SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

[Riviera]

Let's try again ----->

SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

[Otter]

Evidence that points to innocence? Can't think of a thing. After pondering and discussing the case all these years .... nope, not a thing.

Poor Laci and Conner, murdered by the person who was supposed to protect you both with his life. And he took you both, in cold blood.

My opinion only of course, except a jury agrees with me, so its a fact!

[I'mSun]

Evidence that points to innocence? Can't think of a thing. After pondering and discussing the case all these years .... nope, not a thing.

Poor Laci and Conner, murdered by the person who was supposed to protect you both with his life. And he took you both, in cold blood.

My opinion only of course, except a jury agrees with me, so its a fact!I'm right there with you, Otter. When looking at all the evidence, it points to only one person: Scott. I remember when it first hit the airwaves, I
felt so bad for Scott. His beautiful, pregnant wife was missing on Christmas Eve. Laci's family was on TV defending and supporting him which I thought was really nice. Then, little by little things changed. Scott's demeanor was a bit strange, the bodies washing up on the shore very close to where he was golfishing/boat testing, etc., etc. Even though I didn't want him to be guilty, it was apparent nobody but Scott could have done this. The jury was correct in their verdict. ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO SCOTT.

[Wearing A Halo]

Evidence that points to innocence? Can't think of a thing. After pondering and discussing the case all these years .... nope, not a thing.

Poor Laci and Conner, murdered by the person who was supposed to protect you both with his life. And he took you both, in cold blood.

My opinion only of course, except a jury agrees with me, so its a fact!

ITA Otter. 3.54" is not evidence of innocence. There is no significant relevance and not even "phenomenal" evidence of innocence. As someone once asked, "Where is it Mr. Fung?"

[TopGunner]

OK, I'm going to try a new, friendlier approach...something that COULD have shook the guilty tree was if one single person, anyone...actually had a conversation with Laci at any point of time on the 24th. Even if she left a message for someone, or emailed someone. It would have rocked the boat big time. But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.

[I'mSun]

But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.The shades. I forgot all about them until now. That was one of the first things to come out, wasn't it? Little by little, things continued to point to Scott.

[Lavindar]

OK, I'm going to try a new, friendlier approach...something that COULD have shook the guilty tree was if one single person, anyone...actually had a conversation with Laci at any point of time on the 24th. Even if she left a message for someone, or emailed someone. It would have rocked the boat big time. But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.


Sorry, couldn't let that pass.

[TopGunner]

Sorry, couldn't let that pass.


LOL Lav, I actually meant to type <no pun> after that. :beer:

[I'mSun]

Sorry, couldn't let that pass.Nothing gets past you, Lavindar. And you know where the "B" for bold is too! :beer:

[Lavindar]

Nothing gets past you, Lavindar. And you know where the "B" for bold is too! :beer:
Shall we break into song: Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby (that's all I know but I can't get it out of my head)

[Wearing A Halo]

OK, I'm going to try a new, friendlier approach...something that COULD have shook the guilty tree was if one single person, anyone...actually had a conversation with Laci at any point of time on the 24th. Even if she left a message for someone, or emailed someone. It would have rocked the boat big time. But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.

Exactly TG. Not even DRISP had a conversation with Laci that morning of 12/24/02.

[I'mSun]

How did we all end up on Evidence that Points to Innocence thread? We should be on Evidence that points straight to Scott, because everything does.

[attorneywan2be]

From the original thread..

IMO:

Keep in mind that the evidence that points to Scott's innocence is not limited to the evidence that I'm going to address..the jury didn't follow the law when they convicted Scott Peterson, there was no evidence he committed a crime, and the so called circumstantial evidence, is nothing but evidence pointing to his innocence...

The jury totally ignored this:

"If there's two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- meaning circumstantial evidence -- and one points to the defendant's innocence and one points to the defendant's guilt, the jury MUST adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence,"

BTW, victim's blood..fingerprints..murder weapon..etc..are all circumstantial evidence..and there was NONE!

Examples of the evidence that points to his innocence..

People who saw Laci on December 24th, 2002

Several people reported to the police that they saw Laci walking her dog on December 24, 2002. were they lying or were they mistaken? what would be their motive to lie? and if they were mistaken (all of them), then where is that pregnant woman that was walking her golden retriever, why didn't she come forward? Detective Craig Grogan testified about some of those witnesses, Tony Freitas and Homer Maldonado. He also testified that a former police officer, Thomas Harshman, reported seeing a woman fitting the description of Laci being pulled into an older white van by two men.

Source: trial transcripts.

Conner's gestational age

The medical examiner, Dr. Brian Peterson, performed the autopsy on Laci and Conner. He testified that Conner was a full term baby, his estimated gestational age was 9 months. There were testimonies that Conner's gestational age on December 23, 2002, one day before Laci disappeared, was around 32 weeks. That's an indication that Laci lived for at least 6 weeks after her disappearance.

Source: trial transcripts

The twine around Conner's neck

A criminalist with the California Department of Justice, Pin kyo, testified that the plastic twine found around Conner's neck was tied in a bow-like knot that had a very tight knot underneath. Dr. Cyril Wecht stated that the twine could not have been a debris that wrapped around Conner's neck, "not in a million years". IMO, that indicates that Conner was handled by someone outside Laci's uterus---> he was born.

Sources :
1-trial transcripts
2-news report..TV program

No vernix was found on Conner's body

The Medical examiner, Dr. Brian Peterson, testified to:
1-Conner was a full term baby, his gestational age was estimated at 9 months old.
2-There was no Vernix present on his body.

The lack of vernix on Conner confirms that he was indeed full term.. one might wonder, would the vernix wash off if his body was in the bay? ...IMO, cold water would harden it..it would not wash off..
Let's talk about that waxy greasy substance "Vernix" that coats the entire body of the fetus..
When the fetus is 20 weeks old vernix starts to form..it coats his entire body until he reaches 38 weeks, by then that substance will be disappearing..

If Conner died when he was 32 weeks, Vernix would have been present on his body..however, according to the ME there was no vernix..that indicates to me that Conner was definitely 38 weeks or older, moreover, the fact that there was NONE on Conner further indicates to me that he was indeed born..when babies are born they still have some of that substance left on them.. so someone might have removed it..

I also noticed that the ME didn't mention if he found "lanugo" on Conner? that fine hair that covers the fetus body until he reaches 38 weeks..

Sources:
1- Preliminary Hearings transcripts
2- http://www.babycenter.com/glossary/V

The Mineral deposits found in the crotch area of Laci's pants

The medical examiner, Dr. Peterson, testified that the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants were the result of a repeated wetting and drying of her pants OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME...obviously, that could not have occurred if her body was at the bottom of the bay...IMO, this indicates that Laci was somewhere on land. There was no way for those deposits to have formed whether her body was at the bottom of the bay or was floating, because those mineral deposits were found in the crotch area, that area would have been submerged at all times
The question is: why in the crotch area?? could it be from urine? maybe her captives let her urinate in her pants repeatedly, and it would go thru cycles of wetting and drying..

Sources: trial & prelim transcripts

The condition of the bodies

According to the medical examiner, there were no fish bite marks on either body..no evidence of chewing..no evidence of animal feeding on Conner's body... there was no evidence the bodies were exposed to marine life...again, IMO, this indicates that Laci and Conner were not in the bay...their bodies were most likley planted where they were found.

Source: prelim transcripts

The location of Conner's body

According to testimonies, Conner's body was found 24' north of the breaker line PASSED the debris line and beyond the jetty, he was the largest and heaviest as compared to the debris shown in People's exhibit 96E. IMO, his body should have settled before the debris. In addition, according to the ME, his body was very soft and it came apart quite easily, so there was no way he could have gone over the jetty without coming apart. Not only did he not come apart, but there was no injury on his body to speak of. IMO, his body was planted where he was found, mind you, his body was found very close to the dirt path, possibly few steps away.

Source: trial transcripts & People's exhibit 96 E

The location of Laci's body

A senior research hydrologist with U.S. Geological Society, Ralph Cheng, testified that based on the tidal conditions, he could not explain why Laci's body landed where she was found..he basically admitted that based on tidal conditions, he was not able to prove that both bodies travelled to shore from the same point of origin. In addition, we know that they didn't find Laci's body in the water, after extensive search using the most sophisticated sonar equipments..they found things as small as a can of beer...and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found.

Source: trial transcripts

Consciousness of innocence

1- On December 24, 2002, Scott told the police the exact place he went fishing..he showed them the boat at the warehouse..he had nothing to hide..in fact, at first the police didn't believe him, Scott went out of his way to prove to them that he did go fishing there. Detective Brochinni testified that everything he said about his activities that day checked out...

2- The man who sold the boat to Scott, Bruce Peterson (no relation), testified that he asked Scott to pay in cash, he also testified that Scott gave him his correct name and his correct home address as they were completing DMV forms to release liability to Scott. The seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...the boat was no secret.

3- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott staged the abduction, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts.

Conclusion: Scott is factually innocent

[Trixy]

FACT: Scott Peterson was found guilty. No evidence to free him from that fact.

:D

[enlightenme]

The jury totally ignored this:

"If there's two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- meaning circumstantial evidence -- and one points to the defendant's innocence and one points to the defendant's guilt, the jury MUST adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence,"

No they didn't ignore that jury instruction. Their belief in what was reasonable is just different than yours.

JMO

[Wearing A Halo]

Factually, DRISP is in the confines of a death row cell at SQ awaiting his appeal process before he gets to lay on a gurney and be executed for the murders of Laci and Conner. Deal with it AW2B, DRISP is. I am sure that even though you will defend him, you wouldn't trade places with him for any length of time of his incarceration. Think about it, would you trade places with him as he, in your mind, is innocent and so are you? I want to know just how far, you AW2B and other NGs, really will go to comfort DRISP and yourselves.

[Trixy]

From the original thread..

IMO:

snipped

Conclusion: Scott is factually innocent

Factually innocent according to whom? Last I checked he's on death row. The jury most certainly followed the law. FACT! It is insulting to our intelligence to think that we will believe the "everyone is wrong, everyone lied, the jury didn't follow the law and Scott is innocent"...etc.

:shrug:

[enlightenme]

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

No one saw all the other debris floating and actually washing up onto shore during the storm either. Does that mean it didn't?

I never actually saw it rain last night but judging by the wet roads, grass, and puddles all over, I'm pretty sure it did.

JMO

[TopGunner]

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

No one saw all the other debris floating and actually washing up onto shore during the storm either. Does that mean it didn't?

I never actually saw it rain last night but judging by the wet roads, grass, and puddles all over, I'm pretty sure it did.

JMO

No one found any foot prints, DNA or other evidence of any kind around the bodies suggesting they were planted.

The jurors most certainily did follow the instructions TO THE LETTER. What are the chances of all 12 and 99% of america mid-understanding those instructions?

There were over 71 *sightings* of Laci, but nobody took the stand to say they were certain.

Conners age was estimated to be between 33 and 38 weeks gestational age, which clearly means there was not A specifice date of age given, but what was provided by Peterson - which was posted at least 5 different times in the last 3 days is he believes Conner died in the uterus, and he believed Laci was dead and in the bay for months.

[Trixy]

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

No one saw them being planted. You know why? It didn't happen.

:seeya:

DRISP is stay right where he belongs.

[TopGunner]

Open question to ANYONE:

If Laci was strangled in her own home, or suffocated. If she was then wrapped in a tarp (for example) in her home, carried to the truck and then to the boat, then dumped in the bay. Exactly what kind of evidence, DNA, etc., should have been found by the police, and where?

[deputydi]

Open question to ANYONE:

If Laci was strangled in her own home, or suffocated. If she was then wrapped in a tarp (for example) in her home, carried to the truck and then to the boat, then dumped in the bay. Exactly what kind of evidence, DNA, etc., should have been found by the police, and where?
Hmmmmmmmmm -- her hair, possibly body fluid????

Oops. Scott took care of that, didn't he?

[Cadillakin]

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

[Cadillakin]

Open question to ANYONE:

If Laci was strangled in her own home, or suffocated. If she was then wrapped in a tarp (for example) in her home, carried to the truck and then to the boat, then dumped in the bay. Exactly what kind of evidence, DNA, etc., should have been found by the police, and where?Well, the one place Laci's DNA should absolutely not be found would be on or in the boat cover or tarp.. but Scott took care of that by washing one in gasoline and draping it over his back fence.. and placing the other under a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

When Scott stopped at the gas station for fuel upon returning from Berkeley, he may not have used a single ounce of it for the boat or truck. All of it might have been used to sterilize some portions of likely evidence or the crime scene.

[Danni]

It is hard to believe this case is still on the boards. I hope he is miserable but he probably thinks he is a celebrity.

[Trixy]

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

I haven't seen it. Appreciate it if you would put it up. Thanks.

[TopGunner]

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

Hey Cadi, if you can find this, I'd love to see it. :)

[deputydi]

I haven't seen it. Appreciate it if you would put it up. Thanks.
I don't recall reading anything about a body seen floating, but I do remember reports of the sonar detecting a body in the bay. The divers were unable to find it and then the two bodies washed ashore shortly thereafter.

Sources close to the investigation told CNN that a search was conducted in mid-March near the marina with a side-scanning sonar. The sonar detected what investigators thought might be a body attached to a weight that was keeping it at the bottom of the bay, but turbulent water kept divers from reaching the object.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/18/Peterson.case/index.html

[Cadillakin]

I don't recall reading anything about a body seen floating, but I do remember reports of the sonar detecting a body in the bay. The divers were unable to find it and then the two bodies washed ashore shortly thereafter.Not related. The possible sonar sighting was weeks before they washed up. My posting regards an actual flesh and blood body floating on the surface of the Bay the day before Conner or Laci was found.

[I'mSun]

From the original thread..

The jury totally ignored this:

"If there's two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- meaning circumstantial evidence -- and one points to the defendant's innocence and one points to the defendant's guilt, the jury MUST adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence,"
That second part (follow-on) of this standard jury instruction states: "If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
The jury ignored nothing. All 12 of them just disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

[deputydi]

Not related. The possible sonar sighting was weeks before they washed up. My posting regards an actual flesh and blood body floating on the surface of the Bay the day before Conner or Laci was found.
Wow. I never heard this. Can you find an article that references it?

[Cadillakin]

Wow. I never heard this. Can you find an article that references it?As I said, I'm having trouble finding the article in the Google archives. But... I'm pretty sure I saved the article, in Acrobat pdf or html on my hard drive. I've posted it before. Once to the site where I met Miss Bootsie... a site which I think is now defunct.. Cookie? was hosting it? And to Court TV.. but I was banned and deleted there...

Speaking of banned.. I noticed that Mabel Cashew & Girasole are banned at Websleuths. The last mentioned was totally sweet and non-offensive. I wonder about the circumstances of those bannings.. Can somebody private message me if they know?

[adnoid]

That second part (follow-on) of this standard jury instruction states: "If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
The jury ignored nothing. All 12 of them just disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

That's right. And the reasonableness is determined by the jury during deliberations. The fact that some message board posters, based on less information than the jury had plus random assorted information that was not allowed in court for various reasons come to a different conclusion might be interesting but will never be relevant.

[ekg]

Well, the one place Laci's DNA should absolutely not be found would be on or in the boat cover or tarp.. but Scott took care of that by washing one in gasoline and draping it over his back fence.. and placing the other under a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.




can you elaborate on this please....

I don't recall hearing that Scott washed a tarp or a boat cover in gas....

and does gas get rid of stains and dna?

[ekg]

People who saw Laci on December 24th, 2002

Several people reported to the police that they saw Laci walking her dog on December 24, 2002. were they lying or were they mistaken? what would be their motive to lie? and if they were mistaken (all of them), then where is that pregnant woman that was walking her golden retriever, why didn't she come forward? Detective Craig Grogan testified about some of those witnesses, Tony Freitas and Homer Maldonado. He also testified that a former police officer, Thomas Harshman, reported seeing a woman fitting the description of Laci being pulled into an older white van by two men.

Source: trial transcripts.



how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....

I've seen it mentioned so many times than the SII just want to overlook what the jury and 99% of world thinks........ well it seems to me that those 71(or however many) are being ignored and overlooked on the other side....

all it takes is for one of them to be right.......... just one.. and everything a SIG has harped on and hoped for in this case is moot....It doesn't matter if 70 ppl saw her in the wrong direction or the wrong clothes...... they could all be wrong and it wouldn't matter one single bit.......... but if that 71st person was right? Scott's an innocent man sitting on death row....and the real killer really is still out there...:shrug:

Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?

[enlightenme]

That second part (follow-on) of this standard jury instruction states: "If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
The jury ignored nothing. All 12 of them just disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.


So true. There is NOTHING about the "bodies placed on the shore" theory that sounds reasonable to me. It will never make it into a court of law in a second trial, which I also don't think will EVER happen.

[deputydi]

how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....
<snip>Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?
I guess the outcome couldn't have been any worse, <*R> If Geragos could have found one or two witnesses whose claim was remotely credible, he should have subpoened them. If the jury hears from 70+ witnesses testifying to the same thing (and the time, distance and location of the sightings do not jive) not only will they be bored to death, they will quickly realize the vast majority of claims are not credible. Putting on a series of witnesses whose testimony is not believable spells certain conviction for the accused.

The reason MG didn't have any of them testify IMO is that NONE of them had credible sightings for one reason or another.

[Cadillakin]

can you elaborate on this please....

I don't recall hearing that Scott washed a tarp or a boat cover in gas....

and does gas get rid of stains and dna?As to your question, the answer is a definitive yes. Maybe you weren't following the case, but the gas washed boat cover and stained, chemically-laden tarp were an integral part of the government's case. It clearly gave credence to the idea that Scott was covering up his actions on the day Laci disappeared.

If you can find the transcripts, just search on the relevant words. If you can't, just let us know, and at least one of us will make sure you get them. I have them here on the work computer if somebody can host a 5mg file or knows where I can upload it for ekg's benefit.

[enlightenme]

how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....

I've seen it mentioned so many times than the SII just want to overlook what the jury and 99% of world thinks........ well it seems to me that those 71(or however many) are being ignored and overlooked on the other side....

all it takes is for one of them to be right.......... just one.. and everything a SIG has harped on and hoped for in this case is moot....It doesn't matter if 70 ppl saw her in the wrong direction or the wrong clothes...... they could all be wrong and it wouldn't matter one single bit.......... but if that 71st person was right? Scott's an innocent man sitting on death row....and the real killer really is still out there...:shrug:

Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?

The sightings were all over the world, weren't they? Should Geragos have brought in the tipster who thought they saw Laci in France?

Come on, Geragos could have easily called (even by subpoena) the 5 witnesses in Modesto who THOUGHT they saw Laci on 12/24. There was a reason he did not but rather relied on police reports being read.

How does one PROVE an eyewitness (who didn't know Laci and didn't talk to her) was correct? The jury either believes them or they don't. A very large number of wrongful convictions were because of eyewitness testimony.

[ekg]

As to your question, the answer is a definitive yes. Maybe you weren't following the case, but the gas washed boat cover and stained, chemically-laden tarp were an integral part of the government's case. It clearly gave credence to the idea that Scott was covering up his actions on the day Laci disappeared.

If you can find the transcripts, just search on the relevant words. If you can't, just let us know, and at least one of us will make sure you get them. I have them here on the work computer if somebody can host a 5mg file or knows where I can upload it for ekg's benefit.


I'm sorry but you are making the statement that Scott washed one tarp in gas and then put another one under the blower... I know about the one under the blower but I know nothing of the other one you claimed he "washed" in gas....(in fact I only remember the one tarp period, the brown one that was found under the blower that was hung and pictured on the fence were one in the same, or so I believed until you said they were 2 different tarps).... so it is not up to me to go search and show that your statement is factual or not...... you made the statement, now please back it up...

I have the TS.. so at the very least you should provide a date and who testified if you cannot just post the relevant information here...

and can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna......

thank you..

[Cadillakin]

Well, the one place Laci's DNA should absolutely not be found would be on or in the boat cover or tarp.. but Scott took care of that by washing one in gasoline and draping it over his back fence.. and placing the other under a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.
My mistake here.. I reread it.. Scott didn't drape it over the fence. The police did it.. when they found it in the shed wet and exuding gas fumes. The tarp was in a separate location and there were unidentified chemicals on it, not gas.

[ekg]

My mistake here.. I reread it.. Scott didn't drape it over the fence. The police did it.. when they found it in the shed wet and exuding gas fumes. The tarp was in a separate location and there were unidentified chemicals on it, not gas.

Now I'm confused........ you said there were 2 tarps..... one on the fence and one under the blower...?

where is the other tarp then?

how 'wet' was it? was it soaking wet from being washed in gas? or had the gas from the blower just trickled down on it and one small area was wet? or are we still talking about 2 tarps, the one under the blower and the one washed in gas....

:confused:

[Cadillakin]

I'm sorry but you are making the statement that Scott washed one tarp in gas and then put another one under the blower... I know about the one under the blower but I know nothing of the other one you claimed he "washed" in gas....(in fact I only remember the one tarp period, the brown one that was found under the blower that was hung and pictured on the fence were one in the same, or so I believed until you said they were 2 different tarps).... so it is not up to me to go search and show that your statement is factual or not...... you made the statement, now please back it up...

I have the TS.. so at the very least you should provide a date and who testified if you cannot just post the relevant information here...

and can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna......

thank you..
<*R>If you have the transcripts, you will find many references to the cover awash in gas.. Here is some of them..
Rick Distaso: And did you notice anything about the particular boat cover, anything about what it smelled like?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What was that?
Ray Coyle: It had a strong odor of gasoline coming off of it, and obvious stain that was wet at the time I first found it.
Rick Distaso: Why is the boat cover hanging up on the fence there?
Ray Coyle: We didn't want to package it up and transport it in a closed vehicle with it smelling the way it did, heavy gasoline odor. And so we hung it out on the fence to air dry and to dissipate some of the odor.

And this:

David Harris: And again, looking behind you at People's No. 38, you've indicated you recognize this as being the schematic of the Covena house. Did you happen to go to, just kind of direct you to the small shed to the left side of the property.
Richard House: Here?
David Harris: You're pointing to the shed on the diagram?
Richard House: Yes. Is that where you're referring to?
David Harris: Did you go to that shed?
Richard House: Yes, I did.
David Harris: When you went to the shed on that particular date, did you notice anything that attracted your attention?
Richard House: Yes.
David Harris: What was that?
Richard House: There was a tarp or a boat cover in the shed. It was laying on some items on the floor of the shed. It was wet and smelled of gasoline.
David Harris: This smell of gasoline was a little smell, large smell? Can you describe it?
Richard House: It was a strong odor.
David Harris: When you said it was wet, could you tell wet from what?
Richard House: Appeared to be gasoline.
David Harris: Was it decided to collect that particular item?
Richard House: Yes.

AND THIS

David Harris: All right. Let me go through this with the photographs to make it easier. Showing you 240 B, is this a photograph of the boat cover that the Modesto Police Department gave you?
Pin Kyo: That's correct.
David Harris: And as part of this process of the documentation, did you make any observations? Looking at it, smelling it when you first started?
Pin Kyo: I observe that there is a gasoline smells coming out of the boat cover.

How can you possibly have knowledge or access to the trial transcipts and be unaware of these PROMINENT facts?

Furthermore, gasoline masking scent so that dogs senses are inhibited, and its ability to break down DNA is easily googled.. Scott was very aware of the dogs role in finding Laci as he inquired about cadaver dogs the very same night Laci went missing.. IMO, there is no reason for you to ask me to prove common knowledge or things contained in the trial record.. That's just laziness on your part.

[Cadillakin]

Now I'm confused........ you said there were 2 tarps..... one on the fence and one under the blower...?

where is the other tarp then?

how 'wet' was it? was it soaking wet from being washed in gas? or had the gas from the blower just trickled down on it and one small area was wet? or are we still talking about 2 tarps, the one under the blower and the one washed in gas....

:confused:I didn't say there were two tarps. No doubt you are confused because you refuse to read the transcripts. Your questions are easily answered, not by me, but by those who participated in the investigation..

One was a boat cover, awash in gas.. and the other was a tarp, also wet with chemicals/gas. Read the transcripts.. Educate yourself.

[I'mSun]

*snip*
....IMO if 71 ppl saw her that day then 71 ppl should have been on the stand!

I assure you, if Mark Geragos felt it would be to Scott's benefit to put all those people on the stand, or even some, he definitely would have done so. The fact that he didn't tells us they had nothing helpful to say. Or, they didn't exist.

[TopGunner]

can you elaborate on this please....

I don't recall hearing that Scott washed a tarp or a boat cover in gas....

and does gas get rid of stains and dna?

Hi ekg,

Curious - if Laci was wrapped in a tarp after her death, what type of stain would you expect to find?

[TopGunner]

how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....

I've seen it mentioned so many times than the SII just want to overlook what the jury and 99% of world thinks........ well it seems to me that those 71(or however many) are being ignored and overlooked on the other side....

all it takes is for one of them to be right.......... just one.. and everything a SIG has harped on and hoped for in this case is moot....It doesn't matter if 70 ppl saw her in the wrong direction or the wrong clothes...... they could all be wrong and it wouldn't matter one single bit.......... but if that 71st person was right? Scott's an innocent man sitting on death row....and the real killer really is still out there...:shrug:

Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?

No, ekg, 71 people did not say they saw Laci. There were 71 sightings - for the same person, and the majority for at the same time. That is an indication of just how many FALSE reports the police had to chase. Geragos and his million dollar fee would have JOYFULLY put one of these witness on the stand had their been any credibility to it. There's no appeal issue here at all. PS - No innocent man on death row either.

[ekg]

Hi ekg,

Curious - if Laci was wrapped in a tarp after her death, what type of stain would you expect to find?



blood,saliva,vomit,feces,urine...

does gas wash those things away?

[TopGunner]

I should be more clear since these 71 sightings have been taken the wrong way. When Grogan took the stand he stated that there were 71 sightings (a world away from witnesses), something like 41,000 pages of notes and other figures that I no longer have in front of me, they're upstairs.

The point was all the work LE did. I never said 71 witnesses, there were ZERO witnesses that testified to seeing Laci because there were ZERO true sightings of her...................because she was dead.

[Lavindar]

I ask that you please stop using the derogatory adjectives to describe me or my posts....

I do not believe I am naive at all... and I do not believe my suggestion is naive....IMO if 71 ppl saw her that day then 71 ppl should have been on the stand!

thank you....

I am not an attorney but I believe I could discredit all of them easily. I am sure that is why Geragos did not put them on the stand. A perfect example is the Orowheat driver who recognized Laci while he was driving in a 35 mph zone and going in the same direction she was walking. He coulld NOT have seen her face t all. He woudl only have seen the back of her head. The only credible witnesss was Mike Chivetta and he wasn't even sure. The majority of the witnesses that were so "credible" saw someone they thought was Laci while Scott was still at home. That alone, makes their informtion VERY suspect....not to mention that they saw her in the opposite direction of the park where Scott and Sharon both said that Laci walked.

And if there were 71 sitings of her, how many were within a reasonable distance of her home. I believe there were sitings world wide - only about 10 of them were local and Grogan explains why they were dismissed in his testimony.

[TopGunner]

<*R>

I think that MG should have called them to get their testimony of what they witnessed and how LE treated their tips... it was relevant information IMO and even if it took 71 ppl to do it, it should have been done.

and if the jury was as good as it has been claimed, they would have understood that this is man's life at stake and acted accordingly with the proper amount of interest. If they were not able to do this b/c they are easily bored, then IMO they shouldn't have been there.


ekg, there were NO witnesses. None, not a single one.

As for the jury, what you state here, goes against everything they've said in interviews and their book. They were hardly bored, and they took that man's life being at stake extremely serious. The problem here is Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, and all the money and defense in the world couldn't even plant so much as a single seed of doubt in those jurors mind. Or my mind either.

[TopGunner]

blood,saliva,vomit,feces,urine...

does gas wash those things away?


If someone was strangled, there'd be no blood. If they were strangled ON the tarp, then possibly urine or vomit. But if they were wrapped in the tarp after the fact? No.........there'd be none of what you mentioned.

[Lavindar]

If someone was strangled, there'd be no blood. If they were strangled ON the tarp, then possibly urine or vomit. But if they were wrapped in the tarp after the fact? No.........there'd be none of what you mentioned.


TG, in my opinion, not all bodies release urine/feces when they die. I believe Dr. Peterson said that in his testimony also. If a person is killed shortly after the bladder and bowels have been vacated, there is nothing to release. If Laci were strangled, there would be no vomit as her throat would be cloed by the strangling.

[Lavindar]

blood,saliva,vomit,feces,urine...

does gas wash those things away?

No, but dogs alert by smell and it certainly would have killed any smell that might be there.

[TopGunner]

TG, in my opinion, not all bodies release urine/feces when they die. I believe Dr. Peterson said that in his testimony also. If a person is killed shortly after the bladder and bowels have been vacated, there is nothing to release. If Laci were strangled, there would be no vomit as her throat would be cloed by the strangling.

Hi Lav :seeya:

I remember hearing this recently, and I completely agree. I also understand the frustration for the ISP supporters because there was no smoking gun. However, my question was/is - what would they expect by way of evidence to be found, if Laci had been strangled in her own home? What could there have been? IMO, there was nothing to be found under those circumstances. Even urine or vomit could easily have been cleaned up, and we all know ISP did an unusual amount of cleaning/laundry in the hours right after Laci went missing.

[ekg]

No, but dogs alert by smell and it certainly would have killed any smell that might be there.

so that poster is making misstated opinions and calling them facts?

[Lavindar]

Hi Lav :seeya:

I remember hearing this recently, and I completely agree. I also understand the frustration for the ISP supporters because there was no smoking gun. However, my question was/is - what would they expect by way of evidence to be found, if Laci had been strangled in her own home? What could there have been? IMO, there was nothing to be found under those circumstances. Even urine or vomit could easily have been cleaned up, and we all know ISP did an unusual amount of cleaning/laundry in the hours right after Laci went missing.


Not to mention, that it would be expected to find Laci's DNA in the house where she lived. I have to wonder if Scott came home every night and did his own laundry. He would have been interacting with chemicals on his job and I am sure he wouldn't want the baby exposed to them.

[adnoid]

...However, my question was/is - what would they expect by way of evidence to be found, if Laci had been strangled in her own home? What could there have been? IMO, there was nothing to be found under those circumstances. Even urine or vomit could easily have been cleaned up...

Even if blood was found and shown to be Laci's by DNA testing it would be meaningless unless the quantity of blood was such that the loss of it was incompatible with continued life. Laci lived in the house, her DNA was expected to be all over it, and finding her DNA in the house is dispositive of nothing.

[ekg]

I didn't say there were two tarps. No doubt you are confused because you refuse to read the transcripts. Your questions are easily answered, not by me, but by those who participated in the investigation..

you absolutely did say there was 2....

Well, the one place Laci's DNA should absolutely not be found would be on or in the boat cover or tarp.. but Scott took care of that by washing one in gasoline and draping it over his back fence.. and placing the other under a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

snipped

which did he wash in gas and which did he place under the blower?

One was a boat cover, awash in gas.. and the other was a tarp, also wet with chemicals/gas. Read the transcripts.. Educate yourself.


the ts you posted refered to one item being called a boat cover and/or a tarp...

but you're saying there were 2 items... one was a boat cover and one was a tarp.....

which was under the blower and which was on the fence and which was washed in gas? I am still confused on this issue b/c I was under the impression they were all the same single item....

[deputydi]

No, but dogs alert by smell and it certainly would have killed any smell that might be there.
Not only that, but hopes of finding anything that could be DNA tested were destroyed by the gasoline. Saliva, hair follicles -- anything that could put Laci inside that tarp were destroyed.

[TopGunner]

so that poster is making misstated opinions and calling them facts?

Who is making misstated opinions and calling them facts? :confused:

[ekg]

ekg, there were NO witnesses. None, not a single one.

no there were.... 71 was the number you brought up.... just b/c you and MPD chose not to believe that every single one of them did not see what they said they saw doesn't mean there weren't any witnesses..

for you, there can be no witness b/c Laci was dead....... to me there can be atleast one of the 71 who was right b/c she was alive... it's a debatable issue and we are both right b/c it will never be proven unless Scott confesses.....but there were witnesses.. or ppl who saw her if you'd prefer them be called...:shrug:


As for the jury, what you state here, goes against everything they've said in interviews and their book. They were hardly bored, and they took that man's life being at stake extremely serious. The problem here is Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, and all the money and defense in the world couldn't even plant so much as a single seed of doubt in those jurors mind. Or my mind either.

I'm not the one who said they would be bored..DD said if they had to listent to all those sightings they would be bored... I assumed that they would do as you say, take their duty seriously....

[Miss Bootsie]

Scott -"I lost my wife"-Dec. 06 Shawn Sibley

Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

Scott - "I lost my wife" - Dec. 09 Amber Frey

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

Scott - Boat - SF Bay - 12-24-02

Bodies - found ashore - same vicinity---- Scott - boat - 12-24

Conner in utero - Dr. Brian Peterson - Expert

Trajectory created for Conner – Dr. Cheng - Expert

Laci – marine environment – Dr. Galloway - Expert


Judge Delucchi
Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.

Judge DelucchiIf, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.


Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: Judge Delucchi It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.


The prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to do not with the details or the various pieces of evidence considered separately but with the evidence as a whole on which the Prosecution's case is based.


After deliberating the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, twelve jurors found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child.

I totally agree with the Jurors opinion and verdict that Scott Peterson is factually guilty.

[enlightenme]

no there were.... 71 was the number you brought up.... just b/c you and MPD chose not to believe that every single one of them did not see what they said they saw doesn't mean there weren't any witnesses..

for you, there can be no witness b/c Laci was dead....... to me there can be atleast one of the 71 who was right b/c she was alive... it's a debatable issue and we are both right b/c it will never be proven unless Scott confesses.....but there were witnesses.. or ppl who saw her if you'd prefer them be called...:shrug:



I'm not the one who said they would be bored..DD said if they had to listent to all those sightings they would be bored... I assumed that they would do as you say, take their duty seriously....

Not one witness was called to the stand so for the purposes of Scott's trial, there were NO witnesses. The testimony that Geragos managed to get in through police reports had an instruction by the judge that the info was not being offered for the truth, but rather to show the reasonableness/thoroughness of the police investigation.

[ekg]

Who is making misstated opinions and calling them facts? :confused:

Cadillakin said it was a definitive yes that gas would get rid of stains and dna

you asked what kind of stains I thought I would find

I said blood,saliva,urine and feces and asked if gas would get rid of them

Lavindar said no it wouldn't....but it wash away the scent....

.... you tell me who is wrong:shrug:? LOL

[TopGunner]

no there were.... 71 was the number you brought up.... just b/c you and MPD chose not to believe that every single one of them did not see what they said they saw doesn't mean there weren't any witnesses..

for you, there can be no witness b/c Laci was dead....... to me there can be atleast one of the 71 who was right b/c she was alive... it's a debatable issue and we are both right b/c it will never be proven unless Scott confesses.....but there were witnesses.. or ppl who saw her if you'd prefer them be called...:shrug:



I'm not the one who said they would be bored..DD said if they had to listent to all those sightings they would be bored... I assumed that they would do as you say, take their duty seriously....


ekg, my original post - and it was MY post - has been taken completely out of context, which I take responsibility for because of the sloppy way I posted it. I was reading the the testimony of Grogan when he took the stand. He was listing all the witness, interviews, the hours, the man-power, etc. The point was the work that went into the case. The 71 SIGHTINGS were not witness. He also said there were 10,000 leads - the gist of all of it was simply to express to the jury the amount of work that went into all of it. In no way did I mean there were literally 71 people who saw Laci. In the end, I believe there were 4 or 5 leads that were worth pursuing, and those 4 - 5, in the end, either had the wrong time (couldn't work), or they were not positive. No one since the trial has come forth, or even anonymously stated that they are 100% positive they saw Laci after the 23rd. Not a single person. Nobody took the stand. This is for the simple reason, and I do mean SIMPLE, that Laci was never seen after the 23rd.

Now.........I hope this is the end of my original post being taken completely and wildly out of context.

[ekg]

If someone was strangled, there'd be no blood. If they were strangled ON the tarp, then possibly urine or vomit. But if they were wrapped in the tarp after the fact? No.........there'd be none of what you mentioned.


I think that during the time she was supposed to be wrapped up, her body would have evacuated some kind of fluid........ no it doesn't happen in all cases, but it does happen in quite a few doesn't it?

if she vomited and urinated on her clothes, wouldn't some molecule of that transfer to the tarp?

[ekg]

Hi Lav :seeya:

I remember hearing this recently, and I completely agree. I also understand the frustration for the ISP supporters because there was no smoking gun. However, my question was/is - what would they expect by way of evidence to be found, if Laci had been strangled in her own home? What could there have been? IMO, there was nothing to be found under those circumstances. Even urine or vomit could easily have been cleaned up, and we all know ISP did an unusual amount of cleaning/laundry in the hours right after Laci went missing.

at the very least I would expect claw marks from her nails.... did she have real ones or acrylic? I don't remember... but either way I would expect her to have fought for her life and the life of her baby...by kicking or scratching....

as for other stuff.... I can see why it's not found... no blood b/c of strangulation, any disorder he'd have time to clean up.... vomit or urine could be explained away by the pregnancy depending on where it's found....

but I think there would have been bruises or claw marks on him....

[Lavindar]

I think that during the time she was supposed to be wrapped up, her body would have evacuated some kind of fluid........ no it doesn't happen in all cases, but it does happen in quite a few doesn't it?

On TV it does.



if she vomited and urinated on her clothes, wouldn't some molecule of that transfer to the tarp? Since there was no evidence that she did either of the above, it would be folly for us to speculate.

[attorneywan2be]

I think that MG should have called them to get their testimony of what they witnessed and how LE treated their tips... it was relevant information IMO and even if it took 71 ppl to do it, it should have been done.



Hi ekg..:seeya:

I totally agree..Mark Geragos should have called the witnesses that reported seeing Laci...IMO, he goofed big time...after all, the prosecution paraded witnesses that supposedly had dogs and were supposedly pregnant on Dec 24th...yet almost none of them fit Laci's description and McKenzie's ..some of them didn't even walk on Dec 24th...as far as I remember, a couple of them were not even pregnant at the time.....!

[TopGunner]

I think that during the time she was supposed to be wrapped up, her body would have evacuated some kind of fluid........ no it doesn't happen in all cases, but it does happen in quite a few doesn't it?

if she vomited and urinated on her clothes, wouldn't some molecule of that transfer to the tarp?


If she vomited and/or urinated on her clothing, I would have to guess there would be evidence of that on the tarp. But, we don't know if she did that, nor do we know if the LE ever found the tarp (or whatever) Laci was wrapped in. It's kind of a moot point on both sides, considering.

[ekg]

If someone had said to me that "my suggestion was naive", I really don't think I'd get all upset and personal about it, but that's just me. It's also no fun debating with someone if you have to walk on eggshells around them trying not to "insult" them, even if it's not meant that way.

If I say someone's opinion is uneducated, does that mean I'm saying that person is uneducated? I don't think so....not the same thing. IMO

and you are entitled to that opinion.... The point is I asked for it to stop b/c I have gotten nothing but those kinds of remarks and worse one since my 1st day here... I'm sure if you had to be called the many things I have been called you would be tired of it by now also....

then again, maybe not..... but I asked politely to not be described with any derogatory or inflammable adjectives.... I cannot see why that request cannot be honored among adults on a discussion board.....

maybe you can explain the purpose for them in a way that I will understand and then be ok when I'm called lazy,sensitive,naive and uninformed..... and then maybe you can explain to me how anyone would know those personal things about me well enough to post them...??


I believe the Laci sightings were all over the world so obviously not all of them could have been called in by Geragos. I think he did the best he could for his guilty client, given what he had to work with.

the only ones that I am talking about are the ones seeing her around the house. .....not the ones on the other side of the world....

[Lavindar]

at the very least I would expect claw marks from her nails.... did she have real ones or acrylic? I don't remember... but either way I would expect her to have fought for her life and the life of her baby...by kicking or scratching....

as for other stuff.... I can see why it's not found... no blood b/c of strangulation, any disorder he'd have time to clean up.... vomit or urine could be explained away by the pregnancy depending on where it's found....

but I think there would have been bruises or claw marks on him....

There were cut marks on his knuckles, which he said he got from the tool box (there was NO DNA on the tool box) - and there wouldvl be if he had cut himself enough to leave blood on the door of the drivers side.
Then he said he cut them while working on some farm equipment - since when does a fertilizer salesman work on farm equipment? Then he said that men "cut each other" or something as ridiculous as that. So how did he get those cuts on his knuckles - and he got them that day per his TV interviews. There was no blood or tissue on the tool box at all and if he had cut himself on it, there would have been his DNA there.

[Miss Bootsie]

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

I remember the article Cadi. ;)
In fact, I have searched for it many times without success.

[ekg]

ekg, my original post - and it was MY post - has been taken completely out of context, which I take responsibility for because of the sloppy way I posted it. I was reading the the testimony of Grogan when he took the stand. He was listing all the witness, interviews, the hours, the man-power, etc. The point was the work that went into the case. The 71 SIGHTINGS were not witness. He also said there were 10,000 leads - the gist of all of it was simply to express to the jury the amount of work that went into all of it. In no way did I mean there were literally 71 people who saw Laci. In the end, I believe there were 4 or 5 leads that were worth pursuing, and those 4 - 5, in the end, either had the wrong time (couldn't work), or they were not positive. No one since the trial has come forth, or even anonymously stated that they are 100% positive they saw Laci after the 23rd. Not a single person. Nobody took the stand. This is for the simple reason, and I do mean SIMPLE, that Laci was never seen after the 23rd.

Now.........I hope this is the end of my original post being taken completely and wildly out of context.

no problem TG........ I only used the number b/c I didn't know it....

so just forget the number 71 and insert the answer to "how many sightings were there that day"--LOL...:biggrin:

[TopGunner]

no problem TG........ I only used the number b/c I didn't know it....

so just forget the number 71 and insert the answer to "how many sightings were there that day"--LOL...:biggrin:


Good deal. :beer:

[ekg]

There were cut marks on his knuckles, which he said he got from the tool box (there was NO DNA on the tool box) - and there wouldvl be if he had cut himself enough to leave blood on the door of the drivers side.
Then he said he cut them while working on some farm equipment - since when does a fertilizer salesman work on farm equipment? Then he said that men "cut each other" or something as ridiculous as that. So how did he get those cuts on his knuckles - and he got them that day per his TV interviews. There was no blood or tissue on the tool box at all and if he had cut himself on it, there would have been his DNA there.

IIRC it was just a little nick on his knuckle wasn't it? maybe I'm thinking of OJ...

but didn't the officer who interviewed him that night...... AB, mention that there were no marks on him? I really can't remember if that was said that night or not...... either way, I would expect a much bigger scratch or many scratches on him....

[TopGunner]

IIRC it was just a little nick on his knuckle wasn't it? maybe I'm thinking of OJ...

but didn't the officer who interviewed him that night...... AB, mention that there were no marks on him? I really can't remember if that was said that night or not...... either way, I would expect a much bigger scratch or many scratches on him....

I have a completely different opinion on this one ekg (of course! :D ), but seriously....if ISP caught Laci off-guard, and if he walked up behind her (for example) and wrapped a cord (again, for example) around her neck with all of his might, I can't even begin to imagine how she, in her condition, half the strength, and no warning at all - could have even begun to fight back in a manner that would even leave a scratch.

[deputydi]

Hi ekg..:seeya:

I totally agree..Mark Geragos should have called the witnesses that reported seeing Laci...IMO, he goofed big time...after all, the prosecution paraded witnesses that supposedly had dogs and were supposedly pregnant on Dec 24th...yet almost none of them fit Laci's description and McKenzie's ..some of them didn't even walk on Dec 24th...as far as I remember, a couple of them were not even pregnant at the time.....!
I don't remember a parade of witnesses who were pregnant testifying for the prosecution. The only one I remember (and I don't know if she testified) was the pregnant attorney (I think she was a prosecutor).

[TopGunner]

Hi ekg..:seeya:

I totally agree..Mark Geragos should have called the witnesses that reported seeing Laci...IMO, he goofed big time...after all, the prosecution paraded witnesses that supposedly had dogs and were supposedly pregnant on Dec 24th...yet almost none of them fit Laci's description and McKenzie's ..some of them didn't even walk on Dec 24th...as far as I remember, a couple of them were not even pregnant at the time.....!


Err......AW2B, I feel fairly confident that Geregos didn't call these witnesses to the stand, not because he was lazy or incompetent, but because none of them could say, under oath, that they were 100% positive it was Laci Peterson that they saw. IMO, that is becasue she was already murdered, so they couldn't have seen her. It fits.

[deputydi]

I have a completely different opinion on this one ekg (of course! :D ), but seriously....if ISP caught Laci off-guard, and if he walked up behind her (for example) and wrapped a cord (again, for example) around her neck with all of his might, I can't even begin to imagine how she, in her condition, half the strength, and no warning at all - could have even begun to fight back in a manner that would even leave a scratch.
If OJ committed a bloody, brutal murder of two people with a knife and got away relatively unscathed, why does anyone believe Scott couldn't do it with a soft kill?

[attorneywan2be]

I don't remember a parade of witnesses who were pregnant testifying for the prosecution. The only one I remember (and I don't know if she testified) was the pregnant attorney (I think she was a prosecutor).

Nope..there were about 10 witnesses that testified in that regard..

[Pampster]

Geragos would have been an absolute fool to put the "Laci sighters" on the stand where the prosecution would have discredited them one after another. The judge did the prosecution a great injustice by allowing Geragos to get so much information in through hearsay and innuendo. Too bad there wasn't anyone in the courtroom to demand that Geragos provide a link. :tongue:

[deputydi]

Nope..there were about 10 witnesses that testified in that regard..
Testified to what??? That they were walking their dog that morning? I just got a new computer and lost the transcripts I had saved. It might take me a while to find it so could you steer me in the right direction?

[deputydi]

Geragos would have been an absolute fool to put the "Laci sighters" on the stand where the prosecution would have discredited them one after another. The judge did the prosecution a great injustice by allowing Geragos to get so much information in through hearsay and innuendo. Too bad there wasn't anyone in the courtroom to demand that Geragos provide a link. :tongue:
This is exactly what I was trying to say to ekg. Ask any attorney (pull one off the street if need be) and ask him/her if putting on a parade of 70 witnesses to testify to the exact same thing when you know at least 95% of them couldn't have seen what they think they saw is a good idea. (boy, talk about run on sentences)! All but the most naive (i.e. inexperienced) will tell you it is a terrible idea. After the prosecution has decimated the testimony of the first ten, the jury won't believe another thing the defense says.

[Cadillakin]

I'm sorry but you are making the statement that Scott washed one tarp in gas and then put another one under the blower... I know about the one under the blower but I know nothing of the other one you claimed he "washed" in gas....(in fact I only remember the one tarp period, the brown one that was found under the blower that was hung and pictured on the fence were one in the same, or so I believed until you said they were 2 different tarps).... so it is not up to me to go search and show that your statement is factual or not...... you made the statement, now please back it up...

I have the TS.. so at the very least you should provide a date and who testified if you cannot just post the relevant information here...

and can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna......

thank you..Ok.. I'm going to answer your questions and then finish up with you.. I notice you often change the context of the posts to which you reply. I can also see that you're not interested in facts, but more in semantics.. You love circular arguments. Anyway, let's finish up with this..

OKAY Boat cover testimony

Rick Distaso: And did you see a canvas-colored boat cover in a small shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes, I did.
Rick Distaso: Where was?
Ray Coyle: It was on the southeast corner of the house, actually behind the fence, again, for the backyard.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-A. That's the shed where you saw the boat cover?
Ray Coyle: Yeah, that's the corner of it.
Rick Distaso: And that's this item right here?
Ray Coyle: Yes.

OKAY Tarp testimony...

Rick Distaso: Did you also find a blue tarp somewhere?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And where was that?
Ray Coyle: That was in a small shed that was across the patio, near the barbecue, from the house.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-D. And do you see the blue tarp in that picture?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And is that it right here inside the shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What's it sitting on top of?
Ray Coyle: I believe it was like a yard sprayer, weed sprayer.
Rick Distaso: And do you know what was inside there?
Ray Coyle: I lifted the cap and smelled it. I don't know exactly what it was. Smelled like some sort of fertilizer to me. Maybe been like fish emulsion, some kind of fertilizer.

OKAY.. Can we say Brown Boat Cover found in southeast part of yard? Good! Now, let's say Blue Tarp found in north of property, near the barbecue. Great! Can I assume that you will never make that same mistake again? One plus one is two, right?

OKAY now for the gas... You asked... "can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna."

First, let me tell you that gas is primarily used as auto fuel.. Any other uses for gas? How about gas as a solvent? Is there anybody in this forum, female or male, that hasn't used gas as a solvent to loosen and wash away a tough stain, or to clean some dirty grease off the wheels or auto body, or even clean their hands when nothing else would work? Do we know what solvents are, what they do, how they work?

Solvents function as dissolvers, as agents that promotes a loosening of bonds, and disintegration.. Does gasoline kill DNA? No, it doesn't, at least not immediately and finally, but it does help to loosen hair, feces, urine, and other organic material that may be embedded in cloth, plastic, boat covers, tarps, and other porous material. Even the surface of metals and finished paints can be reached with solvent. Are you following so far? Good! So, if one had a tarp that they were concerned about holding some trace evidence, might they use gasoline to promote the dissolving and washing of those aforementioned materials? Yes, they do it all the time.. I know, because I watch Forensic Files!!! Is the DNA gone? No, not entirely, but it is washed away... and unless the forensic investigators know exactly where to look, the DNA has usually for all intents and purposes, been lost..

But even with all their efforts, sometimes the criminals don't clean it all.. something lingers.. and they are caught. Sometimes the good guys catch em.

Some, like Scott do better, a more thorough job of it.. but in doing so, they leave behind the evidence of their cleaning with the solvent material. This is a fact that leads investigators to the conclusion that the party who is doing the rubbin and scrubbin is also doing some hidin of evidence. Can you tell me the odds that both a tarp and boat cover suspected of use in the murder and dumping of a young woman would both come into contact with harsh chemical substances right after the murder of a spouse and hours before an investigative team comes to search and test for evidence? I'm bettin that's a pretty big number...

What can you say? Do you understand one brown cover and one blue tarp constitutes a total of two? And about the gas.. any questions? Is my logic faulty or did I misspell any big words?

[Lavindar]

Exce lOk.. I'm going to answer your questions and then finish up with you.. I notice you often change the context of the posts to which you reply. I can also see that you're not interested in facts, but more in semantics.. You love circular arguments. Anyway, let's finish up with this..

OKAY Boat cover testimony

Rick Distaso: And did you see a canvas-colored boat cover in a small shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes, I did.
Rick Distaso: Where was?
Ray Coyle: It was on the southeast corner of the house, actually behind the fence, again, for the backyard.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-A. That's the shed where you saw the boat cover?
Ray Coyle: Yeah, that's the corner of it.
Rick Distaso: And that's this item right here?
Ray Coyle: Yes.

OKAY Tarp testimony...

Rick Distaso: Did you also find a blue tarp somewhere?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And where was that?
Ray Coyle: That was in a small shed that was across the patio, near the barbecue, from the house.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-D. And do you see the blue tarp in that picture?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And is that it right here inside the shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What's it sitting on top of?
Ray Coyle: I believe it was like a yard sprayer, weed sprayer.
Rick Distaso: And do you know what was inside there?
Ray Coyle: I lifted the cap and smelled it. I don't know exactly what it was. Smelled like some sort of fertilizer to me. Maybe been like fish emulsion, some kind of fertilizer.

OKAY.. Can we say Brown Boat Cover found in southeast part of yard? Good! Now, let's say Blue Tarp found in north of property, near the barbecue. Great! Can I assume that you will never make that same mistake again? One plus one is two, right?

OKAY now for the gas... You asked... "can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna."

First, let me tell you that gas is primarily used as auto fuel.. Any other uses for gas? How about gas as a solvent? Is there anybody in this forum, female or male, that hasn't used gas as a solvent to loosen and wash away a tough stain, or to clean some dirty grease off the wheels or auto body, or even clean their hands when nothing else would work? Do we know what solvents are, what they do, how they work?

Solvents function as dissolvers, as agents that promotes a loosening of bonds, and disintegration.. Does gasoline kill DNA? No, it doesn't, at least not immediately and finally, but it does help to loosen hair, feces, urine, and other organic material that may be embedded in cloth, plastic, boat covers, tarps, and other porous material. Even the surface of metals and finished paints can be reached with solvent. Are you following so far? Good! So, if one had a tarp that they were concerned about holding some trace evidence, might they use gasoline to promote the dissolving and washing of those aforementioned materials? Yes, they do it all the time.. I know, because I watch Forensic Files!!! Is the DNA gone? No, not entirely, but it is washed away... and unless the forensic investigators know exactly where to look, the DNA has usually for all intents and purposes, been lost..

But even with all their efforts, sometimes the criminals don't clean it all.. something lingers.. and they are caught. Sometimes the good guys catch em.

Some, like Scott do better, a more thorough job of it.. but in doing so, they leave behind the evidence of their cleaning with the solvent material. This is a fact that leads investigators to the conclusion that the party who is doing the rubbin and scrubbin is also doing some hidin of evidence. Can you tell me the odds that both a tarp and boat cover suspected of use in the murder and dumping of a young woman would both come into contact with harsh chemical substances right after the murder of a spouse and hours before an investigative team comes to search and test for evidence? I'm bettin that's a pretty big number...

What can you say? Do you understand one brown cover and one blue tarp constitutes a total of two? And about the gas.. any questions? Is my logic faulty or did I misspell any big words?

Excellent description. I have another problem with that "leaky leaf blower."

Scott was using that leaky leaf blower on Sunday according to Medina's testimony. So he would have to know it was "leaking" when he put that boat cover under it on the night of the 25th. Remember it was seen in the back of his truck on the 25th by Brocchini and missing from there when the search warrant was executed on the 26th. That leaf blower would have been leakung a great deak ti do that much damage in my opinion.

[I'mSun]

Ok.. I'm going to answer your questions and then finish up with you.. I notice you often change the context of the posts to which you reply. I can also see that you're not interested in facts, but more in semantics.. You love circular arguments. Anyway, let's finish up with this..

*snipped for space*

What can you say? Do you understand one brown cover and one blue tarp constitutes a total of two? And about the gas.. any questions? Is my logic faulty or did I misspell any big words?Great explanation! :beer:

[TopGunner]

If OJ committed a bloody, brutal murder of two people with a knife and got away relatively unscathed, why does anyone believe Scott couldn't do it with a soft kill?

Excellent point DD, ITA! :beer:

[TopGunner]

Nope..there were about 10 witnesses that testified in that regard..

I may be mis-understanding this, but are you saying there was a parade of 10 pregnant witness that testified for the pros.? If that IS what you're saying, then it's new to me. Do you have a link for this AW2B?

[deputydi]

Ok.. I'm going to answer your questions and then finish up with you.. I notice you often change the context of the posts to which you reply. I can also see that you're not interested in facts, but more in semantics.. You love circular arguments. Anyway, let's finish up with this..

OKAY Boat cover testimony

Rick Distaso: And did you see a canvas-colored boat cover in a small shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes, I did.
Rick Distaso: Where was?
Ray Coyle: It was on the southeast corner of the house, actually behind the fence, again, for the backyard.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-A. That's the shed where you saw the boat cover?
Ray Coyle: Yeah, that's the corner of it.
Rick Distaso: And that's this item right here?
Ray Coyle: Yes.

OKAY Tarp testimony...

Rick Distaso: Did you also find a blue tarp somewhere?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And where was that?
Ray Coyle: That was in a small shed that was across the patio, near the barbecue, from the house.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-D. And do you see the blue tarp in that picture?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And is that it right here inside the shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What's it sitting on top of?
Ray Coyle: I believe it was like a yard sprayer, weed sprayer.
Rick Distaso: And do you know what was inside there?
Ray Coyle: I lifted the cap and smelled it. I don't know exactly what it was. Smelled like some sort of fertilizer to me. Maybe been like fish emulsion, some kind of fertilizer.

OKAY.. Can we say Brown Boat Cover found in southeast part of yard? Good! Now, let's say Blue Tarp found in north of property, near the barbecue. Great! Can I assume that you will never make that same mistake again? One plus one is two, right?

OKAY now for the gas... You asked... "can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna."

First, let me tell you that gas is primarily used as auto fuel.. Any other uses for gas? How about gas as a solvent? Is there anybody in this forum, female or male, that hasn't used gas as a solvent to loosen and wash away a tough stain, or to clean some dirty grease off the wheels or auto body, or even clean their hands when nothing else would work? Do we know what solvents are, what they do, how they work?

Solvents function as dissolvers, as agents that promotes a loosening of bonds, and disintegration.. Does gasoline kill DNA? No, it doesn't, at least not immediately and finally, but it does help to loosen hair, feces, urine, and other organic material that may be embedded in cloth, plastic, boat covers, tarps, and other porous material. Even the surface of metals and finished paints can be reached with solvent. Are you following so far? Good! So, if one had a tarp that they were concerned about holding some trace evidence, might they use gasoline to promote the dissolving and washing of those aforementioned materials? Yes, they do it all the time.. I know, because I watch Forensic Files!!! Is the DNA gone? No, not entirely, but it is washed away... and unless the forensic investigators know exactly where to look, the DNA has usually for all intents and purposes, been lost..

But even with all their efforts, sometimes the criminals don't clean it all.. something lingers.. and they are caught. Sometimes the good guys catch em.

Some, like Scott do better, a more thorough job of it.. but in doing so, they leave behind the evidence of their cleaning with the solvent material. This is a fact that leads investigators to the conclusion that the party who is doing the rubbin and scrubbin is also doing some hidin of evidence. Can you tell me the odds that both a tarp and boat cover suspected of use in the murder and dumping of a young woman would both come into contact with harsh chemical substances right after the murder of a spouse and hours before an investigative team comes to search and test for evidence? I'm bettin that's a pretty big number...

What can you say? Do you understand one brown cover and one blue tarp constitutes a total of two? And about the gas.. any questions? Is my logic faulty or did I misspell any big words?
Seems pretty clear to me. 1 + 1 = 2 to most of us. :shrug:

I'm still curious about those 10 dog walkers who testified. Seems AW2B is having a problem finding their testimony so she simply disappeared. If they were on the stand at any point during the trial, I missed it.

[ekg]

Ok.. I'm going to answer your questions and then finish up with you.. I notice you often change the context of the posts to which you reply. I can also see that you're not interested in facts, but more in semantics.. You love circular arguments. Anyway, let's finish up with this..

OKAY Boat cover testimony

Rick Distaso: And did you see a canvas-colored boat cover in a small shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes, I did.
Rick Distaso: Where was?
Ray Coyle: It was on the southeast corner of the house, actually behind the fence, again, for the backyard.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-A. That's the shed where you saw the boat cover?
Ray Coyle: Yeah, that's the corner of it.
Rick Distaso: And that's this item right here?
Ray Coyle: Yes.

OKAY Tarp testimony...

Rick Distaso: Did you also find a blue tarp somewhere?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And where was that?
Ray Coyle: That was in a small shed that was across the patio, near the barbecue, from the house.
Rick Distaso: Let me show you People's 111-D. And do you see the blue tarp in that picture?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: And is that it right here inside the shed?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What's it sitting on top of?
Ray Coyle: I believe it was like a yard sprayer, weed sprayer.
Rick Distaso: And do you know what was inside there?
Ray Coyle: I lifted the cap and smelled it. I don't know exactly what it was. Smelled like some sort of fertilizer to me. Maybe been like fish emulsion, some kind of fertilizer.

OKAY.. Can we say Brown Boat Cover found in southeast part of yard? Good! Now, let's say Blue Tarp found in north of property, near the barbecue. Great! Can I assume that you will never make that same mistake again? One plus one is two, right?

OKAY now for the gas... You asked... "can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna."

First, let me tell you that gas is primarily used as auto fuel.. Any other uses for gas? How about gas as a solvent? Is there anybody in this forum, female or male, that hasn't used gas as a solvent to loosen and wash away a tough stain, or to clean some dirty grease off the wheels or auto body, or even clean their hands when nothing else would work? Do we know what solvents are, what they do, how they work?

Solvents function as dissolvers, as agents that promotes a loosening of bonds, and disintegration.. Does gasoline kill DNA? No, it doesn't, at least not immediately and finally, but it does help to loosen hair, feces, urine, and other organic material that may be embedded in cloth, plastic, boat covers, tarps, and other porous material. Even the surface of metals and finished paints can be reached with solvent. Are you following so far? Good! So, if one had a tarp that they were concerned about holding some trace evidence, might they use gasoline to promote the dissolving and washing of those aforementioned materials? Yes, they do it all the time.. I know, because I watch Forensic Files!!! Is the DNA gone? No, not entirely, but it is washed away... and unless the forensic investigators know exactly where to look, the DNA has usually for all intents and purposes, been lost..

But even with all their efforts, sometimes the criminals don't clean it all.. something lingers.. and they are caught. Sometimes the good guys catch em.

Some, like Scott do better, a more thorough job of it.. but in doing so, they leave behind the evidence of their cleaning with the solvent material. This is a fact that leads investigators to the conclusion that the party who is doing the rubbin and scrubbin is also doing some hidin of evidence. Can you tell me the odds that both a tarp and boat cover suspected of use in the murder and dumping of a young woman would both come into contact with harsh chemical substances right after the murder of a spouse and hours before an investigative team comes to search and test for evidence? I'm bettin that's a pretty big number...

What can you say? Do you understand one brown cover and one blue tarp constitutes a total of two? And about the gas.. any questions? Is my logic faulty or did I misspell any big words?

Thank you......

yes a cpl more questions..

which one was "washed in gas" and which one was under the blower?

and I didn't think gas would wash DNA away.... which is why I asked you about it when you said it would....

and you noticed wrong btw, but thank you anyway for posting the 2 different tarps/boat covers...

[TopGunner]

Seems pretty clear to me. 1 + 1 = 2 to most of us. :shrug:

I'm still curious about those 10 dog walkers who testified. Seems AW2B is having a problem finding their testimony so she simply disappeared. If they were on the stand at any point during the trial, I missed it.

OK, this will teach me to leave for dinner...are we talking about 10 pregnant woman, or 10 dog walkers? Not that it matters mind you, as there were neither. :D

[Miss Bootsie]

Thank you......

yes a cpl more questions..

which one was "washed in gas" and which one was under the blower?

and I didn't think gas would wash DNA away.... which is why I asked you about it when you said it would....

and you noticed wrong btw, but thank you anyway for posting the 2 different tarps/boat covers...

which one was "washed in gas" and which one was under the blower?

After reading Cadi's post, if engaged in a test providing multiple choice answers:

washed in gas:

A - boat cover
B - blue tarp
I would have to go with: A - Boat cover



which one was under the blower:

A - boat cover
B - blue tarp
I would have to go with: A- Boat cover




Just My Opinion

[I'mSun]

OK, this will teach me to leave for dinner...are we talking about 10 pregnant woman, or 10 dog walkers? Not that it matters mind you, as there were neither. :DMake it easy - 10 pregnant dog walkers. :biggrin: Now, that would be a sight to see!

[I'mSun]

which one was "washed in gas" and which one was under the blower?

After reading Cadi's post, if engaged in a test providing multiple choice answers -

washed in gas
A - boat cover
B - blue tarp

I would have to go with -
A - boat cover

which one was under the blower
A - boat cover
B - blue tarp

A - boat coverMiss Bootsie, is this your final answer?? :D

[TopGunner]

Make it easy - 10 pregnant dog walkers. :biggrin: Now, that would be a sight to see!


ROFLMAO!

Too funny !!! :lol:

[deputydi]

OK, this will teach me to leave for dinner...are we talking about 10 pregnant woman, or 10 dog walkers? Not that it matters mind you, as there were neither. :D
Are you trying to bait me? :eek:

It's ten pregnant dog walkers!

[Otter]

IIRC, one of the sightings included a man who latched onto Mac. A dog lover bless his heart. This man saw "Laci" and "Mac" at a distance. There was a problem, he wore glasses, so do I. Behind one lens of his glasses was a glass eye. He meant well. He wanted to help Laci and IMO to help SP.

I wish his advocates would understand that we prayed he did not do this. :( I take no pleasure in it. No one does.

[TopGunner]

Are you trying to bait me? :eek:

It's ten pregnant dog walkers!


I would NEVER bait you or anyone. Can I have a link to those ten pregnant dogs that were walked PLEASE?! :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

Seems pretty clear to me. 1 + 1 = 2 to most of us. :shrug:

I'm still curious about those 10 dog walkers who testified. Seems AW2B is having a problem finding their testimony so she simply disappeared. If they were on the stand at any point during the trial, I missed it.

Yep.. you missed it...I don't appreciate what you said about me disappearing...AGAIN I have other things to do..in addition, I'm not feeling well, I have eye problems that's why I'm not posting as much..I'm staying away from computers as much as I can..

Dempewolf's husband..Jordan Visola-Prescott..Elizabeth guptill..Jill Lear...Kim Westphal..Patricia Mewhinney...Joan Lee..Melba Martinez...Dianne Heaston Merenda...Amy Neumann..= 10 witnesses

You can read their testimonies on "scottisinnocent" website...

[TopGunner]

Yep.. you missed it...I don't appreciate what you said about me disappearing...AGAIN I have other things to do..in addition, I'm not feeling well, I have eye problems that's why I'm not posting as much..I'm staying away from computers as much as I can..

Dempewolf's husband..Jordan Visola-Prescott..Elizabeth guptill..Jill Lear...Kim Westphal..Patricia Mewhinney...Joan Lee..Melba Martinez...Dianne Heaston Merenda...Amy Neumann..= 10 witnesses

You can read their testimonies on "scottisinnocent" website...

AW2B, I am sorry about your eyes and I sincerely hope you're feeling better soon. :rose:


Apparently I fell out of the loop and I'm having a tough time getting back in. Did these 10 people testify that they saw Laci walking McKenzie? Anyway, since you've provided their names I can look them up and try to figure it out.

[Lavindar]

which one was "washed in gas" and which one was under the blower?

After reading Cadi's post, if engaged in a test providing multiple choice answers:

washed in gas:

A - boat cover
B - blue tarp
I would have to go with: A - Boat cover



which one was under the blower:

A - boat cover
B - blue tarp
I would have to go with: A- Boat cover






Just My Opinion Given the testimony, my opinion would agree with your opinion. I believe there is a picture of said boat cover hanging on the fence in the Evidence pictures on the CTV web site.

[Lavindar]

AW2B, I am sorry about your eyes and I sincerely hope you're feeling better soon. :rose:


Apparently I fell out of the loop and I'm having a tough time getting back in. Did these 10 people testify that they saw Laci walking McKenzie? Anyway, since you've provided their names I can look them up and try to figure it out.


No, they did not. They testified to the routes they walked when they walked, and not all of them were pregnant either.

[Lavindar]

IIRC, one of the sightings included a man who latched onto Mac. A dog lover bless his heart. This man saw "Laci" and "Mac" at a distance. There was a problem, he wore glasses, so do I. Behind one lens of his glasses was a glass eye. He meant well. He wanted to help Laci and IMO to help SP.

I wish his advocates would understand that we prayed he did not do this. :( I take no pleasure in it. No one does.

I believe that is Mike Chiavetta. He saw a dog that resembled Mac running loose in the park. He happens to live two door away from the Peterson house, around the corner. I had forgotten about his glass eye. He never positively said it was Laci he saw. I believe his time was also in question.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, I am sorry about your eyes and I sincerely hope you're feeling better soon. :rose:


Apparently I fell out of the loop and I'm having a tough time getting back in. Did these 10 people testify that they saw Laci walking McKenzie? Anyway, since you've provided their names I can look them up and try to figure it out.


Thank you so much TopGunner...:rose:

Those are the witnesses that the prosecution presented as pregnant walkers...but IMO, none of them fit Laci's description and her dog..

[TopGunner]

Thank you so much TopGunner...:rose:

Those are the witnesses that the prosecution presented as pregnant walkers...but IMO, none of them fit Laci's description and her dog..

Thanks AW2B and Lavindar for clearing this up. I started looking the names up, only have two so far and still couldn't put the pieces together. This is what I do have so far:

Amy Neumann Neighbor of Scott and Laci Peterson (Buena Vista Avenue); resident of the La Loma neighborhood for more than six years; human companion of a poodle; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 9, 2004, concerning Laci Peterson's complaint to the city of Modesto; stated that she did not see Laci Peterson out walking the morning of December 24, 2002; also referred to as "Amy Newman" and "Amy Neuman"; resident of Modesto

Jordan Visola-Prescott Covena Avenue resident; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 8, 2004, stating that she was 4 1/2 months pregnant with twins and out walking with her dog regularly during December 2002; during trial, had a photograph of her displayed to show jurors how she looked in December 2002—a photograph that the Modesto Bee said bore a "remarkable" resemblance to Laci Peterson; resident of Modesto

[TopGunner]

Thank you so much TopGunner...:rose:

Those are the witnesses that the prosecution presented as pregnant walkers...but IMO, none of them fit Laci's description and her dog..


OK, I think I've got everyone here AW2B - it doesn't seem like this is all a group of 10 pregnant dog walkers...some are, but some are also just saying they didn't see Laci while they were out walking. :shrug:

Amy Neumann Neighbor of Scott and Laci Peterson (Buena Vista Avenue); resident of the La Loma neighborhood for more than six years; human companion of a poodle; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 9, 2004, concerning Laci Peterson's complaint to the city of Modesto; stated that she did not see Laci Peterson out walking the morning of December 24, 2002; also referred to as "Amy Newman" and "Amy Neuman"; resident of Modesto

Jordan Visola-Prescott Covena Avenue resident; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 8, 2004, stating that she was 4 1/2 months pregnant with twins and out walking with her dog regularly during December 2002; during trial, had a photograph of her displayed to show jurors how she looked in December 2002—a photograph that the Modesto Bee said bore a "remarkable" resemblance to Laci Peterson; resident

Elizabeth Guptill Neighbor of Scott and Laci Peterson; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 8, 2004, saying that she was pregnant and walking the La Loma neighborhood in December 2002; resident of Modesto of Modesto

Jill Lear (Jill Marie Lear) 36, Employee of private social services company; six months pregnant when Laci Peterson disappeared; human companion of an Australian shepherd, Maitland; stated concerning Laci Peterson's disappearance: "It made everyone more cautious"; stated to investigators in June 2003 that she did not think she walked her dog on December 24, 2002; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 8, 2004; resident of Modesto

Kim Westphal Resident of La Loma neighborhood; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 9, 2004, stating that she went walking with her dog, Jack, and friend Dana Evans on December 24, 2002; resident of Modesto

Dianne Merenda (Dianne Heaston Merenda) Neighbor of Scott and Laci Peterson (Covena Avenue and Roble Avenue); resident of La Loma neighborhood for more than 20 years; human companion of dog, Buddy; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 9, 2004, stating that she frequently walked with Buddy but did not walk on December 24, 2002; also referred to as "Dianne Merend"; resident of Modesto

Melba Martinez Neighbor of Scott and Laci Peterson; resident of the La Loma neighborhood for more than 10 years; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 9, 2004, concerning her dogs Dodger and Ruby;

Patricia Mewhinney Woman who walked her dog, a Labrador-German shepherd mix, in East La Loma Park on December 24, 2002; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 9, 2004; resident of Modestoresident of Modesto

Marty Dempewolf (Martin Francis Dempewolf) 35, Kristen Dempewolf's husband; stated to the media that his wife had been subpoenaed as a potential witness and subject to the gag order; testified at Scott Peterson's trial on September 8, 2004; resident of Modesto


I think I'm still not getting the point.

[Pampster]

Thank you so much TopGunner...:rose:

Those are the witnesses that the prosecution presented as pregnant walkers...but IMO, none of them fit Laci's description and her dog..


Dempewolf's husband was presented by the prosecution as a pregnant dog walker??

[TopGunner]

Dempewolf's husband was presented by the prosecution as a pregnant dog walker??

:eek:

LOL - I wish I had a bit more clarity too. A few of the 10 were pregnant, and I believe two looked similar to Laci - but as far as I can tell, the rest had no relation to either being pregnant or being compared to Laci.

[Lavindar]

:eek:

LOL - I wish I had a bit more clarity too. A few of the 10 were pregnant, and I believe two looked similar to Laci - but as far as I can tell, the rest had no relation to either being pregnant or being compared to Laci.


I think a few of them were just dog walkers and not pregnant.

[Cadillakin]

:eek:

LOL - I wish I had a bit more clarity too. A few of the 10 were pregnant, and I believe two looked similar to Laci - but as far as I can tell, the rest had no relation to either being pregnant or being compared to Laci.If memory serves, Kristin Dempewolf was the young lady who had reportedly seen Scott the morning or Laci's disappearance, and according to rumors, engaged him in some small talk. I believe she was also the person that the prosecution team hypnotized to enhance her recollections.

Geragos objected to the hypnotist and other circumstances of the session and the judge upheld his objection. Kristin was not allowed to testify.

But in another closed session, Delucchi allowed her husband to stand in for her in a limited manner to talk about his mates walking patterns, etc...

[Lavindar]

If memory serves, Kristin Dempewolf was the young lady who had reportedly seen Scott the morning or Laci's disappearance, and according to rumors, engaged him in some small talk. I believe she was also the person that the prosecution team hypnotized to enhance her recollections.

Geragos objected to the hypnotist and other circumstances of the session and the judge upheld his objection. Kristin was not allowed to testify.

But in another closed session, Delucchi allowed her husband to stand in for her in a limited manner to talk about his mates walking patterns, etc...



Your memory is excellent. Martin Dempewolfe did testify.

[adnoid]

Are you trying to bait me? :eek:

It's ten pregnant dog walkers!

Your response is ambiguous. Does "pregnant" modify the noun "dog" or the phrase "dog walkers"? Because I'm going to want a link to testimony about the uterine horns of those 10 pregnant dogs.

Actually, I think there was one woman walking 10 pregnant dogs.

I love vodka & cranberry juice.

[Pampster]

Your response is ambiguous. Does "pregnant" modify the noun "dog" or the phrase "dog walkers"? Because I'm going to want a link to testimony about the uterine horns of those 10 pregnant dogs.

Actually, I think there was one woman walking 10 pregnant dogs.

I love vodka & cranberry juice.

*SNORT* :beer:

[accordn2me]

Your response is ambiguous. Does "pregnant" modify the noun "dog" or the phrase "dog walkers"? Because I'm going to want a link to testimony about the uterine horns of those 10 pregnant dogs.

Actually, I think there was one woman walking 10 pregnant dogs.

I love vodka & cranberry juice.What makes you think it was a woman walking the 10 pregnant dogs? :shrug:

[adnoid]

What makes you think it was a woman walking the 10 pregnant dogs? :shrug:

Are you baiting me..?!

[Riviera]

Let's get back on topic please----> SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

Thank you

R

[I'mSun]

Are you baiting me..?!Will you bite?

Love that Skyy and Ocean Spray ;)

[Cadillakin]

Miss Bootsie, is this your final answer?? :DFunny:) :) :)

[Wearing A Halo]

POP QUIZ:

What is the color of the boat cover?

What is the color of the patio umbrellas?

What is the color of the pants Laci was found wearing?

Answer by memory or testimony (including evidence photos).

Karma points to those with the correct (or closest) answer?

[adnoid]

Will you bite?

If you ask nice enough.

[accordn2me]

Are you baiting me..?!
heeeeeerrrrrrrrrrre kitty kitty kitty.....

[accordn2me]

POP QUIZ:

What is the color of the boat cover? tan or green

What is the color of the patio umbrellas? blue

What is the color of the pants Laci was found wearing? Khaki/tan

Answer by memory or testimony (including evidence photos). in my mind

Karma points to those with the correct (or closest) answer?Yes!

Do I get a prize? I'll use all my karma points on getting the A/C fixed at my school.

[Lavindar]

POP QUIZ:

What is the color of the boat cover?

What is the color of the patio umbrellas?

What is the color of the pants Laci was found wearing?

Answer by memory or testimony (including evidence photos).

Karma points to those with the correct (or closest) answer?

beige, beige, beige, or
tan, light beige ,cream

[Wearing A Halo]

Yes!

Do I get a prize? I'll use all my karma points on getting the A/C fixed at my school.

Karma, karma, karma, karma, karma chameleon.

Red, gold and green.

[Trixy]

so that poster is making misstated opinions and calling them facts?

You NGs do that all the time and you're doing it now. I don't see you backing up "71 sightings".

:shrug:

[Trixy]

Yep.. you missed it...I don't appreciate what you said about me disappearing...AGAIN I have other things to do..in addition, I'm not feeling well, I have eye problems that's why I'm not posting as much..I'm staying away from computers as much as I can..

Dempewolf's husband..Jordan Visola-Prescott..Elizabeth guptill..Jill Lear...Kim Westphal..Patricia Mewhinney...Joan Lee..Melba Martinez...Dianne Heaston Merenda...Amy Neumann..= 10 witnesses

You can read their testimonies on "scottisinnocent" website...

Can you post their testimonies? I really hate to have to do the work for you. Why are you watching this board if you are having eye problems? You really should be resting your eyes.

[deputydi]

Yep.. you missed it...I don't appreciate what you said about me disappearing...AGAIN I have other things to do..in addition, I'm not feeling well, I have eye problems that's why I'm not posting as much..I'm staying away from computers as much as I can..

Dempewolf's husband..Jordan Visola-Prescott..Elizabeth guptill..Jill Lear...Kim Westphal..Patricia Mewhinney...Joan Lee..Melba Martinez...Dianne Heaston Merenda...Amy Neumann..= 10 witnesses

You can read their testimonies on "scottisinnocent" website...
It looks like I'm going to have to weigh my words very carefully when addressing you and ekg. Please accept my apology -- maybe my phraseology comes across a little sarcastic. It's not meant to be. Actually, you are one of the few NGs I enjoy reading. You are not rabid in your belief and you provide very interesting reading.

I also want to say I'm sincerely sorry you're not feeling well. Is your eye problem acute or chronic?

I read TGs synopsis of the dog walkers and don't see your point. Please explain.

[TopGunner]

There were cut marks on his knuckles, which he said he got from the tool box (there was NO DNA on the tool box) - and there wouldvl be if he had cut himself enough to leave blood on the door of the drivers side.
Then he said he cut them while working on some farm equipment - since when does a fertilizer salesman work on farm equipment? Then he said that men "cut each other" or something as ridiculous as that. So how did he get those cuts on his knuckles - and he got them that day per his TV interviews. There was no blood or tissue on the tool box at all and if he had cut himself on it, there would have been his DNA there.

Caffine is kickin' in - I just remembered ISP also said he cut his hands HANDING OUT BROCHURES. :tongue: Ha!

[Wearing A Halo]

Hi everyone. Just something to ponder.

The boat cover:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/6L-6.jpg


The patio umbrellas:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/1G.jpg


Laci's pants when found (of course her pants were shredded, but still on):

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/39.jpg
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/41.jpg

Anyone notice a trend?

BTW; if the link does not open for you (vDECK 403 forbidden), try to highlight the addy on addy bar and then press enter.

[TopGunner]

Hi everyone. Just something to ponder.

The boat cover:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/6L-6.jpg


The patio umbrellas:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/1G.jpg


Laci's pants when found (of course her pants were shredded, but still on):

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/39.jpg
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/41.jpg

Anyone notice a trend?

BTW; if the link does not open for you (vDECK 403 forbidden), try to highlight the addy on addy bar and then press enter.

Hi Halo ~ I can't get the links to open anywhichway - so, do share. :D

[Wearing A Halo]

Hi Halo ~ I can't get the links to open anywhichway - so, do share. :D

Okay.

For the boat cover scroll down to 6L

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/index.htm

For the patio umbrellas click on the first exhibit and you will see the patio umbrellas.

For the pants scroll down to 39 and 41

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pexhibits.htm

[Cadillakin]

Hi Halo ~ I can't get the links to open anywhichway - so, do share. :DThe links are blocked at the SII site. Marlene or another admin has blacklisted addresses/referrals from the Crime Library Site. If you copy the links.. then open your browser to any site other than this one, then paste the links into the address bar, press enter, and you should be good to go...

[ekg]

You NGs do that all the time and you're doing it now. I don't see you backing up "71 sightings".

:shrug:

why would I? I wasn't asked to back it up number 1 and secondly it's not my number..

[Trixy]

The links are blocked at the SII site. Marlene or another admin has blacklisted addresses/referrals from the Crime Library Site. If you copy the links.. then open your browser to any site other than this one, then paste the links into the address bar, press enter, and you should be good to go...

Interesting, but who would rely on sii as if it were gospal? Marlene is no expert in any field, plus she has been wrong 99% of the time. She has a $$$ agenda.

:seeya:

[Class-Z]

You NGs do that all the time and you're doing it now. I don't see you backing up "71 sightings".

:shrug:

Oh, come on, give it to her/him. There could of been a 100 sightings, but they were all misidentification, that's why no one was called. They all saw her in the wrong clothes. :lol:

[TopGunner]

The links are blocked at the SII site. Marlene or another admin has blacklisted addresses/referrals from the Crime Library Site. If you copy the links.. then open your browser to any site other than this one, then paste the links into the address bar, press enter, and you should be good to go...

Cadi, are you saying we can't get there from here? Gasp! :eek: LOL! :chicken:

[One2Snoop]

Cadi, are you saying we can't get there from here? Gasp! :eek: LOL! :chicken:

:seeya: I didn't have any problem when I clicked on the first link Cadillakin provided. It said all links had been restored. Not sure if that was there before or not? :shrug:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/index.htm

[TopGunner]

:seeya: I didn't have any problem when I clicked on the first link Cadillakin provided. It said all links had been restored. Not sure if that was there before or not? :shrug:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/index.htm

Hiya Snoops - it was the first set of links that WAH posted that I can't get anywhere with. The second set worked fine. :D

[adnoid]

The links are blocked at the SII site. Marlene or another admin has blacklisted addresses/referrals from the Crime Library Site. If you copy the links.. then open your browser to any site other than this one, then paste the links into the address bar, press enter, and you should be good to go...

That's exactly correct - she blocks based on the site you came from. Copy/paste and the "referer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referrer) (read the linked info before blasting my spelling) will be set to null and it will work. Full information is here (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html) if you're really interested.

"Community of open minds" my behind.

[I'mSun]

:seeya: I didn't have any problem when I clicked on the first link Cadillakin provided. It said all links had been restored. Not sure if that was there before or not? :shrug:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/index.htmMaybe announcing the link policy on a reputable public message board caused her to change things. This is what it says over there now: All links have been restored. Report broken or incorrect links. Items in black were not made available by the Court. Anyway, they seem to be working even if the "referer" is CL.

[I'mSun]

That's exactly correct - she blocks based on the site you came from.
"Community of open minds" my behind.ROFLMAO!!! So true. :beer:

[Trixy]

"Community of open minds" my behind

:lol:

[adnoid]

...Marlene is no expert in any field...

I'm gong to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Trixy. If I needed information on the availability of Hostess baked goods in the San Francisco Bay area I know who I'd call.

[adnoid]

Maybe announcing the link policy on a reputable public message board caused her to change things...

Well, they work for me this morning - so someone changed the settings for some reason. It's not just me, I've got a little background in this stuff.

[Trixy]

I'm gong to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Trixy. If I needed information on the availability of Hostess baked goods in the San Francisco Bay area I know who I'd call.

ROTFLMAO :lol:

[Trixy]

Well, they work for me this morning - so someone changed the settings for some reason. It's not just me, I've got a little background in this stuff.


Marlene must be watching this board. I notice that there are more lurkers than posters posting. Sure wish they'd join in the converstion.

:seeya:

[Buckethead]

Maybe announcing the link policy on a reputable public message board caused her to change things. This is what it says over there now: All links have been restored. Report broken or incorrect links. Items in black were not made available by the Court. Anyway, they seem to be working even if the "referer" is CL.

Funny how that works, eh? ;)

[adnoid]

...Sure wish they'd join in the conversation...

Be careful what you ask for, as you may receive it.

[Trixy]

Be careful what you ask for, as you may receive it.

duh to me :punch:

[Lavindar]

Funny how that works, eh? ;)

Well, I am still forbidden......lol. But I have another door into that area that I will check out when I get a minute

[onthefence]

I'm sorry but you are making the statement that Scott washed one tarp in gas and then put another one under the blower... I know about the one under the blower but I know nothing of the other one you claimed he "washed" in gas....(in fact I only remember the one tarp period, the brown one that was found under the blower that was hung and pictured on the fence were one in the same, or so I believed until you said they were 2 different tarps).... so it is not up to me to go search and show that your statement is factual or not...... you made the statement, now please back it up...

I have the TS.. so at the very least you should provide a date and who testified if you cannot just post the relevant information here...

and can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna......

thank you..

Kyo offered no expert testimony that the leaked gasoline would have removed such trace evidence-stains, dna, blood, etc. The State of California provided no expert witness to make such a claim. Don't you think they would have if, this were true, or at a minimum ask Kyo about it?

[Lavindar]

Kyo offered no expert testimony that the leaked gasoline would have removed such trace evidence-stains, dna, blood, etc. The State of California provided no expert witness to make such a claim. Don't you think they would have if, this were true, or at a minimum ask Kyo about it?



I believe Kyo is a criminalist for the DOJ. I will have to reread her testimony. I will post it here for everyone to share

[Lavindar]

Kyo offered no expert testimony that the leaked gasoline would have removed such trace evidence-stains, dna, blood, etc. The State of California provided no expert witness to make such a claim. Don't you think they would have if, this were true, or at a minimum ask Kyo about it?


She did testify to nothing being on the gasoline smelling boat cover but chucks of concrete

[Dixiechic]

Guilty, guilty and I hope he rots.

[cookiewench]

Kyo offered no expert testimony that the leaked gasoline would have removed such trace evidence-stains, dna, blood, etc. The State of California provided no expert witness to make such a claim. Don't you think they would have if, this were true, or at a minimum ask Kyo about it?

Maybe there was no blood or dna for him to worry about.

He just wanted to mask the cadaver scent. That's why he asked right away about cadaver dogs - he was very aware of that scent.

[HildaC]

You can group Peterson, OJ and Wick together and not find one innocent thread in the group. I hope Wick is finished like Peterson & OJ - am I comparing killing dogs to people - no, I am saying all three should be convicted of the horrible crimes they committed.

[onthefence]

<*R>If you have the transcripts, you will find many references to the cover awash in gas.. Here is some of them..
Rick Distaso: And did you notice anything about the particular boat cover, anything about what it smelled like?
Ray Coyle: Yes.
Rick Distaso: What was that?
Ray Coyle: It had a strong odor of gasoline coming off of it, and obvious stain that was wet at the time I first found it.
Rick Distaso: Why is the boat cover hanging up on the fence there?
Ray Coyle: We didn't want to package it up and transport it in a closed vehicle with it smelling the way it did, heavy gasoline odor. And so we hung it out on the fence to air dry and to dissipate some of the odor.

And this:

David Harris: And again, looking behind you at People's No. 38, you've indicated you recognize this as being the schematic of the Covena house. Did you happen to go to, just kind of direct you to the small shed to the left side of the property.
Richard House: Here?
David Harris: You're pointing to the shed on the diagram?
Richard House: Yes. Is that where you're referring to?
David Harris: Did you go to that shed?
Richard House: Yes, I did.
David Harris: When you went to the shed on that particular date, did you notice anything that attracted your attention?
Richard House: Yes.
David Harris: What was that?
Richard House: There was a tarp or a boat cover in the shed. It was laying on some items on the floor of the shed. It was wet and smelled of gasoline.David Harris: This smell of gasoline was a little smell, large smell? Can you describe it?
Richard House: It was a strong odor.David Harris: When you said it was wet, could you tell wet from what?
Richard House: Appeared to be gasoline.
David Harris: Was it decided to collect that particular item?
Richard House: Yes.

AND THIS

David Harris: All right. Let me go through this with the photographs to make it easier. Showing you 240 B, is this a photograph of the boat cover that the Modesto Police Department gave you?
Pin Kyo: That's correct.
David Harris: And as part of this process of the documentation, did you make any observations? Looking at it, smelling it when you first started?
Pin Kyo: I observe that there is a gasoline smells coming out of the boat cover.

How can you possibly have knowledge or access to the trial transcipts and be unaware of these PROMINENT facts?

Furthermore, gasoline masking scent so that dogs senses are inhibited, and its ability to break down DNA is easily googled.. Scott was very aware of the dogs role in finding Laci as he inquired about cadaver dogs the very same night Laci went missing.. IMO, there is no reason for you to ask me to prove common knowledge or things contained in the trial record.. That's just laziness on your part.


Don't read anywhere in this testimony that any tarp was "awash" in gas. I read that there was stain and the strong smell of gasoline. I can get a strong smell of gasoline by putting gas into the lawnmover with a leaky gas can. Bottom line, nobody testified that the tarps were "awash" in gas, and the State of Califorinia offered no expert testimony that the gasoline would have removed trace evidence such as dna, blood, other bodily fluids. If the tarp was "awash" in gas, there would certainly have been reference in testimony to that effect and if LE suspected that there was trace evidence that was capable of being removed with gasoline, and maybe that was why none was found,d surely they would have made that point.:read:

[TopGunner]

Don't read anywhere in this testimony that any tarp was "awash" in gas. I read that there was stain and the strong smell of gasoline. I can get a strong smell of gasoline by putting gas into the lawnmover with a leaky gas can. Bottom line, nobody testified that the tarps were "awash" in gas, and the State of Califorinia offered no expert testimony that the gasoline would have removed trace evidence such as dna, blood, other bodily fluids. If the tarp was "awash" in gas, there would certainly have been reference in testimony to that effect and if LE suspected that there was trace evidence that was capable of being removed with gasoline, and maybe that was why none was found,d surely they would have made that point.:read:


Hi OTF, I realize this post isn't to me, but I just thought I'd jump in. I believe there was a leaking leaf blower above the tarp. It was leaking gasoline which leaked onto the tarp making it wet, and giving off the odor. The testimony posted above states that. It wasn't just a odor in the shed, it was on the tarp. A tarp belonging to the boat. I'd say that's pretty suspicious, and I agree with Otter that it wasn't to eliminate DNA, it was to cover Laci's smell to prevent the dogs from picking up on. The word "awash" probably should have been "leaking" or "leaked", but I don't see how splitting hairs points to innocence.

Another question for you: You say your on the fence. What things, in your opinion, point to guilt?

[TopGunner]

Under questioning by the prosecutor, Brocchini walked jurors through his initial encounter with Peterson. He recalled touring the couple's home and Peterson's fertilizer warehouse before taking the statement.

He said he found two tarps in Peterson's pickup truck Dec. 24. When he returned to carry out a search warrant two days later, he found one of the tarps stored in a shed underneath a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

In his opening statement, Distaso noted gasoline destroyed biological material.

[Lavindar]

Hi OTF, I realize this post isn't to me, but I just thought I'd jump in. I believe there was a leaking leaf blower above the tarp. It was leaking gasoline which leaked onto the tarp making it wet, and giving off the odor. The testimony posted above states that. It wasn't just a odor in the shed, it was on the tarp. A tarp belonging to the boat. I'd say that's pretty suspicious, and I agree with Otter that it wasn't to eliminate DNA, it was to cover Laci's smell to prevent the dogs from picking up on. The word "awash" probably should have been "leaking" or "leaked", but I don't see how splitting hairs points to innocence.

Another question for you: You say your on the fence. What things, in your opinion, point to guilt?

That must have been some leaky leaf blower as the cover was in the truck when Brocchini was there late in teh evening on the 24th, yet was under that leaky leaf blower in the early morning hours of the 26th when they did the search warrant. Not to mention but he was using this severely leaking leaf blower on the 22nd in his front yard. Pretty dangrous thing to do, wouldn't you think? Anything leaking that badly could easily start a fire

[Cadillakin]

Don't read anywhere in this testimony that any tarp was "awash" in gas. I read that there was stain and the strong smell of gasoline. I can get a strong smell of gasoline by putting gas into the lawnmover with a leaky gas can. Bottom line, nobody testified that the tarps were "awash" in gas, and the State of Califorinia offered no expert testimony that the gasoline would have removed trace evidence such as dna, blood, other bodily fluids. If the tarp was "awash" in gas, there would certainly have been reference in testimony to that effect and if LE suspected that there was trace evidence that was capable of being removed with gasoline, and maybe that was why none was found,d surely they would have made that point.

As to the word, awash..

For starters, the detectives at the Peterson home were reluctant to put that cover into their evidence van, presumably because they were uneasy for their own health and safety to transport that item without some time to let the air evaporate and dissipate the fumes.

Rick Distaso: Why is the boat cover hanging up on the fence there?
Ray Coyle: We didn't want to package it up and transport it in a closed vehicle with it smelling the way it did, heavy gasoline odor. And so we hung it out on the fence to air try and to dissipate some of the odor.

There were two others at the scene that commented on the obvious, wet, or strong smells of the gasoline. Later, criminologist, Pin Kyo made similar observations.

IMO, Rick Distaso is an honest man. He is not a hack defense lawyer, lying and inventing fairy tales and fantasies. He is a respectable family man in Modesto, and has worked diligently devoting himself to public service and criminal justice. He was promoted to a judgeship not because he is a liar, but because he is amongst the best of our citizenry. He is trustworthy, well reasoned, and honest. Rick Distaso said clearly, without any equivocation, that the boat cover was SOAKED in gas. That statement, in combination with the detectives reluctance to transport the item without sufficient airing out, and a separate seasoned detective testifying to it being 'wet' with a "strong odor" gives me GOOD REASON to use the word awash. Soaked and awash have the same meaning..

Now, I have stated my reasons for using that word, awash. Like your friend, and possible alter-ego, ekg, you want to argue semantics. Please respond in kind. Tell me why the boat cover had only a small amount of gas on it, consistent with an accidental spill, not a purposeful covering up of evidence. And why you are at it, based on what you know.. tell me where did that six gallons of gasoline go that Scott bought on the way home from Berkeley on the day that Laci disappeared. Six gallons is but a pittance in a pickup truck.. is it not? It's a little more than a quarter-tank. But, on the other hand, six gallons of gas is an ample amount to clean a large boat tarp.

When you respond to this post and do your part, we can, if you choose, get into the whys and wherefores of evidence, why everything that is true and obvious in life is not necessarily testified to or presented by the prosecution in the courtroom. (DNA washed off, breaking down, etc) Nevertheless, the jurors got the message. Scott's boat cover and tarp that he used to "transport the umbrellas" (hide the body) were removed, stored far apart, and in close proximity to strong chemicals... For those who don't know, both were originally seen on the 24th in the back of Scott's truck.. but when the detectives came back two days later with warrants, they were stored in separate enclosures/storage, one underneath a gas blower, the other in a separate place, with an unknown brown liquid on it, and strong commerical fertilzers prevalent. The search/cadaver dogs were very agitated by the chemicals in that storage area when asked to explore it.

And that is more than just a little odd and circumstantial..

[frydaddy]

As to the word, awash..

For starters, the detectives at the Peterson home were reluctant to put that cover into their evidence van, presumably because they were uneasy for their own health and safety to transport that item without some time to let the air evaporate and dissipate the fumes.

Rick Distaso: Why is the boat cover hanging up on the fence there?
Ray Coyle: We didn't want to package it up and transport it in a closed vehicle with it smelling the way it did, heavy gasoline odor. And so we hung it out on the fence to air try and to dissipate some of the odor.

There were two others at the scene that commented on the obvious, wet, or strong smells of the gasoline. Later, criminologist, Pin Kyo made similar observations.

IMO, Rick Distaso is an honest man. He is not a hack defense lawyer, lying and inventing fairy tales and fantasies. He is a respectable family man in Modesto, and has worked diligently devoting himself to public service and criminal justice. He was promoted to a judgeship not because he is a liar, but because he is amongst the best of our citizenry. He is trustworthy, well reasoned, and honest. Rick Distaso said clearly, without any equivocation, that the boat cover was SOAKED in gas. That statement, in combination with the detectives reluctance to transport the item without sufficient airing out, and a separate seasoned detective testifying to it being 'wet' with a "strong odor" gives me GOOD REASON to use the word awash. Soaked and awash have the same meaning..

Now, I have stated my reasons for using that word, awash. Like your friend, and possible alter-ego, ekg, you want to argue semantics. Please respond in kind. Tell me why the boat cover had only a small amount of gas on it, consistent with an accidental spill, not a purposeful covering up of evidence. And why you are at it, based on what you know.. tell me where did that six gallons of gasoline go that Scott bought on the way home from Berkeley on the day that Laci disappeared. Six gallons is but a pittance in a pickup truck.. is it not? It's a little more than a quarter-tank. But, on the other hand, six gallons of gas is an ample amount to clean a large boat tarp.

When you respond to this post and do your part, we can, if you choose, get into the whys and wherefores of evidence, why everything that is true and obvious in life is not necessarily testified to or presented by the prosecution in the courtroom. (DNA washed off, breaking down, etc) Nevertheless, the jurors got the message. Scott's boat cover and tarp that he used to "transport the umbrellas" (hide the body) were removed, stored far apart, and in close proximity to strong chemicals... For those who don't know, both were originally seen on the 24th in the back of Scott's truck.. but when the detectives came back two days later with warrants, they were stored in separate enclosures/storage, one underneath a gas blower, the other in a separate place, with an unknown brown liquid on it, and strong commerical fertilzers prevalent. The search/cadaver dogs were very agitated by the chemicals in that storage area when asked to explore it.

And that is more than just a little odd and circumstantial..

In addition to this stellar post, I'd add the following...

He was concerned about the truck door denting the Land Rover, as if Brocchini would intentionally do such a thing...

He was concerned about someone writing on his table, fearing someone would groove the wood with their writing apparatus...

His new toy, was supposedly to be a gift for Ron or maybe perhaps he was gonna keep it, who would want a gas stained cover for a newly acquired boat?

Leads one to ask the question, not how much gas was on it, but WHY it was where it was. Of all the places SP could have stored a boat cover (logic would dictate somewhere near the boat), folded, in the shed, under a leaky blower doesn't seem like a place one would casually place it. Almost had to go out of his way to put it there. And for someone anal retentive about his stuff, this is certainly a change in character.

[Trixy]

Under questioning by the prosecutor, Brocchini walked jurors through his initial encounter with Peterson. He recalled touring the couple's home and Peterson's fertilizer warehouse before taking the statement.

He said he found two tarps in Peterson's pickup truck Dec. 24. When he returned to carry out a search warrant two days later, he found one of the tarps stored in a shed underneath a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

In his opening statement, Distaso noted gasoline destroyed biological material.


Anyone know where Brocchini is these days? I found something he really needs to see. :seeya:

[TopGunner]

In addition to this stellar post, I'd add the following...

He was concerned about the truck door denting the Land Rover, as if Brocchini would intentionally do such a thing...

He was concerned about someone writing on his table, fearing someone would groove the wood with their writing apparatus...

His new toy, was supposedly to be a gift for Ron or maybe perhaps he was gonna keep it, who would want a gas stained cover for a newly acquired boat?

Leads one to ask the question, not how much gas was on it, but WHY it was where it was. Of all the places SP could have stored a boat cover (logic would dictate somewhere near the boat), folded, in the shed, under a leaky blower doesn't seem like a place one would casually place it. Almost had to go out of his way to put it there. And for someone anal retentive about his stuff, this is certainly a change in character.


And...and....and...ANOTHER THING :D Hiya FD, good to see you!

ISP handed 2 cops the receipt for the marina the night Laci went missing, right? Now, they thought it was a little fishy that he handed that recipt right over. Personally, I didn't read too much into it at first, BUT! As soon as he got home from, err.....golfishing, he did not look for Laci who hadn't answered her phone, or returned his calls....and her vehicle was in the driveway, no..no...no, he did not. He did LAUNDRY.

So.........this has nothing to do with the gasoline, but why would he take the receipt out of his pocket in order to do laundry, and put it in the pocket of the pants he changed into. Are ya with me on this kids? :eek: :confused:

[onthefence]

Hi OTF, I realize this post isn't to me, but I just thought I'd jump in. I believe there was a leaking leaf blower above the tarp. It was leaking gasoline which leaked onto the tarp making it wet, and giving off the odor. The testimony posted above states that. It wasn't just a odor in the shed, it was on the tarp. A tarp belonging to the boat. I'd say that's pretty suspicious, and I agree with Otter that it wasn't to eliminate DNA, it was to cover Laci's smell to prevent the dogs from picking up on. The word "awash" probably should have been "leaking" or "leaked", but I don't see how splitting hairs points to innocence.

Another question for you: You say your on the fence. What things, in your opinion, point to guilt?

I don' think the difference between leaked gasonline and awash in gasoline is splitting hairs. Quite a difference-especially when you consider possible difference in intent, between awash in and leaked by a blower. Also, it was mentioned in the post I was responding to, iirc, that gasoline could destroy trace evidence, such as DNA, and I was merely pointing out that nobody, including the State, testified to that. it would stand to reason that if there was a smell, that Laci came into contact with that tarp and there would be a good chance there was some other trace evidence that she was wrapped in the tarp, or had come into contact with it.

Things that point to guilt-although there were several people that claim to have seen Laci on the morning of the day she disappeared, none of the those people testified in court, so, am uncertain about whether or not they are credible, why they did not testify, etc.. Was it credibility issues or bad strategy on the part of the defense-have no idea. So, in that scenario, Scott is the last person known to have seen Laci alive-and that is huge, imo. There was no evidence that anyone was in their home other than Scott and Laci, no evidence of break in, nobody saw an altercation between Laci and anyone else-on the other hand, there is no evidence of a struggle, nor evidence that Laci was killed in the home-by Scott or anyone else for that matter-although it was the prosecution's theory that she was killed at home.
imo, Amber was not the motive, and any lies he told about/to Amber or his relationship with her, were to conceal the relationship/avoid embarrassment-not to hide a murder. imo, he was not trying to "run to Mexico" the day the bodies were found. If Scott P committed the murder, don't think it was premeditated, don't think the boat was a secret,etc.. He is certainly a big liar and cheater and if he committed the crime, it was accidental and/or result of an argument or confronation of some kind-2nd degree murder type crime.
There are too many unanswered questions for me-where, what,when, why, how, manner of death, murder weapon, motive (and I don't buy any of the Amber motive, that he wanted to live the single life, didn't want the baby b.s.). The place they were found them, the timing of when they found them, and the condition of the bodies of the baby and Laci have always bothered me. I remember seeing all the searches discussed on tv using all the high tech equipment and they did not find her and then she turns up and the alleged origin was right where they had been looking. The whole thing is just weird to me. On the other hand, according to testimony, he was the last person to see her alive, he had the most access to her as far as I can tell, and nobody heard from her since-and that is what keeps me "on the fence". Have been trying to read through some of the posts her and the case info thread to catch up, but, my gosh there are SOOO many posts and info, like i said, I came to a discussion board on this topic way too late to be able to contribute much other than frustrate everyone with my lack of detailed knowledge of the case. It is really interesting, and can see why people are still discussing. I should probably stick to a Michael Vick, Phil Spector or ANSmith discussion board, at this point in time :D

[frydaddy]

And...and....and...ANOTHER THING :D Hiya FD, good to see you!

ISP handed 2 cops the receipt for the marina the night Laci went missing, right? Now, they thought it was a little fishy that he handed that recipt right over. Personally, I didn't read too much into it at first, BUT! As soon as he got home from, err.....golfishing, he did not look for Laci who hadn't answered her phone, or returned his calls....and her vehicle was in the driveway, no..no...no, he did not. He did LAUNDRY.

So.........this has nothing to do with the gasoline, but why would he take the receipt out of his pocket in order to do laundry, and put it in the pocket of the pants he changed into. Are ya with me on this kids? :eek: :confused:

Morning TG, good to be seen and wonderful to be back here with the astute, good people!

Yes indeed! Marina receipt seemed pretty critical to be on Scott's person and the pulling it out in a BAM! kinda moment seemed a little staged, din't it? Of course, there are different ways to provide an alibi. Too bad for Scott, he chose the way of an all expenses paid, one way trip to SQ. Maybe Simon and Garfunkle or whatever his appellate lawyers names are will help his cause, but it's hard to fix what was never broken!

[onthefence]

Under questioning by the prosecutor, Brocchini walked jurors through his initial encounter with Peterson. He recalled touring the couple's home and Peterson's fertilizer warehouse before taking the statement.

He said he found two tarps in Peterson's pickup truck Dec. 24. When he returned to carry out a search warrant two days later, he found one of the tarps stored in a shed underneath a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

In his opening statement, Distaso noted gasoline destroyed biological material.

Distaso said a lot of things in his opening statement,as did Mark Geragos , but that does not make it true, nor is it sworn testimony. Gasoline may very well destroy, SOME KINDS of biological material. The fact remains that there was no testimony by the State of California, or any expert witness for either side, that leaking gasoline would have damaged or destroyed any trace evidence/biological material that may have been on the tarp(s).

[frydaddy]

I don' think the difference between leaked gasonline and awash in gasoline is splitting hairs. Quite a difference-especially when you consider possible difference in intent, between awash in and leaked by a blower. Also, it was mentioned in the post I was responding to, iirc, that gasoline could destroy trace evidence, such as DNA, and I was merely pointing out that nobody, including the State, testified to that. it would stand to reason that if there was a smell, that Laci came into contact with that tarp and there would be a good chance there was some other trace evidence that she was wrapped in the tarp, or had come into contact with it.

Things that point to guilt-although there were several people that claim to have seen Laci on the morning of the day she disappeared, none of the those people testified in court, so, am uncertain about whether or not they are credible, why they did not testify, etc.. Was it credibility issues or bad strategy on the part of the defense-have no idea. So, in that scenario, Scott is the last person known to have seen Laci alive-and that is huge, imo. There was no evidence that anyone was in their home other than Scott and Laci, no evidence of break in, nobody saw an altercation between Laci and anyone else-on the other hand, there is no evidence of a struggle, nor evidence that Laci was killed in the home-by Scott or anyone else for that matter-although it was the prosecution's theory that she was killed at home.
imo, Amber was not the motive, and any lies he told about/to Amber or his relationship with her, were to conceal the relationship/avoid embarrassment-not to hide a murder. imo, he was not trying to "run to Mexico" the day the bodies were found. If Scott P committed the murder, don't think it was premeditated, don't think the boat was a secret,etc.. He is certainly a big liar and cheater and if he committed the crime, it was accidental and/or result of an argument or confronation of some kind-2nd degree murder type crime.
There are too many unanswered questions for me-where, what,when, why, how, manner of death, murder weapon, motive (and I don't buy any of the Amber motive, that he wanted to live the single life, didn't want the baby b.s.). The place they were found them, the timing of when they found them, and the condition of the bodies of the baby and Laci have always bothered me. I remember seeing all the searches discussed on tv using all the high tech equipment and they did not find her and then she turns up and the alleged origin was right where they had been looking. The whole thing is just weird to me. On the other hand, according to testimony, he was the last person to see her alive, he had the most access to her as far as I can tell, and nobody heard from her since-and that is what keeps me "on the fence". Have been trying to read through some of the posts her and the case info thread to catch up, but, my gosh there are SOOO many posts and info, like i said, I came to a discussion board on this topic way too late to be able to contribute much other than frustrate everyone with my lack of detailed knowledge of the case. It is really interesting, and can see why people are still discussing. I should probably stick to a Michael Vick, Phil Spector or ANSmith discussion board, at this point in time :D

With all due respect, I don't think you are on the fence at all. ;)

[enlightenme]

In addition to this stellar post, I'd add the following...

He was concerned about the truck door denting the Land Rover, as if Brocchini would intentionally do such a thing...

He was concerned about someone writing on his table, fearing someone would groove the wood with their writing apparatus...

His new toy, was supposedly to be a gift for Ron or maybe perhaps he was gonna keep it, who would want a gas stained cover for a newly acquired boat?

Leads one to ask the question, not how much gas was on it, but WHY it was where it was. Of all the places SP could have stored a boat cover (logic would dictate somewhere near the boat), folded, in the shed, under a leaky blower doesn't seem like a place one would casually place it. Almost had to go out of his way to put it there. And for someone anal retentive about his stuff, this is certainly a change in character.


:seeya: Mornin' Frydaddy!

Geragos never did try and offer up an innocent explanation for the boat cover evidence. Unlike other things he TRIED to give an innocent spin to .... I.E. Scott went to the Berkeley marina FIVE times because it was printed in the ModBee, or Brocchini told him they would be searching there on those days. :rolleyes:

He kept talking to Amber because "she was the only one who understood about the media pressure". :rolleyes:

Geragos had a direct conduit to Scott so supposedly these are some of the explanations Scott gave to him. Lame!

[Trixy]

And...and....and...ANOTHER THING :D Hiya FD, good to see you!

ISP handed 2 cops the receipt for the marina the night Laci went missing, right? Now, they thought it was a little fishy that he handed that recipt right over. Personally, I didn't read too much into it at first, BUT! As soon as he got home from, err.....golfishing, he did not look for Laci who hadn't answered her phone, or returned his calls....and her vehicle was in the driveway, no..no...no, he did not. He did LAUNDRY.

So.........this has nothing to do with the gasoline, but why would he take the receipt out of his pocket in order to do laundry, and put it in the pocket of the pants he changed into. Are ya with me on this kids? :eek: :confused:

With ya!

:beer:

[Cadillakin]

Distaso said a lot of things in his opening statement,as did Mark Geragos , but that does not make it true, nor is it sworn testimony. As to that matter, anything ANYBODY says is not necessarily true, sworn or not. But comparing Distaso to Geragos is nonsensical. There is simply no comparison. One is an earnest, hard-working man, the other a paid liar and con-artist.

Anybody that would think the utterances of Distaso and Geragos are somehow equal in their reliability is sadly lacking in common sense.

[TopGunner]

Distaso said a lot of things in his opening statement,as did Mark Geragos , but that does not make it true, nor is it sworn testimony. Gasoline may very well destroy, SOME KINDS of biological material. The fact remains that there was no testimony by the State of California, or any expert witness for either side, that leaking gasoline would have damaged or destroyed any trace evidence/biological material that may have been on the tarp(s).

Hi OTF, glad to see you're still posting. Gotta say, you underestimate your knowledge of the case, GREATLY. However, personally, I don't care if anyone testified that gas would damage or destroy trace evidence/biological material. I'm not going to pretend that I know one way, or the other. I don't...but I will. However, to me it was clear the ISP was hiding SOMETHING by purposely placing that tarp/boat cover thingy under a leaf blower that just happened to be leaking gasoline. You see OTF, by itself, no biggie. Tie it into allllllllllllllllll the other bad luck the killer had, it's pretty big, pretty obvious, glaring actually. :seeya:

[Trixy]

As to that matter, anything ANYBODY says is not necessarily true, sworn or not. But comparing Distaso to Geragos is nonsensical. There is simply no comparison. One is an earnest, hard-working man, the other a paid liar and con-artist.

Anybody that would think the utterances of Distaso and Geragos are somehow equal in their reliability is sadly lacking in common sense.

I couldn't agree with you more.

TGIF, we have 24 people viewing & only 5 posting.

:seeya:

[onthefence]

As to the word, awash..

For starters, the detectives at the Peterson home were reluctant to put that cover into their evidence van, presumably because they were uneasy for their own health and safety to transport that item without some time to let the air evaporate and dissipate the fumes.

Rick Distaso: Why is the boat cover hanging up on the fence there?
Ray Coyle: We didn't want to package it up and transport it in a closed vehicle with it smelling the way it did, heavy gasoline odor. And so we hung it out on the fence to air try and to dissipate some of the odor.

There were two others at the scene that commented on the obvious, wet, or strong smells of the gasoline. Later, criminologist, Pin Kyo made similar observations.

IMO, Rick Distaso is an honest man. He is not a hack defense lawyer, lying and inventing fairy tales and fantasies. He is a respectable family man in Modesto, and has worked diligently devoting himself to public service and criminal justice. He was promoted to a judgeship not because he is a liar, but because he is amongst the best of our citizenry. He is trustworthy, well reasoned, and honest. Rick Distaso said clearly, without any equivocation, that the boat cover was SOAKED in gas. That statement, in combination with the detectives reluctance to transport the item without sufficient airing out, and a separate seasoned detective testifying to it being 'wet' with a "strong odor" gives me GOOD REASON to use the word awash. Soaked and awash have the same meaning..

Now, I have stated my reasons for using that word, awash. Like your friend, and possible alter-ego, ekg, you want to argue semantics. Please respond in kind. Tell me why the boat cover had only a small amount of gas on it, consistent with an accidental spill, not a purposeful covering up of evidence. And why you are at it, based on what you know.. tell me where did that six gallons of gasoline go that Scott bought on the way home from Berkeley on the day that Laci disappeared. Six gallons is but a pittance in a pickup truck.. is it not? It's a little more than a quarter-tank. But, on the other hand, six gallons of gas is an ample amount to clean a large boat tarp.

When you respond to this post and do your part, we can, if you choose, get into the whys and wherefores of evidence, why everything that is true and obvious in life is not necessarily testified to or presented by the prosecution in the courtroom. (DNA washed off, breaking down, etc) Nevertheless, the jurors got the message. Scott's boat cover and tarp that he used to "transport the umbrellas" (hide the body) were removed, stored far apart, and in close proximity to strong chemicals... For those who don't know, both were originally seen on the 24th in the back of Scott's truck.. but when the detectives came back two days later with warrants, they were stored in separate enclosures/storage, one underneath a gas blower, the other in a separate place, with an unknown brown liquid on it, and strong commerical fertilzers prevalent. The search/cadaver dogs were very agitated by the chemicals in that storage area when asked to explore it.

And that is more than just a little odd and circumstantial..


don't know anything about Rick Distaso nor did I say that he was not honest, etc. The issue was not Rick Distaso' character, his abilities as a lawyer, etc.. althought you seem to have a real prejudice around "hack" defense lawyers-but that is a completely separate issue, as is where this 6 gallons of gasonline went. Are you saying that if I can't tell you where 6 gallons of gasoline went, that this means your post stating that the tarp was awash in gas, was accurate or that the gasonlie potentially destroyed evidenc on said tarps? Did any expert witness suggest that the tarp had ever been "awash" in gas? I believe the answer is no-so can we agree on that and move on (to the movement of the tarps, etc)? Let's not muck up the original topic by posting about missing gasoline, the movement of the tarps, the character of the lawyers.

[onthefence]

As to the word, awash..

For starters, the detectives at the Peterson home were reluctant to put that cover into their evidence van, presumably because they were uneasy for their own health and safety to transport that item without some time to let the air evaporate and dissipate the fumes.

Rick Distaso: Why is the boat cover hanging up on the fence there?
Ray Coyle: We didn't want to package it up and transport it in a closed vehicle with it smelling the way it did, heavy gasoline odor. And so we hung it out on the fence to air try and to dissipate some of the odor.

There were two others at the scene that commented on the obvious, wet, or strong smells of the gasoline. Later, criminologist, Pin Kyo made similar observations.

IMO, Rick Distaso is an honest man. He is not a hack defense lawyer, lying and inventing fairy tales and fantasies. He is a respectable family man in Modesto, and has worked diligently devoting himself to public service and criminal justice. He was promoted to a judgeship not because he is a liar, but because he is amongst the best of our citizenry. He is trustworthy, well reasoned, and honest. Rick Distaso said clearly, without any equivocation, that the boat cover was SOAKED in gas. That statement, in combination with the detectives reluctance to transport the item without sufficient airing out, and a separate seasoned detective testifying to it being 'wet' with a "strong odor" gives me GOOD REASON to use the word awash. Soaked and awash have the same meaning..

Now, I have stated my reasons for using that word, awash. Like your friend, and possible alter-ego, ekg, you want to argue semantics. Please respond in kind. Tell me why the boat cover had only a small amount of gas on it, consistent with an accidental spill, not a purposeful covering up of evidence. And why you are at it, based on what you know.. tell me where did that six gallons of gasoline go that Scott bought on the way home from Berkeley on the day that Laci disappeared. Six gallons is but a pittance in a pickup truck.. is it not? It's a little more than a quarter-tank. But, on the other hand, six gallons of gas is an ample amount to clean a large boat tarp.

When you respond to this post and do your part, we can, if you choose, get into the whys and wherefores of evidence, why everything that is true and obvious in life is not necessarily testified to or presented by the prosecution in the courtroom. (DNA washed off, breaking down, etc) Nevertheless, the jurors got the message. Scott's boat cover and tarp that he used to "transport the umbrellas" (hide the body) were removed, stored far apart, and in close proximity to strong chemicals... For those who don't know, both were originally seen on the 24th in the back of Scott's truck.. but when the detectives came back two days later with warrants, they were stored in separate enclosures/storage, one underneath a gas blower, the other in a separate place, with an unknown brown liquid on it, and strong commerical fertilzers prevalent. The search/cadaver dogs were very agitated by the chemicals in that storage area when asked to explore it.

And that is more than just a little odd and circumstantial..


don't know anything about Rick Distaso nor did I say that he was not honest, etc. The issue was not Rick Distaso' character, his abilities as a lawyer, etc.. althought you seem to have a real prejudice around "hack" defense lawyers-but that is a completely separate issue, as is where this 6 gallons of gasonline went. Are you saying that if I can't tell you where 6 gallons of gasoline went, that this means your post stating that the tarp was awash in gas, was accurate or that the gasonlie potentially destroyed evidenc on said tarps? Did any expert witness suggest that the tarp had ever been "awash" in gas? I believe the answer is no-so can we agree on that and move on (to the movement of the tarps, etc)? Let's not muck up the original topic by posting about missing gasoline, the movement of the tarps, the character of the lawyers. The difference between the term awash and leaked is the similiar to the difference betweeen being "covered" in blood, as opposed to some blood on your hand where you cut your finger, imo. It's not semantics in the context of the case, imo.

[TopGunner]

don't know anything about Rick Distaso nor did I say that he was not honest, etc. The issue was not Rick Distaso' character, his abilities as a lawyer, etc.. althought you seem to have a real prejudice around "hack" defense lawyers-but that is a completely separate issue, as is where this 6 gallons of gasonline went. Are you saying that if I can't tell you where 6 gallons of gasoline went, that this means your post stating that the tarp was awash in gas, was accurate or that the gasonlie potentially destroyed evidenc on said tarps? Did any expert witness suggest that the tarp had ever been "awash" in gas? I believe the answer is no-so can we agree on that and move on (to the movement of the tarps, etc)? Let's not muck up the original topic by posting about missing gasoline, the movement of the tarps, the character of the lawyers. The difference between the term awash and leaked is the similiar to the difference betweeen being "covered" in blood, as opposed to some blood on your hand where you cut your finger, imo. It's not semantics in the context of the case, imo.


Hey OTF, relax...............it is a fact that the tarp was covered in gas that was leaked from the blower. It's also a fact that the cops draped it over the fence to air out - pretty signifigent leak I'd say. Nobody's making it up, it happened. You are splitting hairs, the point is the killer was hiding somthing. Period.

[onthefence]

Hi OTF, glad to see you're still posting. Gotta say, you underestimate your knowledge of the case, GREATLY. However, personally, I don't care if anyone testified that gas would damage or destroy trace evidence/biological material. I'm not going to pretend that I know one way, or the other. I don't...but I will. However, to me it was clear the ISP was hiding SOMETHING by purposely placing that tarp/boat cover thingy under a leaf blower that just happened to be leaking gasoline. You see OTF, by itself, no biggie. Tie it into allllllllllllllllll the other bad luck the killer had, it's pretty big, pretty obvious, glaring actually. :seeya:

imo the tarp was placed below the leaf blower because it was leaking, like the cover for my bbq pit is now under my edger, which is, unfortuantely leaking oil. It shows the thinking of an innocent person as much as it might show the thinking of an guilty one, depending on your take of it/him. If he is innocent, he is unloading stuff from his truck, the blower was leaking, he puts one there, and one somewhere else. If there was brown liquid on the other tarp, was it tested, what was it? something that was being used to destroy evidence? If he was trying to hide something, the tarps wouldn't have made it back to Modesto in the back of his truck, imo.. Went to all that trouble to hide a friggin boat, but couldn't be bothered to get rid of 2 tarps? Personally, if he did it, I think a tarp was used, but, that is in SF Bay somewhere.

I have been reading the posts here for the last couple of days and what I know compared to some of you guys is, as Mark Geragos would say: zero, zip, nada! people here are whipping out transcripts and links to all kinds of stuff. amazing. one of you guys should write a book.

[TopGunner]

imo the tarp was placed below the leaf blower because it was leaking, like the cover for my bbq pit is now under my edger, which is, unfortuantely leaking oil. It shows the thinking of an innocent person as much as it might show the thinking of an guilty one, depending on your take of it/him. If he is innocent, he is unloading stuff from his truck, the blower was leaking, he puts one there, and one somewhere else. If there was brown liquid on the other tarp, was it tested, what was it? something that was being used to destroy evidence? If he was trying to hide something, the tarps wouldn't have made it back to Modesto in the back of his truck, imo.. Went to all that trouble to hide a friggin boat, but couldn't be bothered to get rid of 2 tarps? Personally, if he did it, I think a tarp was used, but, that is in SF Bay somewhere.

I have been reading the posts here for the last couple of days and what I know compared to some of you guys is, as Mark Geragos would say: zero, zip, nada! people here are whipping out transcripts and links to all kinds of stuff. amazing. one of you guys should write a book.

Why thanks for the compliment OTF, but personally, I'm too busy to write a book, and excellent books have already been written, so I think I'll pass. I think I'll pass on posting with you any longer as well, because it's clear you're not only not on the fence, but you've simply come here to bait and attack. Enjoy.:patriot:

[onthefence]

Hey OTF, relax...............it is a fact that the tarp was covered in gas that was leaked from the blower. It's also a fact that the cops draped it over the fence to air out - pretty signifigent leak I'd say. Nobody's making it up, it happened. You are splitting hairs, the point is the killer was hiding somthing. Period.

sorry, I can be a little bull headed sometimes. I think a few of us could stand a chill pill on this one.;)

Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to make. I don't doubt that there was a strong odor of gasoline. Piyo (sp?) said there was a stain (example: stain of blood vs. awash or covered in, blood) where the blower had leaked on to the tarp. Nowhere does it say it was covered or awash in gas, they did testify to a strong gasoline odor which a stain could cause, especially after being in a shed. I would be suspicious of a tarp awash or covered in gas-i.e as if someone had poured gasoline all over it , like "accidentally" knocked over the gas can, getting gas all over the tarp. think the boat tarp/cober is a red herring. If a tarp was used it's in the bay, imo.

[onthefence]

Why thanks for the compliment OTF, but personally, I'm too busy to write a book, and excellent books have already been written, so I think I'll pass. I think I'll pass on posting with you any longer as well, because it's clear you're not only not on the fence, but you've simply come here to bait and attack. Enjoy.:patriot:

it is not my intent to bait or attack anyone. I have been attacked too, so understand that feeling. thought i would quit posting, but was interested, so came back again to post some more. maybe not such a good idea. sorry you feel that you have to pass on posting with me.

[Trixy]

Did someone say "write a book"?

I have the perfect title: CONDUCT UNBECOMING

I'm working on it. Best seller no doubt.

:read: :seeya:

[onthefence]

Did someone say "write a book"?

I have the perfect title: CONDUCT UNBECOMING

I'm working on it. Best seller no doubt.

:read: :seeya:

good luck with that. :beer:

[frydaddy]

:seeya: Mornin' Frydaddy!

Geragos never did try and offer up an innocent explanation for the boat cover evidence. Unlike other things he TRIED to give an innocent spin to .... I.E. Scott went to the Berkeley marina FIVE times because it was printed in the ModBee, or Brocchini told him they would be searching there on those days. :rolleyes:

He kept talking to Amber because "she was the only one who understood about the media pressure". :rolleyes:

Geragos had a direct conduit to Scott so supposedly these are some of the explanations Scott gave to him. Lame!

Hey! Like any defense lawyer does, you accentuate what you can to give the appearance that Scott couldn't have done this. But any right thinking person who's awake can see that there was so much that MG couldn't refute and so many witnesses who could've provided direct testimony, but didn't. Round peg, square hole. In the end, I think MG was the avid fisherman, concentrated solely on red herring!

[Trixy]

Some one around here better to their homework on this case. MG had nothing because he had a very guilty client. He told nothing but lies from day one and it back fired. Funny how that happens. He couldn't even show up for the sentencing. How embarassing. Seems MG has a nasty habit of doing that. He's done it again recently. He takes on guilty clients and then runs with the money.

:lol:

[Trixy]

Why are the NGs soo angry? If they have all the answers that could free Scott. Why aren't they doing anything with it? They should be over joyed they could help their idol who doesn't care about them one bit.

:shrug:

[Cadillakin]

Hey OTF, relax...............it is a fact that the tarp was covered in gas that was leaked from the blower. It's also a fact that the cops draped it over the fence to air out - pretty signifigent leak I'd say. Nobody's making it up, it happened. You are splitting hairs, the point is the killer was hiding somthing. Period.Just for clarification TG, I don't believe for a minute that the gas "leaked" on the blower, but rather, Scott washed the boat cover with gas, wadded it up and then placed a leaking blower on top of it so that it would look like a random, unfortunate circumstance. My guess is Scott instigated the leak of the blower by loosening or cutting something in or around the gas holding area. (tank)

[Lavindar]

In addition to this stellar post, I'd add the following...

He was concerned about the truck door denting the Land Rover, as if Brocchini would intentionally do such a thing...

He was concerned about someone writing on his table, fearing someone would groove the wood with their writing apparatus...

His new toy, was supposedly to be a gift for Ron or maybe perhaps he was gonna keep it, who would want a gas stained cover for a newly acquired boat?

Leads one to ask the question, not how much gas was on it, but WHY it was where it was. Of all the places SP could have stored a boat cover (logic would dictate somewhere near the boat), folded, in the shed, under a leaky blower doesn't seem like a place one would casually place it. Almost had to go out of his way to put it there. And for someone anal retentive about his stuff, this is certainly a change in character.


There had to be a substantial amount of gasoline on the cover to make it wet...and for the strong smell to last long enough to get to Kyo and her testimony stated that it still smelled like gasoline. It was aired out, and in my experience, gasoline evaporates pretty quickly when left in the open air.

[Lavindar]

Just for clarification TG, I don't believe for a minute that the gas "leaked" on the blower, but rather, Scott washed the boat cover with gas, wadded it up and then placed a leaking blower on top of it so that it would look like a random, unfortunate circumstance. My guess is Scott instigated the leak of the blower by loosening or cutting something in or around the gas holding area. (tank)



ITA. There was far too much gasoline on that tarp (it was wet) to occur from a small leak in a leaf blower. The leaf blower was on that tarp maybe 24 hours imo. The boat cover was in the back of the truck and had no gasoline smell on it that was noticed by anyone. Scott did not get back to his house until after his interview with Brocchini at the police station IIRC about 1am. on the 25th. He had to have moved it after that. The search warrant was executed about 4am on the 27th

[adnoid]

Hey! Like any defense lawyer does, you accentuate what you can to give the appearance that Scott couldn't have done this....

How to win a case in court: If the law is on your side, pound the law; if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if neither is on your side, pound the table.

--Unknown-

[enlightenme]

ITA. There was far too much gasoline on that tarp (it was wet) to occur from a small leak in a leaf blower. The leaf blower was on that tarp maybe 24 hours imo. The boat cover was in the back of the truck and had no gasoline smell on it that was noticed by anyone. Scott did not get back to his house until after his interview with Brocchini at the police station IIRC about 1am. on the 25th. He had to have moved it after that. The search warrant was executed about 4am on the 27th

Before the search warrant was conducted (less than 48 hrs after Laci was reported missing), Scott was doing a lot of moving things around. There were things that were in the truck that were now in the warehouse. 2 other 2 day fishing licenses from years ago were now all together. Why wouldn't Scott move the boat cover to the warehouse where the boat was? Probably because there was no way to put something leaking of gas on it and make it SEEM like a coincidence.

[deputydi]

<snip>So.........this has nothing to do with the gasoline, but why would he take the receipt out of his pocket in order to do laundry, and put it in the pocket of the pants he changed into. Are ya with me on this kids? :eek: :confused:
Wow, TG -- you're good. I always thought being able to produce that receipt immediately was odd, but never knew why. Of course, it is beyond strange that he would produce that receipt from his pocket when he had changed clothes. I guess I never really paid attention at the time. I kind of assumed he got it from his vehicle. Scott had changed clothes (because they were wet), so he must have taken that receipt out of those clothes and, instead of putting it on top of the dryer or on a table somewhere) he put it in the pocket of the clothes he had changed into. Do you suppose he had a feeling he would be needing it?

[TopGunner]

Just for clarification TG, I don't believe for a minute that the gas "leaked" on the blower, but rather, Scott washed the boat cover with gas, wadded it up and then placed a leaking blower on top of it so that it would look like a random, unfortunate circumstance. My guess is Scott instigated the leak of the blower by loosening or cutting something in or around the gas holding area. (tank)

Oh......got it. As I said earlier, I never spent too much time on it, I simply walked away with the idea that he was covering something (no pun), but what you say here Cadi, makes perfect sense. Thanks! :D

[TopGunner]

it is not my intent to bait or attack anyone. I have been attacked too, so understand that feeling. thought i would quit posting, but was interested, so came back again to post some more. maybe not such a good idea. sorry you feel that you have to pass on posting with me.


If I misunderstood, then I do apologize. :rose:

[onthefence]

There had to be a substantial amount of gasoline on the cover to make it wet...and for the strong smell to last long enough to get to Kyo and her testimony stated that it still smelled like gasoline. It was aired out, and in my experience, gasoline evaporates pretty quickly when left in the open air.

It was a cotton duct cover. Much more absorbent than say one that was made of synthetics or plastic and the like. Airing out a cotton tarp is one thing, but, you are not going to get rid of a strong gas smell by airing it out, nor will you be able to conceal the fact that it is awash (or drenched in the case of a cotton cover) with gas, not even after a lenght of time-unless it is well washed. A cotton rag with gas on it will smell for quite some time-have several in the garage. Ever get gas on your clothing (or even your hands) when you are filling up your car or putting gas in lawnmower? it doesn't go away very easily, that's for sure. I still think the tarp is a red herring and they were looking in the wrong place, at the wrong tarp. If Scott P did this, and he used a tarp, it wasn't the one that was in his truck/in the shed. iirc there was a tarpMaybe that washed up around and near the time Laci was found and one of the guys that found it or was a LE type said it smelled like death or had a bad odor or something? i really think that tarp would be most likely to tell the tale, so to speak. moo.

[Cadillakin]

Before the search warrant was conducted (less than 48 hrs after Laci was reported missing), Scott was doing a lot of moving things around. There were things that were in the truck that were now in the warehouse. 2 other 2 day fishing licenses from years ago were now all together. Why wouldn't Scott move the boat cover to the warehouse where the boat was? Probably because there was no way to put something leaking of gas on it and make it SEEM like a coincidence.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?"

[onthefence]

Wow, TG -- you're good. I always thought being able to produce that receipt immediately was odd, but never knew why. Of course, it is beyond strange that he would produce that receipt from his pocket when he had changed clothes. I guess I never really paid attention at the time. I kind of assumed he got it from his vehicle. Scott had changed clothes (because they were wet), so he must have taken that receipt out of those clothes and, instead of putting it on top of the dryer or on a table somewhere) he put it in the pocket of the clothes he had changed into. Do you suppose he had a feeling he would be needing it?

this did seem sort of "fishy" (no pun intended) to me as well. if he said he was golfing that could be easily and quickly determined. if he did do it, he provided an alibi thinking the body would never surfact?

if they had found Laci's body anywhere but the bay, and Scott had his marina receipt (his alibi), who would you consider the primary suspect in Laci's death?

[onthefence]

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.

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?"

did the part about him cleaning the tool box the day or so before, come out in court? did they use a live, pregnant woman to put into the tool box :eek: ? That must have been really eerie to be that person.

[frydaddy]

There had to be a substantial amount of gasoline on the cover to make it wet...and for the strong smell to last long enough to get to Kyo and her testimony stated that it still smelled like gasoline. It was aired out, and in my experience, gasoline evaporates pretty quickly when left in the open air.


Anyone ever heard of a leaf blower that works on straight gas? :shrug: Everyone I've ever known was two cycle, which mixes oil and gas. Wonder if there was an oily residue on the tarp? :shrug:

[frydaddy]

How to win a case in court: If the law is on your side, pound the law; if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if neither is on your side, pound the table.

--Unknown-

Unknown is one clever dame or dude! I'd add a caveat to these words of wisdom...when debating an NG or II, pound the booze. It's cheaper that pounding your head against a wall and it may lead to additional pounding later!

[Cadillakin]

this did seem sort of "fishy" (no pun intended) to me as well. if he said he was golfing that could be easily and quickly determined. if he did do it, he provided an alibi thinking the body would never surfact?

if they had found Laci's body anywhere but the bay, and Scott had his marina receipt (his alibi), who would you consider the primary suspect in Laci's death?IMO, if the body were found elsewhere, it is less likely Scott would ever have been brought to trial..and if he would have, the jury might have hung.. BUT... consider that Scott's whereabouts were never fully known after the 8:30pm phone call from Laci to her mother on the 23rd, and the cell phones pinpointing him on the 24th near his home. Also, after Scott left the warehouse on the 24th until the cell phone towers picked him up heading east away from the Bay late in the afternoon, his whereabouts were not fully known... The parking ticket was the only indicator.. NOBODY at all saw him during the day. Do note that the police searched many bodies of water in the greater Modesto area, not just the Bay, with the belief that Scott did the burying the previous night. Grogan testifies to that. Read his testimony if you havent already done so. You can really see the case clearly against Scott. Many of us still believe the so-called, two trip theories.. and that Scott panicked and went back to the bay on the 24th to check on Laci's burial.. to assure himself that she was in fact, "staying on the bottom"

Distaso hinted that he went with what was given to him, the facts that were allowed into evidence.. in this circumstance, the parking ticket. Thus, it was not necessary for the prosecutors to prove Scott was at the Bay, Scott proved it himself when handing over the ticket.

So, even if the prosecutors favored or actually had evidence Scott was moving about at night, why struggle with trying to prove that? It would have been an uphill battle because Medina said she noticed two vehicles in their driveway that night (questionable), though she would NOT say one of them was Scott's truck. Scott himself proved he was at the bay and said he was there with the boat. That was good enough to present and convict. Distaso went with it.

[Lavindar]

It was a cotton duct cover. Much more absorbent than say one that was made of synthetics or plastic and the like. Airing out a cotton tarp is one thing, but, you are not going to get rid of a strong gas smell by airing it out, nor will you be able to conceal the fact that it is awash (or drenched in the case of a cotton cover) with gas, not even after a lenght of time-unless it is well washed. A cotton rag with gas on it will smell for quite some time-have several in the garage. Ever get gas on your clothing (or even your hands) when you are filling up your car or putting gas in lawnmower? it doesn't go away very easily, that's for sure. I still think the tarp is a red herring and they were looking in the wrong place, at the wrong tarp. If Scott P did this, and he used a tarp, it wasn't the one that was in his truck/in the shed. iirc there was a tarpMaybe that washed up around and near the time Laci was found and one of the guys that found it or was a LE type said it smelled like death or had a bad odor or something? i really think that tarp would be most likely to tell the tale, so to speak. moo.
Please provide a link to the boat cover being cotton. Most boat covers are canvas, not cotton and are waterproofed to keep water from getting into the boat when it is covered.

If you read the testimony you will see that the tarp that "smelled like death" was tested, and also exposed to a cadaver dog that did NOT alert on it.

[I'mSun]

Did someone say "write a book"?

I have the perfect title: CONDUCT UNBECOMING

I'm working on it. Best seller no doubt.

:read: :seeya:ROFLMAO!!! :beer:

[Cadillakin]

Please provide a link to the boat cover being cotton. Most boat covers are canvas, not cotton and are waterproofed to keep water from getting into the boat when it is covered.
Yeah baby, I'm all over that too.. A cotton boat cover.. C'mon.. It would drench, sag, and collapse in the rain. No way, no how. I think he/she is used to talking to the NG's. They might believe such a suggestion.

[Cadillakin]

Even though this forum is mostly made up of women.. I learned over at WS.. that many of them are VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE about fishing, boating, laying concrete, and many other pastimes more commonly associated with men.

In fact, when the concrete testimonies came up, some of the ladies were giving me lessons..

[Trixy]

Yeah baby, I'm all over that too.. A cotton boat cover.. C'mon.. It would drench, sag, and collapse in the rain. No way, no how. I think he/she is used to talking to the NG's. They might believe such a suggestion.

I've seen this being said on another board. If it was posted, they believe without looking it up themselves. Still goes on. Not one of them did the research and realized there wouldn't have been a cotton boat cover? How many years is it now? Where is the c ommon sense?


:shrug:

[TopGunner]

Anyone ever heard of a leaf blower that works on straight gas? :shrug: Everyone I've ever known was two cycle, which mixes oil and gas. Wonder if there was an oily residue on the tarp? :shrug:

Holy cattails FD, aren't we all wearing our thinking caps today, and it's Friday no less, LOL!!!!

I have 3 leaf blowers in my life. One is electric, the other two are gas/oil mix. Of those 2, one is a commercial size, the other is supposed to be "the lightest leaf blower made, blows up to 150 MPH!!!".....anyhow, no straight gas, EXCELLENT CATCH! :biggrin:

[onthefence]

Please provide a link to the boat cover being cotton. Most boat covers are canvas, not cotton and are waterproofed to keep water from getting into the boat when it is covered.

If you read the testimony you will see that the tarp that "smelled like death" was tested, and also exposed to a cadaver dog that did NOT alert on it.

I have been pretty clear about the fact that i have not read , nor am I familiar with much of the testimony, and don't have all these links....... geez. I am pretty sure I read reference to a cotton duct boat cover here somewhere, maybe i misread and it was someone disputing that? Most of what I have read is what has been posted on this forum or earlier, in the news/tv. Based on what I have read here in the last day or so, I have gone to a couple from links here. I haven't had a lot of time to go through enough of it, I've said that. So, simply an honest mistake/error on my part :o . Is there a link, ie testimony as to the composition of the tarp? Regardless of the composition of the tarp, there is no testimony that it was awash (possibly suggesting an attempt to destroy evidence) in gasoline, just a stained area-whihc i assume was from a leaky blower. If it was stained, especially in spite of waterproofing, there would be a strong gas smell, unless it was washed very thoroughly.

[onthefence]

Holy cattails FD, aren't we all wearing our thinking caps today, and it's Friday no less, LOL!!!!

I have 3 leaf blowers in my life. One is electric, the other two are gas/oil mix. Of those 2, one is a commercial size, the other is supposed to be "the lightest leaf blower made, blows up to 150 MPH!!!".....anyhow, no straight gas, EXCELLENT CATCH! :biggrin:

that is a good point. our leaf blower is electric but i have seen yard crews with the gas kind. we have a gas edger and it takes a gas and oil mix.
The stain on this cover tarp must have been tested?

[ekg]

Like your friend, and possible alter-ego, ekg,

well sure... b/c I'm too afraid to post under my own name.:rolleyes:

as for friend? nope, not yet... but I like the way he/she thinks...

please get your facts straight before you accuse 2 ppl you don't know...and then try and bait the both of them....:flamemad:

[Cadillakin]

I have been pretty clear about the fact that i have not read , nor am I familiar with much of the testimony, and don't have all these links....... geez. I am pretty sure I read reference to a cotton duct boat cover here somewhere, maybe i misread and it was someone disputing that? Most of what I have read is what has been posted on this forum or earlier, in the news/tv. Based on what I have read here in the last day or so, I have gone to a couple from links here. I haven't had a lot of time to go through enough of it, I've said that. So, simply an honest mistake/error on my part :o . Is there a link, ie testimony as to the composition of the tarp? Regardless of the composition of the tarp, there is no testimony that it was awash (possibly suggesting an attempt to destroy evidence) in gasoline, just a stained area-whihc i assume was from a leaky blower. If it was stained, especially in spite of waterproofing, there would be a strong gas smell, unless it was washed very thoroughly.OK, one last time, Rick Distaso is a man of the highest integrity.. a person anybody would be proud to know and befriend. A public servant in the truest sense. And he said the friggin thing was SOAKED... Evidence, NO. Truth, YES.

So, it was SOAKED.. LIVE WITH IT.. OR CALL HIM A LIAR. That is your only two choices..

[onthefence]

OK, one last time, Rick Distaso is a man of the highest integrity.. a person anybody would be proud to know and befriend. A public servant in the truest sense. And he said the friggin thing was SOAKED... Evidence, NO. Truth, YES.

So, it was SOAKED.. LIVE WITH IT.. OR CALL HIM A LIAR. That is your only two choices.. If you can't believe a man like him can be trusted and counted on to tell the truth.. then I suspect, your brain will only be filled with twinkies...

you don't have to shout at or insult me:( . We can simply agree to disagree with regards to the tarp. Rick Distaso' character and integrity is beside the point in this regard. Distasto may be 2nd only to Christ himself as far as i know, but, he was not a witness, he didn't tesify and any opinion he might have on whether the tarp was soaked or not, is uncorroborated by anyone else that did testify, and would be based on, at a minimum, 2nd hand information. Again, let's agree to disagree on the tarp, ok?

[TuscanDreams]

Attack the subject and not the poster.

This case is horrible, a woman and her baby are dead and the perpetrator is on death row. Of course this case incites passions, who couldn't be touched by this tragedy?

[TopGunner]

You know, for the past hour I've been googling this and looking it up in some books I have. Everyone, except for the SII site, states exactly what is posted below, no exception. The SII site has it's usual spin and made up "conclusion", I should have known.:no:

People's Exhibit 1-M
A look inside Scott Peterson's backyard shed. Modesto police found Peterson's boat cover and a blue tarp inside the shed on December 26, 2002. Gasoline had apparently spilled on the canvas boat cover and liquid fertilizer on the tarp. Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.


Also part of Grogan's 41 reasons list:

A tracking dog detected the victim's scent on a bay boat launch used by Peterson.
Peterson said his angling excursion was impromptu, but he purchased a two-day fishing license four days before the trip.
The tackle in his boat was primarily freshwater, leaving him unprepared for successful bay fishing.
He returned to the bay three times after her disappearance.
He paid cash for the boat and never registered it.
A boat cover large enough to hide a body was later found under a leaf blower that was leaking gas.
He had large patio umbrellas in his truck bed. The detective said the umbrellas were the same height as Laci Peterson and would be a convenient explanation if anyone saw him loading something large into his truck.

[Lavindar]

You know, for the past hour I've been googling this and looking it up in some books I have. Everyone, except for the SII site, states exactly what is posted below, no exception. The SII site has it's usual spin and made up "conclusion", I should have known.:no:

People's Exhibit 1-M
A look inside Scott Peterson's backyard shed. Modesto police found Peterson's boat cover and a blue tarp inside the shed on December 26, 2002. Gasoline had apparently spilled on the canvas boat cover and liquid fertilizer on the tarp. Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.


Also part of Grogan's 41 reasons list:

A tracking dog detected the victim's scent on a bay boat launch used by Peterson.
Peterson said his angling excursion was impromptu, but he purchased a two-day fishing license four days before the trip.
The tackle in his boat was primarily freshwater, leaving him unprepared for successful bay fishing.
He returned to the bay three times after her disappearance.
He paid cash for the boat and never registered it.
A boat cover large enough to hide a body was later found under a leaf blower that was leaking gas.
He had large patio umbrellas in his truck bed. The detective said the umbrellas were the same height as Laci Peterson and would be a convenient explanation if anyone saw him loading something large into his truck.

Let me add a little fuel to the fire - tee hee. Who keeps a boat cover in a totally separate location from where the boat is? Little counter-productive, wouldn't you say? Why not just keep it in the back of the truck to return to the warehouse to put it WITH THE BOAT. That's like putting your clothes in your bedroom and putting your shoes at work. It makes NO sense whatsoever. Why leave patio umbrellas that you are supposed to move from your house to the warehouse in the back of the truck? He had to have seen them when he hooked up his boat. Yet he left them there, drove 90 miles, launched his boat (where he had to see them again), parked in truck in a PUBLIC PARKING AREA with the umbrellas in plain view. He backs his truck and trailer up to pull the boat out of the water (again seeing the umbrellas) returns 90 miles to his warehouse, backs his boat into the warehouse, unhooks it, where he has to see the umbrellas again, yet leaves them in the truck and takes them back to their point of origin. Could his mind be so filled with the enormity of teh crime he just committed that he forgot the umbrellas? Did he not say that Laci asked him to take the umbrellas to the warehouse - yet he was going to return home and Laci would have been upset that he didn't leave them at the warehousee. Oh wait, Laci couldn't say anything because she was dead and HE KNEW IT

[Wearing A Halo]

Let me add a little fuel to the fire - tee hee. Who keeps a boat cover in a totally separate location from where the boat is? Little counter-productive, wouldn't you say? Why not just keep it in the back of the truck to return to the warehouse to put it WITH THE BOAT. That's like putting your clothes in your bedroom and putting your shoes at work. It makes NO sense whatsoever. Why leave patio umbrellas that you are supposed to move from your house to the warehouse in the back of the truck? He had to have seen them when he hooked up his boat. Yet he left them there, drove 90 miles, launched his boat (where he had to see them again), parked in truck in a PUBLIC PARKING AREA with the umbrellas in plain view. He backs his truck and trailer up to pull the boat out of the water (again seeing the umbrellas) returns 90 miles to his warehouse, backs his boat into the warehouse, unhooks it, where he has to see the umbrellas again, yet leaves them in the truck and takes them back to their point of origin. Could his mind be so filled with the enormity of teh crime he just committed that he forgot the umbrellas? Did he not say that Laci asked him to take the umbrellas to the warehouse - yet he was going to return home and Laci would have been upset that he didn't leave them at the warehousee. Oh wait, Laci couldn't say anything because she was dead and HE KNEW IT


It was all of that Lavindar, but Laci.

[Wearing A Halo]

You know, for the past hour I've been googling this and looking it up in some books I have. Everyone, except for the SII site, states exactly what is posted below, no exception. The SII site has it's usual spin and made up "conclusion", I should have known.:no:

People's Exhibit 1-M
A look inside Scott Peterson's backyard shed. Modesto police found Peterson's boat cover and a blue tarp inside the shed on December 26, 2002. Gasoline had apparently spilled on the canvas boat cover and liquid fertilizer on the tarp. Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.


Also part of Grogan's 41 reasons list:

A tracking dog detected the victim's scent on a bay boat launch used by Peterson.
Peterson said his angling excursion was impromptu, but he purchased a two-day fishing license four days before the trip.
The tackle in his boat was primarily freshwater, leaving him unprepared for successful bay fishing.
He returned to the bay three times after her disappearance.
He paid cash for the boat and never registered it.
A boat cover large enough to hide a body was later found under a leaf blower that was leaking gas.
He had large patio umbrellas in his truck bed. The detective said the umbrellas were the same height as Laci Peterson and would be a convenient explanation if anyone saw him loading something large into his truck.

Okay, getting back to my pop quiz:

The boat cover, the umbrellas and Laci's pants are all similar, if not the same, in color and somewhat in texture too.

[onthefence]

You know, for the past hour I've been googling this and looking it up in some books I have. Everyone, except for the SII site, states exactly what is posted below, no exception. The SII site has it's usual spin and made up "conclusion", I should have known.:no:

People's Exhibit 1-M
A look inside Scott Peterson's backyard shed. Modesto police found Peterson's boat cover and a blue tarp inside the shed on December 26, 2002. Gasoline had apparently spilled on the canvas boat cover and liquid fertilizer on the tarp. Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.


Also part of Grogan's 41 reasons list:

A tracking dog detected the victim's scent on a bay boat launch used by Peterson.
Peterson said his angling excursion was impromptu, but he purchased a two-day fishing license four days before the trip.
The tackle in his boat was primarily freshwater, leaving him unprepared for successful bay fishing.
He returned to the bay three times after her disappearance.
He paid cash for the boat and never registered it.
A boat cover large enough to hide a body was later found under a leaf blower that was leaking gas.
He had large patio umbrellas in his truck bed. The detective said the umbrellas were the same height as Laci Peterson and would be a convenient explanation if anyone saw him loading something large into his truck.

Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.
a prosecutor saying it doesn't make it factual, imo, unless it's supported by evidence via expert testimony. Do the agents mask or destroy? i.e.-it might mask a smell, but, most likely not what is on the tarp creating the smell.

My neighbor bought a small, used, RV 3 weeks ago and hasn't registered it yet. A lot of people don't register right away, some can't afford to right away others may be procrastinators that don't want to stand in a long line so, I don't read that much into a couple of weeks delay in registering, certainly nothing criminal. if Scott P. wanted to hide the fact that he ever bought a boat by not registering it and paying cash, why not just sink or ditch the boat, why bring it back to his place of business, why launch it at a public marina? Can't imagine that he really thought the police would not go to the warehouse at some point? Most individuals selling cars or boats will not take a check-especially from a complete stranger. maybe that was the case with this boat. I've sold a couple of our old cars and it is cash and carry.

on the other hand launching the boat for the first time in SF Bay, at the last minute, strikes me as pretty odd, especially if there were places closer.

[onthefence]

Let me add a little fuel to the fire - tee hee. Who keeps a boat cover in a totally separate location from where the boat is? Little counter-productive, wouldn't you say? Why not just keep it in the back of the truck to return to the warehouse to put it WITH THE BOAT. That's like putting your clothes in your bedroom and putting your shoes at work. It makes NO sense whatsoever. Why leave patio umbrellas that you are supposed to move from your house to the warehouse in the back of the truck? He had to have seen them when he hooked up his boat. Yet he left them there, drove 90 miles, launched his boat (where he had to see them again), parked in truck in a PUBLIC PARKING AREA with the umbrellas in plain view. He backs his truck and trailer up to pull the boat out of the water (again seeing the umbrellas) returns 90 miles to his warehouse, backs his boat into the warehouse, unhooks it, where he has to see the umbrellas again, yet leaves them in the truck and takes them back to their point of origin. Could his mind be so filled with the enormity of teh crime he just committed that he forgot the umbrellas? Did he not say that Laci asked him to take the umbrellas to the warehouse - yet he was going to return home and Laci would have been upset that he didn't leave them at the warehousee. Oh wait, Laci couldn't say anything because she was dead and HE KNEW IT

The stuff I highlighted in blue are the things I think are good points. I was going to say maybe he was in a hurry, but, iirc, he went to his office adn answered some emails before he went to the bay, so, he wasn't THAT rushed. If they were expecting company the next day for Christmas, she would not want the umbrellas there, even though they were outside-i wouldn't.

[TopGunner]

Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.
a prosecutor saying it doesn't make it factual, imo, unless it's supported by evidence via expert testimony. Do the agents mask or destroy? i.e.-it might mask a smell, but, most likely not what is on the tarp creating the smell.

My neighbor bought a small, used, RV 3 weeks ago and hasn't registered it yet. A lot of people don't register right away, some can't afford to right away others may be procrastinators that don't want to stand in a long line so, I don't read that much into a couple of weeks delay in registering, certainly nothing criminal. if Scott P. wanted to hide the fact that he ever bought a boat by not registering it and paying cash, why not just sink or ditch the boat, why bring it back to his place of business, why launch it at a public marina? Can't imagine that he really thought the police would not go to the warehouse at some point? Most individuals selling cars or boats will not take a check-especially from a complete stranger. maybe that was the case with this boat. I've sold a couple of our old cars and it is cash and carry.

on the other hand launching the boat for the first time in SF Bay, at the last minute, strikes me as pretty odd, especially if there were places closer.


I respectfully disagree OTF, although I see why you question what you do. Has your neighbor taken their unregistered boat out on the water? I can see maybe sneaking it in somewhere close to home, if you simply can't wait - and yet can't afford to register it (BIG QUESTION MARK)., but 90 miles away?

As for storing the boat in the warehouse, I'd say it was more like hiding the boat - as he was the only one with the key, and he was supposed to be golfing...per his own words.

Also - he had to launch the boat at a public marina, he had to take Laci to the sea...she was supposed to wash out to sea and never be found, she wasn't supposed to come back to the shore. It was Christmas eve, not much traffic. It was cold - too cold to golf even. If you were standing on shore, and ISP was where he said he was, you would not see him, barely a dot. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[TopGunner]

Okay, getting back to my pop quiz:

The boat cover, the umbrellas and Laci's pants are all similar, if not the same, in color and somewhat in texture too.


Oh, geez Halo, SORRY - I forgot about the links you posted.

But I hesitate here, because SCOTT SAID she was wearing black pants and a long sleeved white shirt and all her grandmother's jewelry. :rolleyes:

[Otter]

The stuff I highlighted in blue are the things I think are good points. I was going to say maybe he was in a hurry, but, iirc, he went to his office adn answered some emails before he went to the bay, so, he wasn't THAT rushed. If they were expecting company the next day for Christmas, she would not want the umbrellas there, even though they were outside-i wouldn't.

IMO, that where his sociopathy comes into play. There's no conscience -- not really. He knew he did a bad thing -- he didn't really understand why anyone would be bothered by it. Him telling Amber that at some date in January they would be together. Please note that I don't believe Amber herself was the catalyst, but he, IMO, didn't GET IT. I believe he was scared and had a definite COG, and it disappeared -- POOF.

I've debated with myself if his sociopathy made him truly believe he was a victim. Yeah, I think it did.

[Wearing A Halo]

Oh, geez Halo, SORRY - I forgot about the links you posted.

But I hesitate here, because SCOTT SAID she was wearing black pants and a long sleeved white shirt and all her grandmother's jewelry. :rolleyes:

Hi TG, she was also carrying a tote bag and to keep track of time she wore a watch withg.;)

[Wearing A Halo]

Prosecutors say both agents can successfully mask forensic evidence.
a prosecutor saying it doesn't make it factual, imo, unless it's supported by evidence via expert testimony. Do the agents mask or destroy? i.e.-it might mask a smell, but, most likely not what is on the tarp creating the smell.

My neighbor bought a small, used, RV 3 weeks ago and hasn't registered it yet. A lot of people don't register right away, some can't afford to right away others may be procrastinators that don't want to stand in a long line so, I don't read that much into a couple of weeks delay in registering, certainly nothing criminal. if Scott P. wanted to hide the fact that he ever bought a boat by not registering it and paying cash, why not just sink or ditch the boat, why bring it back to his place of business, why launch it at a public marina? Can't imagine that he really thought the police would not go to the warehouse at some point? Most individuals selling cars or boats will not take a check-especially from a complete stranger. maybe that was the case with this boat. I've sold a couple of our old cars and it is cash and carry.

on the other hand launching the boat for the first time in SF Bay, at the last minute, strikes me as pretty odd, especially if there were places closer.


That is so right, there is "certainly nothing criminal" about an RV even if it were registered, just ask David Alan Westerfield.

[cookiewench]

The stuff I highlighted in blue are the things I think are good points. I was going to say maybe he was in a hurry, but, iirc, he went to his office adn answered some emails before he went to the bay, so, he wasn't THAT rushed. If they were expecting company the next day for Christmas, she would not want the umbrellas there, even though they were outside-i wouldn't.


Scott didn't say that Laci wanted those umbrellas moved, and he didn't say it was because company was coming for Christmas.

He said that he had decided to move them, and that it was because it was going to rain.

This makes no sense at all - unless Dec. 24th was the first day it was going to rain since the summer. Also - there were a couple of different storage areas outside of the house. And....the umbrellas weren't exactly unsightly, anyway.

Scott may very well have put Laci in the bay the night before.

Whether the night before or that day, though - he would have been very, very tired - as well as worried, and maybe confused.

He may have been planning on playing a little alibi golf, but then sat in the warehouse worrying, until he decided to go back to the bay, instead.

He may have planned to leave the house much earlier that morning, but the murder/cleanup took longer than expected (or perhaps he even fell asleep for a while).

Maybe he even sat in the warehouse wavering on whether to go all the way to the bay after all (since it had gotten so late), and may have been considering a body of water that was closer to home.

We'll never know exactly why he behaved the way he did, but we do know for sure that he killed Laci and put her in the bay.

[onthefence]

I respectfully disagree OTF, although I see why you question what you do. Has your neighbor taken their unregistered boat out on the water? I can see maybe sneaking it in somewhere close to home, if you simply can't wait - and yet can't afford to register it (BIG QUESTION MARK)., but 90 miles away?

As for storing the boat in the warehouse, I'd say it was more like hiding the boat - as he was the only one with the key, and he was supposed to be golfing...per his own words.

Also - he had to launch the boat at a public marina, he had to take Laci to the sea...she was supposed to wash out to sea and never be found, she wasn't supposed to come back to the shore. It was Christmas eve, not much traffic. It was cold - too cold to golf even. If you were standing on shore, and ISP was where he said he was, you would not see him, barely a dot. He knew exactly what he was doing.

my neighbor bought an RV. they have taken it on a trip already. The worst that would happen if they were pulled over would be a ticket, that would be dismissed once they registered the rv. A small risk. The bigger risk is if you are the seller of a boat,-a car and it is not registered/title transferred right away especially to someone and they commit a crime in the car before it is registered and ownership transferred. We traded in a car at a dealership, who sold it and didn't do the proper title work. The car was involved in a pretty serious crime and the police contacted us, as we were still the registered owners. Of course, we had all the papers showing we had sold the car, etc, but, still.......:eek: .

[onthefence]

That is so right, there is "certainly nothing criminal" about an RV even if it were registered, just ask David Alan Westerfield.

:shrug: :confused:

no comprende.

[TopGunner]

Hi TG, she was also carrying a tote bag and to keep track of time she wore a watch withg.;)

OMG, I can't believe I'm saying this - don't forget the grass clippings! :eek:

:chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

[Otter]

my neighbor bought an RV. they have taken it on a trip already. The worst that would happen if they were pulled over would be a ticket, that would be dismissed once they registered the rv. A small risk. The bigger risk is if you are the seller of a boat,-a car and it is not registered/title transferred right away especially to someone and they commit a crime in the car before it is registered and ownership transferred. We traded in a car at a dealership, who sold it and didn't do the proper title work. The car was involved in a pretty serious crime and the police contacted us, as we were still the registered owners. Of course, we had all the papers showing we had sold the car, etc, but, still.......:eek: .

That must have been a nightmare for you. YIKES!

But you just said it -- a serious crime was involved. Your neighbors risked a ticket -- a chance they took.

SP took a chance too, driving his secret boat to the bay, diligently obeying the speed limit and rules of the road with his wife's dead pregnant body secreted in the the secret boat. There was no reason to pull him over or raise suspicion. Again, its his sociopathy -- risk taking and the adrenaline high. My opinion of course.

[Otter]

:shrug: :confused:

no comprende.

He's on death row for kidnapping, raping and murdering 7 year old Danielle Van Dam.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/

[TopGunner]

my neighbor bought an RV. they have taken it on a trip already. The worst that would happen if they were pulled over would be a ticket, that would be dismissed once they registered the rv. A small risk. The bigger risk is if you are the seller of a boat,-a car and it is not registered/title transferred right away especially to someone and they commit a crime in the car before it is registered and ownership transferred. We traded in a car at a dealership, who sold it and didn't do the proper title work. The car was involved in a pretty serious crime and the police contacted us, as we were still the registered owners. Of course, we had all the papers showing we had sold the car, etc, but, still.......:eek: .

Here's the perfect example of what goes on with the NG/G debate. The NG's focus on one single incident, which by itself can always be explained or minimized, even I agree with that. What they never do (and I'm not saying you personally OTF, I'm just saying your post here is an excellent example), is explain the bigger picture, everything tied together.

December 9th, I lost my wife and this will be my first holiday without her. o December 9th searching the tides in the SF Bay. o Purchases a boat for $1,400 that nobody knows about. o He does not register the boat. o On the 23rd he says he's going golfing. o On the 24th he said he went fishing. o He said fishing was a morning decision, but the ticket was purchased 4 days prior. o He's the last to see Laci, they are both unaccounted for from 8:30 PM on the 23rd to 5:00 PM on the 24th. o Rather than be worried when she doesn't return his calls, and there's no sign of anyone home even though Laci's car is in the driveway, he moves the bucket and mop, does some laundry and eats some pizza...hmmm. o On the 26th, the boat tarp is not with the boat, it's under a leaf blower leaking gasoline. o And oh...about those umbrella's....

All of the above, OTF, is during the first 4 days of Laci missing. I left out entertaining guest and eating Christmas dinner. I left out refusing to go in front of the media. I left out refusing to take a lie detector test, along with a few other things.

I'm sure you understand what I mean. Independent of each other, sure, no biggie. Tie it all together, and NO WAY can you see anything but the actions and behavior of someone guilty of murder.

[accordn2me]

OMG, I can't believe I'm saying this - don't forget the grass clippings! :eek:

:chicken: :chicken: :chicken:Now you're showing your age...well, not age in years...but "age" in knowledge of the case. I've seen the grass clippings referred to before....but I don't know what they "are."

[cookiewench]

my neighbor bought an RV. they have taken it on a trip already. The worst that would happen if they were pulled over would be a ticket, that would be dismissed once they registered the rv. A small risk. The bigger risk is if you are the seller of a boat,-a car and it is not registered/title transferred right away especially to someone and they commit a crime in the car before it is registered and ownership transferred. We traded in a car at a dealership, who sold it and didn't do the proper title work. The car was involved in a pretty serious crime and the police contacted us, as we were still the registered owners. Of course, we had all the papers showing we had sold the car, etc, but, still.......:eek: .

I can't imagine why anyone would be so intentionally stupid?

All they would have had to do is get in an accident, and they would have been paying for it for the rest of their lives. You can't get insurance without a registration.

The unregistered boat is HUGE evidence against him for me. If he had gotten it registered, he could have called his auto insurance company and gotten the boat trailer covered under his policy - like any normal person would.

What a huge chance to take: it that trailer came unhitched on the highway and hit three cars and injured people - he would have been sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And just when he was taking on the responsibility for raising a child, too.

[Lavindar]

I respectfully disagree OTF, although I see why you question what you do. Has your neighbor taken their unregistered boat out on the water? I can see maybe sneaking it in somewhere close to home, if you simply can't wait - and yet can't afford to register it (BIG QUESTION MARK)., but 90 miles away?

As for storing the boat in the warehouse, I'd say it was more like hiding the boat - as he was the only one with the key, and he was supposed to be golfing...per his own words.

Also - he had to launch the boat at a public marina, he had to take Laci to the sea...she was supposed to wash out to sea and never be found, she wasn't supposed to come back to the shore. It was Christmas eve, not much traffic. It was cold - too cold to golf even. If you were standing on shore, and ISP was where he said he was, you would not see him, barely a dot. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Why was he so concerned that his employer not know about the boat? Could it have been illegal under his lease? There were so many waterways much closer to home where he could have tested that boat. Lake Woodward is about 20 minutes from Modesto. Modesto Reservoir, Not to mention several launch ramps onto the Delta right off the freeway. The trip to the Bay was ludicrous. Using a fresh water motor in salt water will cause it to rust out faster (remember the pliers and how much they deteriorated because they'd been in satl water? I do think he intended to scuttle the boat. He didn't have time that day but had he not had to confess his true whereabouts to MPD, I'd guess you'd find his unregistered boat swamped in some local lake or river.

[Lavindar]

I can't imagine why anyone would be so intentionally stupid?

All they would have had to do is get in an accident, and they would have been paying for it for the rest of their lives. You can't get insurance without a registration.

The unregistered boat is HUGE evidence against him for me. If he had gotten it registered, he could have called his auto insurance company and gotten the boat trailer covered under his policy - like any normal person would.

What a huge chance to take: it that trailer came unhitched on the highway and hit three cars and injured people - he would have been sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And just when he was taking on the responsibility for raising a child, too.

It doesn't take much for a hitch to come undone and the rear of my car is proof of it. A good bump will do it

[Cadillakin]

Why was he so concerned that his employer not know about the boat? Could it have been illegal under his lease? There wouldn't be anything under the lease. Many of those warehouses had commercial trucks parked inside.. It was just between him and his employer.. that he not use that space for personal storage.

I don't think it was a big problem. In fact, a very small problem. Most employers would just say, dont do that again. I think he just wanted to give the detective that was querying him, the "im a regular guy" impression. You know the routine, wife, girlfriend, secret boat, all the normal stuff..

[Wearing A Halo]

:shrug: :confused:

no comprende.

David Alan Westerfield (born February 25, 1952),[1] of San Diego, California was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder and kidnapping of seven-year-old Danielle Van Dam in 2002. He was a successful, self-employed engineer who owned a luxury motor home (RV) and lived two houses away from Van Dam. A divorced father of two college students,[2] he is currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.

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

Si comprendiste?

[Trixy]

OK, one last time, Rick Distaso is a man of the highest integrity.. a person anybody would be proud to know and befriend. A public servant in the truest sense. And he said the friggin thing was SOAKED... Evidence, NO. Truth, YES.

So, it was SOAKED.. LIVE WITH IT.. OR CALL HIM A LIAR. That is your only two choices..

I just love when these armchair experts call everyone a liar. Calling Rick Distasto a liar takes the cake. :rolleyes:

Truth: It won't free Scott

[frydaddy]

Holy cattails FD, aren't we all wearing our thinking caps today, and it's Friday no less, LOL!!!!

I have 3 leaf blowers in my life. One is electric, the other two are gas/oil mix. Of those 2, one is a commercial size, the other is supposed to be "the lightest leaf blower made, blows up to 150 MPH!!!".....anyhow, no straight gas, EXCELLENT CATCH! :biggrin:

I think it just goes to show that after all this time, there are many things we've forgotten or never thought of. Truth is, I had to scrap two Weedwackers this week and buy a new one. As I was doing my lawn work, it hit me about the gas/oil mixture. Frankly, while the two cycle stuff still smells like gas, it's not as strong, nor does it seem to linger. It does however stain worse. These are just some observations, but nothing conclusive, as I have no sheds or boat covers.

[Lavindar]

There wouldn't be anything under the lease. Many of those warehouses had commercial trucks parked inside.. It was just between him and his employer.. that he not use that space for personal storage.

I don't think it was a big problem. In fact, a very small problem. Most employers would just say, dont do that again. I think he just wanted to give the detective that was querying him, the "im a regular guy" impression. You know the routine, wife, girlfriend, secret boat, all the normal stuff..


Man he sure blew if, didn't he? It would seem he had more secrets than most people have. Guess no one ever told him that honesty is the only way to go.

[Lavindar]

That must have been a nightmare for you. YIKES!

But you just said it -- a serious crime was involved. Your neighbors risked a ticket -- a chance they took.

SP took a chance too, driving his secret boat to the bay, diligently obeying the speed limit and rules of the road with his wife's dead pregnant body secreted in the the secret boat. There was no reason to pull him over or raise suspicion. Again, its his sociopathy -- risk taking and the adrenaline high. My opinion of course.

But it requires some tracking to find that informtion. I knew a kid who sold his van to the kidnappers of Patty Hearst. They never registered it and the FBI came to see him, but it was quite a while after the kidnapping.

[Trixy]

Man he sure blew if, didn't he? It would seem he had more secrets than most people have. Guess no one ever told him that honesty is the only way to go.

His parents certainly didn't.

[deputydi]

my neighbor bought an RV. they have taken it on a trip already. The worst that would happen if they were pulled over would be a ticket, that would be dismissed once they registered the rv. A small risk. The bigger risk is if you are the seller of a boat,-a car and it is not registered/title transferred right away especially to someone and they commit a crime in the car before it is registered and ownership transferred. We traded in a car at a dealership, who sold it and didn't do the proper title work. The car was involved in a pretty serious crime and the police contacted us, as we were still the registered owners. Of course, we had all the papers showing we had sold the car, etc, but, still.......:eek: .
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.

[TopGunner]

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.

Sounds golfishy, don't it? :tongue:

[accordn2me]

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.I thought it was the same plate the previous owner had. :shrug:

[deputydi]

I thought it was the same plate the previous owner had. :shrug:
I doubt it. I, obviously, don't know anything about CA boat laws but I do know about PA (my office does boat transfers). Trailers are treated just like car plate transfers. A person can transfer his own plate to another vehicle, but it can't be transferred to a second party. You have to use a temporary plate until you receive the real one from Harrisburg. CA may be different -- I don't know. :shrug:

BTW -- the boat keeps the same PA registration number for the life of the boat. That is very easily transferred.

[cookiewench]

Scott figured he was safe (if stopped by LE) because he had the old owner's tag on the trailer illegally. It was a plus that the old owner had the same last name, if checked.

That wouldn't have helped him if he'd had an accident, though. And he had to have known that.

[deputydi]

Scott figured he was safe (if stopped by LE) because he had the old owner's tag on the trailer illegally. It was a plus that the old owner had the same last name, if checked.

That wouldn't have helped him if he'd had an accident, though. And he had to have known that.
Now I'm really curious how this works in CA. If it's true he kept the former owner's license plate, I guess he could have claimed he was an uncle or something. It doesn't make sense to me that CA would allow the plate to be transferred to another party and just assume they will do it in a timely fashion. That, to me, is leaving a whole lot just to chance. I don't know why this surprises me, however -- CA does a lot of things that doesn't make sense to me.

[adnoid]

Now I'm really curious how this works in CA. If it's true he kept the former owner's license plate, I guess he could have claimed he was an uncle or something. It doesn't make sense to me that CA would allow the plate to be transferred to another party and just assume they will do it in a timely fashion. That, to me, is leaving a whole lot just to chance. I don't know why this surprises me, however -- CA does a lot of things that doesn't make sense to me.

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.