..I believe he is FACTUALLY innocent...I believe the facts presented in court prove his innocence not his guilt.. that is my belief..

I hope you do understand that:

Belief = Opinion

I totally disagree with "Belief = Opinion."

[attorneywan2be]

I agree the process shouldn't be so laborious when DNA evidence can prove beyond any doubt that someone is innocent. I believe the Innocence Project is doing wonderful work. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of these convictions happened before DNA testing was an option. The Elkins case also proves how totally unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Brooke may have only been 6 at the time of the attacks, but she knew her Uncle Clarence and wasn't trying to identify a stranger. Yet, she was a scared, traumatized little girl who initially said the attacker "looked and sounded" like Uncle Clarence. This innocent statement was blown all out of proportion.


I agree the Innocence Project is doing wonderful work..unfortunately, the process of proving their innocence is much more cumbersome in cases where biological evidence is not involved...

[attorneywan2be]

I totally disagree with "Belief = Opinion."

o·pin·ion

–noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

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


be·lief

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

[attorneywan2be]

Well the NGs believe it because another NG lied to them. They only believe lies as we are already well aware.

Example:

poster (liar, imo): I have info that will free Scott, but I can't post it now. I sent it to his attorneys.

What was sent?

poster: Well I can't state all of it, but will just say it has to do with Sharon and how everyone in her family are all criminals.

The NGs are all giddy now. This same liar pulls this game on them weekly and they fall for it, hook line and sinker. Joke is on them all the time. I'm starting to doubt this person is an NG. It's having too much fun pulling the wool over their eyes. Clearly it isn't that hard.

:seeya:


I would like to make something very clear...NGs do not agree on everything..PERIOD!...for example, I strongly disagree that Sharon, Ron or anyone in their families had anything to do with this case..
My theory is based on the burglars abducting Laci after she walked McKenzie...

[Wearing A Halo]

o·pin·ion

–noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

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


be·lief

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute.

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=opinion+

BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief+

[Wearing A Halo]

I would like to make something very clear...NGs do not agree on everything..PERIOD!...for example, I strongly disagree that Sharon, Ron or anyone in their families had anything to do with this case..
My theory is based on the burglars abducting Laci after she walked McKenzie...

AW2B are you saying that the JD GROUP don't agree with each other?

[accordn2me]

I would like to make something very clear...NGs do not agree on everything..PERIOD!...for example, I strongly disagree that Sharon, Ron or anyone in their families had anything to do with this case..
My theory is based on the burglars abducting Laci after she walked McKenzie..."The burglars" are old news. Unless there is some DNA proving "the burglars" abducted Laci, I think the "new evidence" claim is not going to make it past a judge's chambers. We all know there's not any suspicious DNA on the two bodies. Was the house even tested for DNA?

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B are you saying that the JD GROUP don't agree with each other?


I'm not part of that group..so I have no idea..

[attorneywan2be]

"The burglars" are old news. Unless there is some DNA proving "the burglars" abducted Laci, I think the "new evidence" claim is not going to make it past a judge's chambers. We all know there's not any suspicious DNA on the two bodies. Was the house even tested for DNA?

Whose house?

Are you saying that DNA is the only evidence that could prove someone's involvement?

[accordn2me]

Whose house?

Are you saying that DNA is the only evidence that could prove someone's involvement?Laci's house.

And pretty much in this particular case, yes, DNA it would have to be, IMO. What else could prove someone's involvement?

Let me ask you this: Was anything about Tracey (the place) mentioned in the trial? I know I've seen it discussed on this board but since I have no frame of reference, I didn't pay attention to the posts.

[Wearing A Halo]

I'm not part of that group..so I have no idea..

Yes you are AW2B. Are you, AW2B, distancing yourself from this group?

[Lavindar]

Laci's house.

And pretty much in this particular case, yes, DNA it would have to be, IMO. What else could prove someone's involvement?

Let me ask you this: Was anything about Tracey (the place) mentioned in the trial? I know I've seen it discussed on this board but since I have no frame of reference, I didn't pay attention to the posts.



Yes there is testimony on it. Read Mears for the prosecution. He's the San Joaquin Sheriff's department who talks about the tracy locataion. Very interesting testimony, too.

[TopGunner]

Whose house?

Are you saying that DNA is the only evidence that could prove someone's involvement?

AW2B, you're forever saying that you believe ISP is "factually innocent" due to lack of evidence. The trial lasted for MONTHS, not a day or two, because it took MONTHS to present all the evidence that convicted ISP and that you deny.

So tell me AW2B, other than DNA, what evidence is there to support a kidnapping while Laci was walking?
:no:

[accordn2me]

Yes there is testimony on it. Read Mears for the prosecution. He's the San Joaquin Sheriff's department who talks about the tracy locataion. Very interesting testimony, too.I love goats with their rectangular shaped pupils and curious expressions. Goats are groovy. :hat:

[attorneywan2be]

Yes you are AW2B. Are you, AW2B, distancing yourself from this group?


This is my last post regarding this subject:

I'm not part of the JD group..and no, there is no reason for me to distance myself from the group...every group that supports Scott's innocence and works diligently, collectively or singly, to help him prove his innocence has my respect..whether we agree or not on certain issues, I respect their convictions and their tireless efforts to help someone they believe was wrongfully convicted..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, you're forever saying that you believe ISP is "factually innocent" due to lack of evidence. The trial lasted for MONTHS, not a day or two, because it took MONTHS to present all the evidence that convicted ISP and that you deny.

So tell me AW2B, other than DNA, what evidence is there to support a kidnapping while Laci was walking?
:no:


Laci's missing jewelry..the Croton watch for example..

[Lavindar]

Laci's missing jewelry..the Croton watch for example..

One watch was allegedly missing. I read somewhere that it was among the jewelry sitting out on her dresser.

Oh, btw. I've been looking at many pictures of Laci and have seen no ostentatious diamonds on her in any picture. She was not wearing them Dec 14 at the Christmas part; she was not wearing them in the video of her in a black dress and she was not wearing them in a picture of her and Scott in front of a Christmas tree (again with her in a dressy dress.

The Croton watch is a red herring of Geragos's, plain and simple. A tantilizing hint that he put out there and never followed up on. All style; no substance

[Wearing A Halo]

This is my last post regarding this subject:

I'm not part of the JD group..and no, there is no reason for me to distance myself from the group...every group that supports Scott's innocence and works diligently, collectively or singly, to help him prove his innocence has my respect..whether we agree or not on certain issues, I respect their convictions and their tireless efforts to help someone they believe was wrongfully convicted..


http://web.archive.org/web/20050211072430/www.justice4scott.com/doubt.htm

The links below are thoughts written by a group called JD that have been closely following the case. Everyone of us has read the transcripts from the preliminary hearing, through the trial transcripts.

X-Juror #5
Dixie Legal-eeze
The State has NO EVIDENCE
Presumption of Innocence
Execution By Media
Trial of the Century
Travesty of Justice
I am the World
If It Doesn't Fit
Bombshell
Talking Heads Sell
Golfing vs. Fishing
Reasonable Doubt
WHERE ARE THE FLAGS
Laci's Cell Phone

The "thoughts" in bold are written by you AW2B

[attorneywan2be]

http://web.archive.org/web/20050211072430/www.justice4scott.com/doubt.htm

The links below are thoughts written by a group called JD that have been closely following the case. Everyone of us has read the transcripts from the preliminary hearing, through the trial transcripts.

X-Juror #5
Dixie Legal-eeze
The State has NO EVIDENCE
Presumption of Innocence
Execution By Media
Trial of the Century
Travesty of Justice
I am the World
If It Doesn't Fit
Bombshell
Talking Heads Sell
Golfing vs. Fishing
Reasonable Doubt
WHERE ARE THE FLAGS
Laci's Cell Phone

The "thoughts" in bold are written by you AW2B

That was longtime ago..it was during the trial..those were posts I have written on the old Scott Peterson Forum on CTV..they asked my permission to post them on their website...so for over 2 years I have no contact with that group...!

[Wearing A Halo]

That was longtime ago..it was during the trial..those were posts I have written on the old Scott Peterson Forum on CTV..they asked my permission to post them on their website...so for over 2 years I have no contact with that group...!

So you have distanced yourself from the group!

You still never answered about Jane Hamilton and her source about the pawned watch.

[attorneywan2be]

So you have distanced yourself from the group!

You still never answered about Jane Hamilton and her source about the pawned watch.

Again..the mere fact that I'm not part of their group or not being in contact with them doesn't not mean I'm distancing myself from them...it simply means we are not working together..nothing more...nothing less..

As to Jane Hamilton's source..you should address your question to her..I got my information about the Croton watch independently and I already posted about it here..

Again..I don't like to discuss other message boards...let's stay on topic ...thanks!

[Wearing A Halo]

Again..the mere fact that I'm not part of their group or not being in contact with them doesn't not mean I'm distancing myself from them...it simply means we are not working together..nothing more...nothing less..

As to Jane Hamilton's source..you should address your question to her..I got my information about the Croton watch independently and I already posted about it here..

Again..I don't like to discuss other message boards...let's stay on topic ...thanks!

Right.;)

The watch was found. Read the testimony from Ray Coyle, MPD Detective.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Coyle.htm#direct

Direct Examination by Rick Distaso

DISTASO: On the 27th, did you go back during the daytime and do a more thorough search of the bedroom?

COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Overruled.

DISTASO: And on that date, did you look for some items of jewelry?

COYLE: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Were those items of jewelry named in the search warrant?

COYLE: Yes.

DISTASO: Let me show you People's 20. I'm sorry, People's 8. This. What are we looking at here?

COYLE: That's the tray, the wooden tray out of the jewelry box that was on the dresser. There is a couple of solitaire pendants that I laid out, because I didn't have a really good description. But it was asking for a solitaire pendant necklace. Search warrant asked for a watch, ladies watch, had some stones around the outside of it. I found that in that jewelry box as well. Then next to that is a blue and white stoned ring. I believe they were sapphires and diamonds. But I'm not a jeweler.

DISTASO: These are some of the jewelry items that you remember pulling out of the jewelry box that was on top of the dresser?

COYLE: Yes.

***************

DISTASO: This is 111-G. It's just a, the items all laid out. Do you see the jewelry items back behind the placard number 14?

COYLE: Yes.

*****************

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: Okay. After you, did you point out anything besides the placard that I showed or that's up there with the life, that pertain to the life insurance and the comforter that you put, that the jury's looking at right now, did you point out anything else at the house?

COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: What else?

COYLE: Numerous items. Several pieces of jewelry, a diary out of the dresser, a pair of shoes out of the closet, passports, a Social Security card. I believe I also found a checkbook that I pointed out in the bedroom, the other bedroom. I can't recall whether that was taken into evidence or not.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, when you were in the bedroom, did you look for, were you looking for some black maternity pants?

COYLE: Yes.

************

MG never, ever, asked MPD Detective Ray Coyle about the watch!

Again I ask, where can I find a link to People's Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

and

People's 111-G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

:shrug:

[Cadillakin]

Again I ask, where can I find a link to People's Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

and

People's 111-G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

:shrug:Gosh, You're good.

I haven't really had much interest in the croton watch but this is what it seems to me; Correct me where I'm wrong.. Scott tried to sell it on Ebay two weeks before Laci went missing without success. Then, Coyle observed it after Laci was murdered, as your quoted testimony points out.... and later it went missing like Scott's wife...

So, if it was there after Laci was murdered, how is it an issue? That obviously exempts Renfro and everybody else from stealing it during the kidnapping/murder..:confused: .

[attorneywan2be]

Right.;)

The watch was found. Read the testimony from Ray Coyle, MPD Detective.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Coyle.htm#direct

Direct Examination by Rick Distaso

DISTASO: On the 27th, did you go back during the daytime and do a more thorough search of the bedroom?

COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Overruled.

DISTASO: And on that date, did you look for some items of jewelry?

COYLE: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Were those items of jewelry named in the search warrant?

COYLE: Yes.

DISTASO: Let me show you People's 20. I'm sorry, People's 8. This. What are we looking at here?

COYLE: That's the tray, the wooden tray out of the jewelry box that was on the dresser. There is a couple of solitaire pendants that I laid out, because I didn't have a really good description. But it was asking for a solitaire pendant necklace. Search warrant asked for a watch, ladies watch, had some stones around the outside of it. I found that in that jewelry box as well. Then next to that is a blue and white stoned ring. I believe they were sapphires and diamonds. But I'm not a jeweler.

DISTASO: These are some of the jewelry items that you remember pulling out of the jewelry box that was on top of the dresser?

COYLE: Yes.

***************

DISTASO: This is 111-G. It's just a, the items all laid out. Do you see the jewelry items back behind the placard number 14?

COYLE: Yes.

*****************

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: Okay. After you, did you point out anything besides the placard that I showed or that's up there with the life, that pertain to the life insurance and the comforter that you put, that the jury's looking at right now, did you point out anything else at the house?

COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: What else?

COYLE: Numerous items. Several pieces of jewelry, a diary out of the dresser, a pair of shoes out of the closet, passports, a Social Security card. I believe I also found a checkbook that I pointed out in the bedroom, the other bedroom. I can't recall whether that was taken into evidence or not.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, when you were in the bedroom, did you look for, were you looking for some black maternity pants?

COYLE: Yes.

************

MG never, ever, asked MPD Detective Ray Coyle about the watch!

Again I ask, where can I find a link to People's Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

and

People's 111-G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

:shrug:

1-The testimony you quoted made no mention of the Croton watch..Laci had couple of gold/diamond watches..even the prosecution didn't claim it was recovered...

2-You failed to mention this testimony:

Birgit Fladager: And of all the various watches, necklaces, or bracelets, earrings that you saw in that videotape, to your knowledge were all of those recovered except for one item?
Craig Grogan: The Croton watch was not recovered. Some of the chains may have sold on Ebay. Certainly the Mickey Mouse watch sold on Ebay
-----------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. So what we've got missing is the, you don't find the older screw-on diamond earrings, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: And we've got one watch, at least, that's unaccounted for; which is this Croton watch, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That one's unaccounted for.
Mark Geragos: Unaccounted for. And I'll get into that in a little detail later, because you did a lot of investigation on that. But you were keenly interested in that to determine if she was wearing the Croton watch when she went walking, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes

[TopGunner]

1-The testimony you quoted made no mention of the Croton watch..Laci had couple of gold/diamond watches..even the prosecution didn't claim it was recovered...

2-You failed to mention this testimony:

Birgit Fladager: And of all the various watches, necklaces, or bracelets, earrings that you saw in that videotape, to your knowledge were all of those recovered except for one item?
Craig Grogan: The Croton watch was not recovered. Some of the chains may have sold on Ebay. Certainly the Mickey Mouse watch sold on Ebay
-----------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. So what we've got missing is the, you don't find the older screw-on diamond earrings, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: And we've got one watch, at least, that's unaccounted for; which is this Croton watch, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That one's unaccounted for.
Mark Geragos: Unaccounted for. And I'll get into that in a little detail later, because you did a lot of investigation on that. But you were keenly interested in that to determine if she was wearing the Croton watch when she went walking, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes

Wow, what a contradiction AW2B. There's no testimony that you've quoted that states the watch at the pawn shop was Laci's. In fact, other than a predictable Geregos spaz-attack with a RECEIPT, there was and remains absolutely NOTHING to prove that the watch without diamonds and with scratches was Laci's. Geez..:no:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I'm saving that post. You're the one who lacks understanding and your post doesn't fly. Post the information that you are going by. link please Why so secretive? Talking in circles is really more like it, imo. Prove Scott will be exhonerated. How are we to believe you since you never prove it? Words just flowing from your fingers don't mean a thing, imo.

Might want to think about this statement, fyi:

"time will tell"

Scott doesn't have time. tick tick tick he's closer to the death chamber every day.

:beer:

Not much closer, years to go.

imo

[Lavindar]

Right.;)

The watch was found. Read the testimony from Ray Coyle, MPD Detective.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Coyle.htm#direct

Direct Examination by Rick Distaso

DISTASO: On the 27th, did you go back during the daytime and do a more thorough search of the bedroom?

COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.

JUDGE: Overruled.

DISTASO: And on that date, did you look for some items of jewelry?

COYLE: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Were those items of jewelry named in the search warrant?

COYLE: Yes.

DISTASO: Let me show you People's 20. I'm sorry, People's 8. This. What are we looking at here?

COYLE: That's the tray, the wooden tray out of the jewelry box that was on the dresser. There is a couple of solitaire pendants that I laid out, because I didn't have a really good description. But it was asking for a solitaire pendant necklace. Search warrant asked for a watch, ladies watch, had some stones around the outside of it. I found that in that jewelry box as well. Then next to that is a blue and white stoned ring. I believe they were sapphires and diamonds. But I'm not a jeweler.

DISTASO: These are some of the jewelry items that you remember pulling out of the jewelry box that was on top of the dresser?

COYLE: Yes.

***************

DISTASO: This is 111-G. It's just a, the items all laid out. Do you see the jewelry items back behind the placard number 14?

COYLE: Yes.

*****************

Cross Examination by Mark Geragos

GERAGOS: Okay. After you, did you point out anything besides the placard that I showed or that's up there with the life, that pertain to the life insurance and the comforter that you put, that the jury's looking at right now, did you point out anything else at the house?

COYLE: Yes.

GERAGOS: What else?

COYLE: Numerous items. Several pieces of jewelry, a diary out of the dresser, a pair of shoes out of the closet, passports, a Social Security card. I believe I also found a checkbook that I pointed out in the bedroom, the other bedroom. I can't recall whether that was taken into evidence or not.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, when you were in the bedroom, did you look for, were you looking for some black maternity pants?

COYLE: Yes.

************

MG never, ever, asked MPD Detective Ray Coyle about the watch!

Again I ask, where can I find a link to People's Exhibit 8: Photo of some of the jewelry that Laci inherited; shows sapphire ring, a diamond-faced watch, two diamond pendants.

and

People's 111-G: Jewelry box with passports/social security card and jewelry (Master Bedroom).

:shrug:

Great find and it would explain why exhibit 8 is not in Marlene's list (the watch is a big thing with the scott is innocent group. I also could not find the drawing of Conner with the twine around his neck AND arm there.

Selective listings I would say.

[Lavindar]

1-The testimony you quoted made no mention of the Croton watch..Laci had couple of gold/diamond watches..even the prosecution didn't claim it was recovered...

2-You failed to mention this testimony:

Birgit Fladager: And of all the various watches, necklaces, or bracelets, earrings that you saw in that videotape, to your knowledge were all of those recovered except for one item?
Craig Grogan: The Croton watch was not recovered. Some of the chains may have sold on Ebay. Certainly the Mickey Mouse watch sold on Ebay
-----------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. So what we've got missing is the, you don't find the older screw-on diamond earrings, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: And we've got one watch, at least, that's unaccounted for; which is this Croton watch, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That one's unaccounted for.
Mark Geragos: Unaccounted for. And I'll get into that in a little detail later, because you did a lot of investigation on that. But you were keenly interested in that to determine if she was wearing the Croton watch when she went walking, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes

Link ro Laci having several gold/diamond bracelets.

[attorneywan2be]

Great find and it would explain why exhibit 8 is not in Marlene's list (the watch is a big thing with the scott is innocent group. I also could not find the drawing of Conner with the twine around his neck AND arm there.

Selective listings I would say.


The drawing of Conner with the twine around his neck is not an exhibit...it is a drawing published by the media..I think it was Dan Abrams...!

[attorneywan2be]

Link ro Laci having several gold/diamond bracelets.

You meant watches..

I stated that Laci had COUPLE of gold/diamond watches...

1-the Croton watch was gold and had diamonds around the face according to the ebay listing..that watch was not recovered or accounted for according to Grogan ( I already posted the testimony)
2-the Genevieve watch was gold and also had diamonds around the face and that was recovered according to Grogan..

Mark Geragos: And he told you that she had been wearing diamond earrings and she had two diamond-encrusted gold wrist watches and she had been wearing one of them; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you determined, at least at this point in your mind; or not, do you have any information on December 30th as to the watches that she had inherited?
Craig Grogan: No. I knew that we had recovered the, the Genevieve watch and that it had diamonds around the face of it and it was gold. And as far as the investigation into what exactly all she received in the inheritance, that took a long time to get through.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And at that point he's the one who is giving you the, he's the main source of information, looking back, on the 30th, because you don't have any of that at that point; you haven't done that investigation yet?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you found the Genevieve when you did the search; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. But you did, when did you the search you were unable to find this Croton watch; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. It wasn't there when we were searching for it on the 26th, 27th. Didn't know it even existed until I talked to Maria Rocha, Robin Maria Rocha, much later.

[TopGunner]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8980520]You meant watches..

I stated that Laci had COUPLE of gold/diamond watches...

1-the Croton watch was gold and had diamonds around the face according to the ebay listing..that watch was not recovered or accounted for according to Grogan ( I already posted the testimony)
2-the Genevieve watch was gold and also had diamonds around the face and that was recovered according to Grogan..

Mark Geragos: And he told you that she had been wearing diamond earrings and she had two diamond-encrusted gold wrist watches and she had been wearing one of them; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you determined, at least at this point in your mind; or not, do you have any information on December 30th as to the watches that she had inherited?
Craig Grogan: No. I knew that we had recovered the, the Genevieve watch and that it had diamonds around the face of it and it was gold. And as far as the investigation into what exactly all she received in the inheritance, that took a long time to get through.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And at that point he's the one who is giving you the, he's the main source of information, looking back, on the 30th, because you don't have any of that at that point; you haven't done that investigation yet?
Craig Grogan: That

[TopGunner]

My computer wigged out on me, lost my reply.

What I said AW2B, in regards to the above, is HOW DO YOU KNOW THE CROTON WATCH ISN'T STILL ON LACI'S WRIST ON THEE BOTTOM OF THE BAY?:shrug:

[Lavindar]

My computer wigged out on me, lost my reply.

What I said AW2B, in regards to the above, is HOW DO YOU KNOW THE CROTON WATCH ISN'T STILL ON LACI'S WRIST ON THEE BOTTOM OF THE BAY?:shrug:
I think the Petersons probably know. I can't see them offering a reward that they ever expect ANYONE to claim. You can be sure if Deanna Renfro has Laci's Croton watch (which I do not believe for a nanosecond that she does), she'd sure like to get her hands on that money.

Didn't someone turn in the burglars for only $1,000 reward? There's not a lot of honor among thieves.

[cookiewench]

I thought the Croton watch wasn't even working?

[TopGunner]

I think the Petersons probably know. I can't see them offering a reward that they ever expect ANYONE to claim. You can be sure if Deanna Renfro has Laci's Croton watch (which I do not believe for a nanosecond that she does), she'd sure like to get her hands on that money.

Didn't someone turn in the burglars for only $1,000 reward? There's not a lot of honor among thieves.

Rarely do I disagree with you Lav. In fact never, but this is the exception. I can absolutely see the Peterson's tossing that reward out while knowing full well where that watch is. It's probably in JP's dresser drawer.
:biggrin:

[deputydi]

I thought the Croton watch wasn't even working?
I didn't either -- I thought the battery was dead. Maybe I'm the odd one here, but I can't imagine any woman putting on an expensive diamond crusted watch to take the dog for a walk, scrub the floors and bake cookies. Especially one that wasn't working and that she didn't even like.

The watch is just one of the things in this case that will always be a mystery. I don't know what happened to it and, I guess, we'll just never know. I am convinced, however, it's not the watch Deanna Renfro pawned. If MG thought it was the same watch, I have no doubt he would have subpoened DR and had her produce the watch. He didn't.

[cookiewench]

I had that wrong about the watch being non-running.

Laci said it was "not her style" and Amy said that Laci had "turned her nose up at it". That's why it was being offered on Ebay.

Are we supposed to believe that Laci had no other watch, and that after she finished mopping she put on a diamond-encrusted watch that she didn't even like - to go walk the dog?


And I think it's a good possibility that Jackie DOES have that watch! She couldn't get Laci's diamond ring, so she settled for the watch.

Either that - or she took it to help Scott cover up the crime.

[Lavindar]

Rarely do I disagree with you Lav. In fact never, but this is the exception. I can absolutely see the Peterson's tossing that reward out while knowing full well where that watch is. It's probably in JP's dresser drawer.
:biggrin:


Lol, you are not disagreeing with me. My point was that I think the Petersons put that reward out there to make themselves look good. They know full well that Laci's watch is not going to show up and NO ONE will collect that reward

[deputydi]

I had that wrong about the watch being non-running.

Laci said it was "not her style" and Amy said that Laci had "turned her nose up at it". That's why it was being offered on Ebay.

Are we supposed to believe that Laci had no other watch, and that after she finished mopping she put on a diamond-encrusted watch that she didn't even like - to go walk the dog?


And I think it's a good possibility that Jackie DOES have that watch! She couldn't get Laci's diamond ring, so she settled for the watch.

Either that - or she took it to help Scott cover up the crime.
I think there was something about an insurance video that showed the watch wasn't running. ???

Jackie could have the watch but why would she pick that particular item? It's possible that, when the watch didn't sell on ebay, Scott and/or Laci gave the watch to Jackie and she just "forgot" to mention it to anyone. I hadn't thought of this before. I don't believe Laci was wearing it when she supposedly took McKenzie for a walk that morning and that explanation seems more possible than any other. I don't think she would have had an opportunity to take the watch. Weren't the detectives in the house before Jackie and Lee even arrived in Modesto?

[Wearing A Halo]

1-The testimony you quoted made no mention of the Croton watch..Laci had couple of gold/diamond watches..even the prosecution didn't claim it was recovered...

2-You failed to mention this testimony:

Birgit Fladager: And of all the various watches, necklaces, or bracelets, earrings that you saw in that videotape, to your knowledge were all of those recovered except for one item?
Craig Grogan: The Croton watch was not recovered. Some of the chains may have sold on Ebay. Certainly the Mickey Mouse watch sold on Ebay
-----------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. So what we've got missing is the, you don't find the older screw-on diamond earrings, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: And we've got one watch, at least, that's unaccounted for; which is this Croton watch, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That one's unaccounted for.
Mark Geragos: Unaccounted for. And I'll get into that in a little detail later, because you did a lot of investigation on that. But you were keenly interested in that to determine if she was wearing the Croton watch when she went walking, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes

Nope, it is not me who has failed to mention anything regarding the Croton watch. In fact, it is your very own DRISP who failed to mention anything about Laci wearing any jewelry, including Croton, when describing what Laci was wearing that morning of 12/24/02. Read the interview of Det. Brocchini and DRISP.

He goes as far as:

PETERSON: Naw, I mean, like I said though I don’t think they’d come up to her and accosted her in anyway ah, you know, she has times said she’s felt uncomfortable and, thankful she has the dog, ah, we’ve called you know the police a couple times about people down there just to get ‘em to move on, you know and it’s ah not uncommon for Laci or myself ta, you know, wake one of these guys, or ladies up and tell him to get lost.

*************
Next day DRISP talks with Det. Grogan:

FLADAGER: Did he give you a theory, his theory, for what had happened to his wife?

GROGAN: Yes .

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That she had been wearing jewelry that she had inherited from her grandmother and that he had seen her wearing on that morning. And when she went into the park a transient had robbed her for the jewelry and taken her.

**********
GERAGOS: Okay. Except specifically, on the 26th, Scott had said she, the ones that she was wearing, the diamond earrings were older and that she had specifically on a watch with diamonds around the face, which you interpreted to be one of the inherited items, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. But you did, when did you the search you were unable to find this Croton watch; is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes. It wasn't there when we were searching for it on the 26th, 27th. Didn't know it even existed until I talked to Maria Rocha, Robin Maria Rocha, much later.

GROGAN: He told me that she was wearing diamond earrings and that she had two diamondencrusted wrist watches, were gold, and that she was wearing one of them. And I think that's all that was discussed in that.

It is DRISP who never mentions the watch being the Croton watch.

Then this with Mansfield, CA DOJ:

HARRIS: And did he describe anything else in terms of jewelry?

MANSFIELD: Yes, he did. He indicated she was wearing a ring and a watch and necklace.

GERAGOS: He said Laci was wearing jewelry when she left the residence, correct?

MANSFIELD: Earrings, watch, ring, necklace.

It is DRISP who never mentions the watch being the Croton watch.

It is a fact that pursuant to the search warrant, the MPD found the watch pursuant to what DRISP told them Laci was wearing that morning of 12/24/02, "a watch with diamonds around the face."

FLADAGER: Let's talk with jewelry for a minute. Were you looking for jewelry during the course of the search warrant as well?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: Why?

GROGAN: Because we were also told that they was wearing certain jewelry on December 24th just before he left the home.

FLADAGER: Now, the jewelry, was jewelry located during the service of the search warrant?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: That was photographed?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And items that he had described to you in your presence, were those items found within the house?

GROGAN: It appeared so.

FLADAGER: So they were not missing?

GROGAN: No.

It is DRISP who never mentions the watch being the Croton watch.

[cookiewench]

I think there was something about an insurance video that showed the watch wasn't running. ???

Jackie could have the watch but why would she pick that particular item? It's possible that, when the watch didn't sell on ebay, Scott and/or Laci gave the watch to Jackie and she just "forgot" to mention it to anyone. I hadn't thought of this before. I don't believe Laci was wearing it when she supposedly took McKenzie for a walk that morning and that explanation seems more possible than any other. I don't think she would have had an opportunity to take the watch. Weren't the detectives in the house before Jackie and Lee even arrived in Modesto?


It's possible that Scott figured it would look good if at least a couple of pieces of jewelry were missing, so he picked the Croton because he had found out it wouldn't sell on Ebay, anyway.

But I'm more inclined to believe that when it didn't sell on Ebay, Scott sold it on the street for some quick cash, knowing that Laci wouldn't be around to notice it was missing.

[Lavindar]

I think there was something about an insurance video that showed the watch wasn't running. ???

Jackie could have the watch but why would she pick that particular item? It's possible that, when the watch didn't sell on ebay, Scott and/or Laci gave the watch to Jackie and she just "forgot" to mention it to anyone. I hadn't thought of this before. I don't believe Laci was wearing it when she supposedly took McKenzie for a walk that morning and that explanation seems more possible than any other. I don't think she would have had an opportunity to take the watch. Weren't the detectives in the house before Jackie and Lee even arrived in Modesto?

But was the information on the watch put out to the public at that time. I know the jewelry was sitting in plain view, but was anything done with it? If Jackie already has the watch, she would know it. Jackie is not the time to forget ANYTHING of value imo. However, I do believe she believes the watch will never be found.

[deputydi]

But was the information on the watch put out to the public at that time. I know the jewelry was sitting in plain view, but was anything done with it? If Jackie already has the watch, she would know it. Jackie is not the time to forget ANYTHING of value imo. However, I do believe she believes the watch will never be found.
I didn't mean for a minute that she actually forgot about the watch. That's why I put it in quotes. I think it is likely that Scott and/or Laci gave it to her and she just isn't bothering to tell anyone. She is absolutely aware of the controversy surrounding the Croton and she and Lee are not talking. I think that watch is definitely more Jackie's style than Laci's. Too bad she'll never get to wear it -- I would guess she could be charged with obstruction, at the very least.

[Lavindar]

I didn't mean for a minute that she actually forgot about the watch. That's why I put it in quotes. I think it is likely that Scott and/or Laci gave it to her and she just isn't bothering to tell anyone. She is absolutely aware of the controversy surrounding the Croton and she and Lee are not talking. I think that watch is definitely more Jackie's style than Laci's. Too bad she'll never get to wear it -- I would guess she could be charged with obstruction, at the very least.


Personally, I think she should have been charged with accessory after hte fact. I think there is plenty of evidence for that.

[deputydi]

Personally, I think she should have been charged with accessory after hte fact. I think there is plenty of evidence for that.
I totally agree. IMO Jackie knows way more than she is admitting.

[TopGunner]

Personally, I think she should have been charged with accessory after hte fact. I think there is plenty of evidence for that.

Personally I loved the way JP behaved. She provided humor in an otherwise horribly tragic time, i.e., her lies, keeping Sharon from Laci's belongings, requesting that Laci's burial be postponed until her murderer was "exonerated" and even the 800 tip line, set-up to intercede any leads pointing to the golden child's guilt was NEON LIGHTS. It all proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a.) She knew he did it, and B.) This is how he became who he is: a cold blooded, caculating murderer.

I really don't know which one thought they were more clever, maybe we should toss a coin....:cuss:

[deputydi]

Personally I loved the way JP behaved. She provided humor in an otherwise horribly tragic time, i.e., her lies, keeping Sharon from Laci's belongings, requesting that Laci's burial be postponed until her murderer was "exonerated" and even the 800 tip line, set-up to intercede any leads pointing to the golden child's guilt was NEON LIGHTS. It all proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a.) She knew he did it, and B.) This is how he became who he is: a cold blooded, caculating murderer.

I really don't know which was thought they were more clever, maybe we should toss a coin....:cuss:

LOL. You know, if the whole thing weren't so darned tragic . . . Oh, what the He** ---- she really did provide comic relief.

[Trixy]

Personally I loved the way JP behaved. She provided humor in an otherwise horribly tragic time, i.e., her lies, keeping Sharon from Laci's belongings, requesting that Laci's burial be postponed until her murderer was "exonerated" and even the 800 tip line, set-up to intercede any leads pointing to the golden child's guilt was NEON LIGHTS. It all proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a.) She knew he did it, and B.) This is how he became who he is: a cold blooded, caculating murderer.

I really don't know which one thought they were more clever, maybe we should toss a coin....:cuss:

I feel the exact same way, but I still wonder why she wasn't charged with purjury. It was so blatent.

[deputydi]

I feel the exact same way, but I still wonder why she wasn't charged with purjury. It was so blatent.
Boy, you got that right. I think one of the reasons she wasn't charged was because it was so obvious she was lying that the pros knew her testimony wasn't going to hurt their chances for conviction -- in fact, she kind of helped them. Seriously though, you almost never see charges of perjury brought -- especially when the liar is part of the defendant's family. It just isn't good strategy.

[enlightenme]

Boy, you got that right. I think one of the reasons she wasn't charged was because it was so obvious she was lying that the pros knew her testimony wasn't going to hurt their chances for conviction -- in fact, she kind of helped them. Seriously though, you almost never see charges of perjury brought -- especially when the liar is part of the defendant's family. It just isn't good strategy.


If I were on the prosecution team, I would have pressed Mrs. Peterson a little harder. Esp. on the account with Scott, Laci, and Jackie's name on it with 10K she apparently "forgot" about. Who has their MIL's or mama's name on a bank account AFTER they are married? Why just her name and not Lee's too, huh?

That alone is kind of strange. And why was Lee giving Scott 5k and Jackie giving Scott money before this? Wasn't it testified to that Lee didn't know Jackie was giving him money and visa-versa? They're giving him this money and all the time there is 10K in an account at his disposal? Don't buy it.

The whole story was contrived and then Jackie's "excuse" why she told Scott to buy a car in HER name....BS!

JHMO

[frydaddy]

If I were on the prosecution team, I would have pressed Mrs. Peterson a little harder. Esp. on the account with Scott, Laci, and Jackie's name on it with 10K she apparently "forgot" about. Who has their MIL's or mama's name on a bank account AFTER they are married? Why just her name and not Lee's too, huh?

That alone is kind of strange. And why was Lee giving Scott 5k and Jackie giving Scott money before this? Wasn't it testified to that Lee didn't know Jackie was giving him money and visa-versa? They're giving him this money and all the time there is 10K in an account at his disposal? Don't buy it.

The whole story was contrived and then Jackie's "excuse" why she told Scott to buy a car in HER name....BS!

JHMO

I have no doubt the Peterson's know their son killed Laci. The bigger question is, WHEN did they know!

;) Nice to see ya!

[enlightenme]

I have no doubt the Peterson's know their son killed Laci. The bigger question is, WHEN did they know!

;) Nice to see ya!

Always nice to be seen by you frydaddy! :seeya:

LOL, I noticed at least one foobar on my post....what the heck does JHMO mean? Just humble, my opinion? :patriot:

[Trixy]

I have no doubt the Peterson's know their son killed Laci. The bigger question is, WHEN did they know!

;) Nice to see ya!

I have no doubt either and believe they don't care.

Good question. Wish I knew the answer, but perhsaps it was around the time Jackie told Scott "deny, deny, deny"?

:shrug:

[frydaddy]

Always nice to be seen by you frydaddy! :seeya:

LOL, I noticed at least one foobar on my post....what the heck does JHMO mean? Just humble, my opinion? :patriot:

Jag Has Many Options

Jackie Had Motive & Opportunity (to lie)

Jello Held Me Over (til dinner)

Janey Has Major Overbite

One I'll PM you, for comedic relief, since this is not the place for certain humor.

At any rate, I think we can forgive you one typo! :)

[enlightenme]

Jag Has Many Options

Jackie Had Motive & Opportunity (to lie)

Jello Held Me Over (til dinner)

Janey Has Major Overbite

One I'll PM you, for comedic relief, since this is not the place for certain humor.

At any rate, I think we can forgive you one typo! :)

Too funny! Thanks for the chuckles....always appreciated!

Cheryl

[Lili007]

1-The testimony you quoted made no mention of the Croton watch..Laci had couple of gold/diamond watches..even the prosecution didn't claim it was recovered...

2-You failed to mention this testimony:

Birgit Fladager: And of all the various watches, necklaces, or bracelets, earrings that you saw in that videotape, to your knowledge were all of those recovered except for one item?
Craig Grogan: The Croton watch was not recovered. Some of the chains may have sold on Ebay. Certainly the Mickey Mouse watch sold on Ebay
-----------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. So what we've got missing is the, you don't find the older screw-on diamond earrings, correct?
Craig Grogan: Right.
Mark Geragos: And we've got one watch, at least, that's unaccounted for; which is this Croton watch, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. That one's unaccounted for.
Mark Geragos: Unaccounted for. And I'll get into that in a little detail later, because you did a lot of investigation on that. But you were keenly interested in that to determine if she was wearing the Croton watch when she went walking, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes

The Mickey Mouse watch was published on Ebay by Scott. Scott was busy listing all sorts of jewellery items on Ebay, INCLUDING the famed Croton watch. If you care to look back at the evidence, I believe the photos he submitted to Ebay of ALL these items AND A LOT MORE are still able to be viewed on another site. Scott did it himself - he recorded it all on video!! LOL

In addition, he took Laci to the pawn shop and pawned some of her inherited jewellery, rented a tux and took Amber to a Christmas party, while he told his wife he was out of town on business and left her to go alone to a couples' Christmas party. How thoughtful and sweet and loving.

If "the thieves" wanted jewellery, they'd rob the shop, not some pregnant lady supposedly walking her dog supposedly wearing a Croton watch that these well-educated thieves knew exactly what it was and that's all they wanted,so they killed her for it. And then disposed of her body where her "loving" husband went to "fish" in his secret boat, telling people he was going golfing, on the day Laci "disappeared".

Some "thieves"! What a lot of trouble to take over a Croton watch!! What connaisseurs! ..........What rubbish!

If you're suggesting that some thieves killed a pregnant woman for her Croton watch, but left all her other jewellery intact and her purse and keys and car at home, while they carried her home after "robbing" her (not knowing where she lived, by the way!) to change her from the black pants and white top that Scott said she was wearing when he left to go golfishing, to the kakhi pants she was found in AND seen wearing the night before, and that her body was found still partially dressed in..... ummm... do I need to say any more?

JMO

[Wearing A Halo]

The Mickey Mouse watch was published on Ebay by Scott. Scott was busy listing all sorts of jewellery items on Ebay, INCLUDING the famed Croton watch. If you care to look back at the evidence, I believe the photos he submitted to Ebay of ALL these items AND A LOT MORE are still able to be viewed on another site. Scott did it himself - he recorded it all on video!! LOL

In addition, he took Laci to the pawn shop and pawned some of her inherited jewellery, rented a tux and took Amber to a Christmas party, while he told his wife he was out of town on business and left her to go alone to a couples' Christmas party. How thoughtful and sweet and loving.

If "the thieves" wanted jewellery, they'd rob the shop, not some pregnant lady supposedly walking her dog supposedly wearing a Croton watch that these well-educated thieves knew exactly what it was and that's all they wanted,so they killed her for it. And then disposed of her body where her "loving" husband went to "fish" in his secret boat, telling people he was going golfing, on the day Laci "disappeared".

Some "thieves"! What a lot of trouble to take over a Croton watch!! What connaisseurs! ..........What rubbish!

If you're suggesting that some thieves killed a pregnant woman for her Croton watch, but left all her other jewellery intact and her purse and keys and car at home, while they carried her home after "robbing" her (not knowing where she lived, by the way!) to change her from the black pants and white top that Scott said she was wearing when he left to go golfishing, to the kakhi pants she was found in AND seen wearing the night before, and that her body was found still partially dressed in..... ummm... do I need to say any more?

JMO

ITA Lili007.

What AW2B fails to understand is that it is DRISP himself who failed to mention that Laci was "wearing" the Croton watch. DRISP knew the inventory of the watches they had and the Croton was the $700.00+ watch listed on ebay. DRISP fully knew had that watch been on Laci he would have said so. Here is another DRISPisms: he doesn't worry about the bums on 12/24, but, worries about them on 12/25. He worries more about the "jewelry" than Laci and Conner. Further more, on 12/25, he is worried that there were reports of a "rapist" lurking around the park, yet on 12/24 he lets her "walk" Mackenzie without him to the park. Gee, it is very disturbing that DRISP didn't even care for Laci and Conner after all. DRISP doesn't even get a feeling, an awareness, at about 10:30 that something uneasy is happening. Instead he declares he is assembling a "yea big" mortiser. Never calls hers to say, 'ok, I am leaving now' some 80+ miles away, some 2+ hours away from home. As much as DRISP disassociated himself from Laci, it is very clear DRISP knew where Laci was and she was with him physically on his solo trip to the bay.

IMO,OC
(SNEERS)

[TopGunner]

ITA Lili007.

What AW2B fails to understand is that it is DRISP himself who failed to mention that Laci was "wearing" the Croton watch. DRISP knew the inventory of the watches they had and the Croton was the $700.00+ watch listed on ebay. DRISP fully knew had that watch been on Laci he would have said so. Here is another DRISPisms: he doesn't worry about the bums on 12/24, but, worries about them on 12/25. He worries more about the "jewelry" than Laci and Conner. Further more, on 12/25, he is worried that there were reports of a "rapist" lurking around the park, yet on 12/24 he lets her "walk" Mackenzie without him to the park. Gee, it is very disturbing that DRISP didn't even care for Laci and Conner after all. DRISP doesn't even get a feeling, an awareness, at about 10:30 that something uneasy is happening. Instead he declares he is assembling a "yea big" mortiser. Never calls hers to say, 'ok, I am leaving now' some 80+ miles away, some 2+ hours away from home. As much as DRISP disassociated himself from Laci, it is very clear DRISP knew where Laci was and she was with him physically on his solo trip to the bay.

IMO,OC
(SNEERS)


Oh yea Halo, I'm sneering right here with you. Disassociated himself? Understatement. That lying murderer couldn't even FAKE a millemeter of a second of sorrow. Disassociated doesn't begin to cut it. The thought that he's so far from a golf course right now, sitting in a cage that reaks with both urine and screaming 24/7, ALMOST calms one down about his day at the bay.:cuss:

[Lili007]

ITA Lili007.

What AW2B fails to understand is that it is DRISP himself who failed to mention that Laci was "wearing" the Croton watch. DRISP knew the inventory of the watches they had and the Croton was the $700.00+ watch listed on ebay. DRISP fully knew had that watch been on Laci he would have said so. Here is another DRISPisms: he doesn't worry about the bums on 12/24, but, worries about them on 12/25. He worries more about the "jewelry" than Laci and Conner. Further more, on 12/25, he is worried that there were reports of a "rapist" lurking around the park, yet on 12/24 he lets her "walk" Mackenzie without him to the park. Gee, it is very disturbing that DRISP didn't even care for Laci and Conner after all. DRISP doesn't even get a feeling, an awareness, at about 10:30 that something uneasy is happening. Instead he declares he is assembling a "yea big" mortiser. Never calls hers to say, 'ok, I am leaving now' some 80+ miles away, some 2+ hours away from home. As much as DRISP disassociated himself from Laci, it is very clear DRISP knew where Laci was and she was with him physically on his solo trip to the bay.

IMO,OC
(SNEERS)


OH, YES!

Who could know it better?

DRISP, as you call him and I remember from way back (LOL), was romancing Amber as volunteers were looking for his "missing" wife. I found that so disgustingly heartless and idiotic, let alone just plain stupid, IMO.

Dissociation is an excellent way to describe it.

JMO

[Lili007]

Oh yea Halo, I'm sneering right here with you. Disassociated himself? Understatement. That lying murderer couldn't even FAKE a millemeter of a second of sorrow. Disassociated doesn't begin to cut it. The thought that he's so far from a golf course right now, sitting in a cage that reaks with both urine and screaming 24/7, ALMOST calms one down about his day at the bay.:cuss:

Well, his day at the bay turned into a lifetime. And he doesn't even get to use his secret boat.

Laci, Conner and their Family :rose:

JMO