The Croton Watch

[Lavindar]

You're right. From the beginning all of us wanted the guilty party to be someone other than Scott. To me, the CE overwhelmingly pointed to him and no one else. I don't believe that anyone kept Laci alive for 2, 3 or 4 months and took an incredible risk of being discovered planting the bodies just to frame a fertilizer salesman. How does this makes sense to anyone? The biggest problem I have with the "frame" scenario is the timing. If someone wanted to "frame" Scott, why would they keep or hide the bodies for four months. Wouldn't they want the bodies to show up immediately where Scott had been? Why wou ld they want to wait so long? It defies common sense. Not to mention, what did Scott have or know that was worth framing him for? He was a nobody. He had no money (because he spent it faster than he made it), no link was ever established with anything illegal other than murder on Scott's part, everything he had was mortgaged to the hilt.

[Lavindar]

I noticed they use a lot of abbreviations, I wonder if it could be an acronym for something and we just took for granted it meant WITH GEMS. :shrug:

In 2004 a friend pawned his new guitar with that pawnbroker. It was a $250 purchase new and was merely two months old. He was given $25 for it. Yet a valuable watch that Scott estimated to be worth $750 got only $20 for it. I venture to say based in value, that was definitely NOT Laci's Croton watch which did NOT have scratches on it.

Also if the WITHG meant with gems, I would think the pawnbroker would have said gem-studded bezel or something to idtenify it from hundreds of other Croton watches

[deputydi]

The biggest problem I have with the "frame" scenario is the timing. If someone wanted to "frame" Scott, why would they keep or hide the bodies for four months. Wouldn't they want the bodies to show up immediately where Scott had been? Why wou ld they want to wait so long? It defies common sense. Not to mention, what did Scott have or know that was worth framing him for? He was a nobody. He had no money (because he spent it faster than he made it), no link was ever established with anything illegal other than murder on Scott's part, everything he had was mortgaged to the hilt.
IMO most of the kidnapping theory defies common sense. :confused:

[TopGunner]

Did you notice the pawn shop employee or owner was infallibe enough that they failed to sign the ticket.


Considering it was written out on their store receipt w/printed address info, this means squat. I've received many receipts showing a deposit or purchase for things, can't remember anyone ever signing them. I've never been ripped off either.

[Otter]

You got it. when you see Scott's biggest supporter posting that Scott lying to/about Amber was admirable (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:79gPNCEIkDcJ:www.scottisinnocent.co m/Research%26Analysis/evidence/behavior/lies.htm+admirable+site:scottisinnocent.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) and none of Scott's other supporters dare publicly contradict her (but they do in emails and PMs, let me tell you), you can see that something is seriously wrong.


I've been curious about this for years -- do those two actually get PAID? I mean money, not feeding an ego or two or giving false hope to desperate families.

Its not like they have a large client base. :)

[Wearing A Halo]

Does the :eek: mean I can't throw in my two cents and ask a question?:confused:

Hi Invrdv8, no, not all. I was only using irony with including VC as a one-nighter of DRISP's. Remember, I was replying to whether anyone involved with DRISP would be embarrassed about being with him (or not). VC didn't seem embarrassed at all, if it's true. Wink, wink.

[PsychNurse;~)]

I noticed they use a lot of abbreviations, I wonder if it could be an acronym for something and we just took for granted it meant WITH GEMS. :shrug:

has anyone ever considered it was simply a typo? a bff (big fat fingers) mistake? the g is right next to the h on the keyboard, and the person writing it up may have simply hit the g by accident after finishing the word with. perhaps it was simply meant to read with scratches, not withg scratches.

the model/serial # would have been recorded into the database. that would have made it quite simple for geragos to confirm the watch was or wasn't laci's. since he didn't submit it was laci's, imo he knew quite well it was NOT laci's but made another great red herring.

years ago when i worked in law enforcement and we would book items into evidence, we never called things gold or silver or diamonds or emeralds. for example a ring would be described as yellow metal ring with green stone, etc.

while pawn shop employees may not be able to determine diamond from glass, it most certainly is going to be listed as having clear stones at the very least.

just my opinon, of course.

~~cyn~~

[Wearing A Halo]

has anyone ever considered it was simply a typo? a bff (big fat fingers) mistake? the g is right next to the h on the keyboard, and the person writing it up may have simply hit the g by accident after finishing the word with. perhaps it was simply meant to read with scratches, not withg scratches.

the model/serial # would have been recorded into the database. that would have made it quite simple for geragos to confirm the watch was or wasn't laci's. since he didn't submit it was laci's, imo he knew quite well it was NOT laci's but made another great red herring.

years ago when i worked in law enforcement and we would book items into evidence, we never called things gold or silver or diamonds or emeralds. for example a ring would be described as yellow metal ring with green stone, etc.

while pawn shop employees may not be able to determine diamond from glass, it most certainly is going to be listed as having clear stones at the very least.

just my opinon, of course.

~~cyn~~

Hi PsychNurse;~), ITA "WITHY".

I posted this back in March of this year.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8832352&postcount=85

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi PsychNurse;~), ITA "WITHY".

I posted this back in March of this year.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8832352&postcount=85

:beer:

gmta! i totally agree with your previous post. withg simply makes no sense in the syntax used.

~~cyn~~

[deputydi]

Hi PsychNurse;~), ITA "WITHY".
<snip>

LOL. OF COURSE, that's a very real possibility. Reread my brother's email -- and, this time, count the number of typos. I wish I had thought of this myself. It also makes way more sense.:cool:

[Invrdv8]

Hi Invrdv8, no, not all. I was only using irony with including VC as a one-nighter of DRISP's. Remember, I was replying to whether anyone involved with DRISP would be embarrassed about being with him (or not). VC didn't seem embarrassed at all, if it's true. Wink, wink.
Hi Halo, I knew exactly where you were going. My point was why would VC be embarrassed? As for some who may have been involved with Scott and didn't come forward I don't think it would be from embarrassment of being "with" Scott but, more the embarrassment of being "played" by Scott. Some may have also been one-night stands. IMO, the three "known" affairs were enough to prove Scott's infidelity.

[TopGunner]

Hi PsychNurse;~), ITA "WITHY".

I posted this back in March of this year.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8832352&postcount=85

Halo, you are a genius ~ I missed this the first time!!!!

[Lavindar]

Halo, you are a genius ~ I missed this the first time!!!!

with scratches makes a lot more sense than withg scratches used

[Otter]

with scratches makes a lot more sense than withg scratches used


Normal shorthand is w/ ... means "with" whatever.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861709154/w_.html

Been using it for [don't want to say] years. In other words, if I was being quick, it would be "w/gems". Sheesh. When is Paris not going to be Paris w/Eiffel Tower?

[attorneywan2be]

I FINALLY heard from my brother. I realize this answer comes from FL -- not CA but I'm nothing if not fair. I don't like the answer I got and it leaves a bunch of questions wide open, but here is his email (for what it's worth):



Thanks DD for sharing this with us..so it is quite possible the watch was Laci's...unfortunately, the MPD didn't investigate the watch simply because the pawn shop didn't mention diamonds on the pawn receipt...

From your brother's email:

If the "gems" were actually diamonds they still would probably NOT be recorded as such on the pawn receipt. There are a number of reasons for this including:
1. State laws do not require a pawnshop to specify whether the stones are natural or man made, such as Cubic Zirconia or Moissanite material, because,
2. If the stones are encased inside the bezel, it's impractical for the pawnbroker to removed the bezel to test the stones, and,
3. Some pawnshops lack the necessary electronics to distinguish between a true diamond and one that is man made.

[deputydi]

Thanks DD for sharing this with us..so it is quite possible the watch was Laci's...unfortunately, the MPD didn't investigate the watch simply because the pawn shop didn't mention diamonds on the pawn receipt...<snip>
Yes, I guess it is possible, but it is also possible that this watch didn't resemble Laci's in any way, shape, or form. As I said, his store is in FL and this is CA so I don't know whether all of CA is required to use the same software. Let's assume for a minute the MPD was negligent in their decision not to further investigate the watch. Do you think it is plausible that MG didn't immediately send his investigator out to at least look at the watch? This description is so vague that it could be used to describe hundreds of watches. MG made a lot of mistakes, but this was seemingly very important information that most definitely would have raised some eyebrows.

My question to you is, if this is the same watch, how did Deanna Renfro get it? The testimony was that both Amy and Laci considered the watch gaudy and "not their style". Apparently it also needed a battery. Batteries are easy to obtain, but why would she put a battery in a watch she never wore and never intended to wear. It wouldn't make the watch any less valuable and wouldn't be as much of a detraction to a potential buyer as the "scratches". Did she or someone take it from the house? If so, why did they leave the other valuable jewelry lying in plain sight on a dresser? How did they manage to leave no fingerprints, or a strand of hair?

I guess this watch will remain just one more of the mysteries we'll always have questions about.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Thanks DD for sharing this with us..so it is quite possible the watch was Laci's...unfortunately, the MPD didn't investigate the watch simply because the pawn shop didn't mention diamonds on the pawn receipt...

From your brother's email:

If the "gems" were actually diamonds they still would probably NOT be recorded as such on the pawn receipt. There are a number of reasons for this including:
1. State laws do not require a pawnshop to specify whether the stones are natural or man made, such as Cubic Zirconia or Moissanite material, because,
2. If the stones are encased inside the bezel, it's impractical for the pawnbroker to removed the bezel to test the stones, and,
3. Some pawnshops lack the necessary electronics to distinguish between a true diamond and one that is man made.

the key statements from above, imo are "not be recorded AS SUCH" and that while state laws do not require a pawnshop to specify whether the stones are natural or man made, the STONES must be listed.

just like when we entered items into evidence. items would be listed, ie with clear stones, with green stones, with yellow stones, etc.

while not declaring them diamonds or emeralds, etc....the fact that there are stones MUST be included.

~~cyn~~

[deputydi]

the key statements from above, imo are "not be recorded AS SUCH" and that while state laws do not require a pawnshop to specify whether the stones are natural or man made, the STONES must be listed.

just like when we entered items into evidence. items would be listed, ie with clear stones, with green stones, with yellow stones, etc.

while not declaring them diamonds or emeralds, etc....the fact that there are stones MUST be included.

~~cyn~~
This is the sentence that piqued my interest:
I am not familiar with the term/acronym "WithG", but I would doubt that it implies ("with gems), . . .
I don't know who first stated that "WITHG" meant with gems, but I, for one, assumed it was a fact and an abbreviation commonly used. Turns out it is not and he further goes on to explain that specific gems or precious stones are not specifically referred to as such. One of the reasons being some shops don't have the equipment to positively identify them. The watch Deanna Renfro pawned was most likely a plain, no frills, gold Croton watch -- no gems, no stones. That would be why she only got $20 for it.

This makes perfect sense to me and gives further credence to the probability that "WITHG" is nothing more than a typo.

[Cadillakin]

You know, I started this thread, I've participated and read this thread.. and I still don't understand why you guys are debating back and forth about Renfro and her watch. If it was Laci's watch, Geragos would have informed the police, as is his obligation as an officer of the court. He would have no choice but to disclose a material fact. Distaso says the state's position is that the watch Geragos referred to in the trial has nothing to do with Laci Peterson. That should be enough, right? Geragos didn't pursue it, didn't report it, and the state disavows it. END OF STORY. Right?

It is OBVIOUSLY Scott writing the text for that ebay add, sold thru his account. There is no evidence I know of that Laci ever used that account to sell anything she owned separately or jointly. It is Scott's stupid, stilted, amazing language, and when he references the grandmother's estate, he says, "our grandmother" as a relative by marriage would rightfully say. Laci would have properly said "my grandmother's estate". Scott was trying to sell it. And now it's gone.. Is that a surprise to anybody? He probably gave it to some hooker in a bar in Escondido when he was staying with ma and pa.

And finally would somebody please show me where it is said that Laci was going to wear that watch on her "walk". Until I read this thread, I never heard of anything like that... And I think I know this case as well as anybody. There's NOTHING in the trial transcript saying Laci was going to wear the watch on her walk.. So, it's just the lying Peterson's word that it was stolen? Jackie Peterson's website is the ONLY source for this discussion? Have we lost our minds taking Jackie P's word seriously?

[PsychNurse;~)]

This is the sentence that piqued my interest:

I don't know who first stated that "WITHG" meant with gems, but I, for one, assumed it was a fact and an abbreviation commonly used. Turns out it is not and he further goes on to explain that specific gems or precious stones are not specifically referred to as such. One of the reasons being some shops don't have the equipment to positively identify them. The watch Deanna Renfro pawned was most likely a plain, no frills, gold Croton watch -- no gems, no stones. That would be why she only got $20 for it.

This makes perfect sense to me and gives further credence to the probability that "WITHG" is nothing more than a typo.

i agree with you totally. and it wasn't even WithG (which miiiiight give some the impression that G was separate from the With).

i think this just totally goes to show to what lengths some folks will go to in order to prove they are right.

~~cyn~~

[deputydi]

You know, I started this thread, I've participated and read this thread.. and I still don't understand why you guys are debating back and forth about Renfro and her watch. <snip> [/B]

Hmmmmm. Let me take a guess -- because the title of the thread (that YOU started) is called "The Croton Watch". What should we be discussing here???

[Lavindar]

i agree with you totally. and it wasn't even WithG (which miiiiight give some the impression that G was separate from the With).

i think this just totally goes to show to what lengths some folks will go to in order to prove they are right.

~~cyn~~

This reminds me of the red boots red herring

[Cadillakin]

Hmmmmm. Let me take a guess -- because the title of the thread (that YOU started) is called "The Croton Watch". What should we be discussing here???I started the thread because I thought somebody here might have something to say about how the watch became an issue of debate. Because Jackie said it is? As posted by TG?

[Otter]

This reminds me of the red boots red herring

I started the thread because I thought somebody here might have something to say about how the watch became an issue of debate. Because Jackie said it is?


Everything the NG's put forth IMO, is a red herring. Anything to deflect from the murderer. I for one have flashbacks to the old stuff like the watch and all those theories. Those "red boots" :shrug: were new.

IMO the watch wasn't Laci's. It didn't work, if a clerk in a pawn shop made a description of this watch it would've been "w/diamonds", not "withg" (the proper shorthand of "with" is "w/"), Laci didn't like it as per testimony. And who puts on a watch to walk the dog when there's baking at home to do?

Sheesh, use some common sense NG's. And I heard from a homeless, satan worshipping pawnshop owner that the boots were blue.:(

MOO.

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, I guess it is possible, but it is also possible that this watch didn't resemble Laci's in any way, shape, or form. As I said, his store is in FL and this is CA so I don't know whether all of CA is required to use the same software. Let's assume for a minute the MPD was negligent in their decision not to further investigate the watch. Do you think it is plausible that MG didn't immediately send his investigator out to at least look at the watch? This description is so vague that it could be used to describe hundreds of watches. MG made a lot of mistakes, but this was seemingly very important information that most definitely would have raised some eyebrows.

My question to you is, if this is the same watch, how did Deanna Renfro get it? The testimony was that both Amy and Laci considered the watch gaudy and "not their style". Apparently it also needed a battery. Batteries are easy to obtain, but why would she put a battery in a watch she never wore and never intended to wear. It wouldn't make the watch any less valuable and wouldn't be as much of a detraction to a potential buyer as the "scratches". Did she or someone take it from the house? If so, why did they leave the other valuable jewelry lying in plain sight on a dresser? How did they manage to leave no fingerprints, or a strand of hair?

I guess this watch will remain just one more of the mysteries we'll always have questions about.

Laci did wear her diamond jewelry..would you please post the TS where someone testified that Laci never wore the Croton watch..thanks..

I think Deanna Renfro got the watch from the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..I think Laci was wearing the watch when they abducted her...

From the trial:

Mark Geragos: So for the month, three weeks to a month prior, after you guys had gone through the jewelry, she was wearing quite a few of the pieces on the occasions when you would see her?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And some of those pieces were pretty stunning pieces, weren't they?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And definitely eye catching?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. A number of those pieces were worth ten, fifteen, twenty thousand dollars?
Amy Rocha: Again, I don't know the, how much they were worth, but possibly.
Mark Geragos: And a number of them had numerous diamonds and semi-precious stones?
Amy Rocha: Yes.

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

Mary Anna Felix: She said that what she was going to keep was the watch and the sapphire diamond ring, and she loved that bezel pendant. She wore that all the time. And then she also wore a pair of one carat, well, actually it was a total of two carat diamond earrings, which was a carat on each ear. She wore those all the time, too. And those were what she was going to keep.
David Harris: Do you know if those were, not being a person who wears earrings, are they screw-back or sliding? Or do you know?
Mary Anna Felix: They were screw-backs.

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

Mark Geragos: And she was wearing a lot of it at this party?
Stacey Boyers: Yes, she was.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you thought that was a little bit unusual?
Stacey Boyers: It was, it was for Laci, yeah. It was a little gaudy.
Mark Geragos: Why do you say that? Why was it unusual for her?
Stacey Boyers: It was gaudy jewelry. It was very big.
Mark Geragos: Could you describe for the jury what you remember? I'm not going to quiz you on this.
Stacey Boyers: She had on a pendant necklace. It was quite large. She had a ring on. I do not recall the ring. I just remember her making jokes about it. She had on a pair of earrings, and she had on a watch.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Is it a fair statement that on her this amount of jewelry and as gaudy as it was it was noticeable?
Stacey Boyers: It was very noticeable, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. It would attract your attention?
Stacey Boyers: Yes.

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you also described the clothing that she wore as black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes and a red fleece vest, correct?
Debra Wolski: In the winter, yes. In the cold months.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you described what she was wearing on December 4th, do you remember that?
Debra Wolski: It would have been the same. The white shirt, the black stretch pants, the red fleece vest.
Mark Geragos: And you said she was wearing a gold watch with diamonds around the face, correct?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A modest wedding ring set?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A large wedding set on her right finger?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A gold chain with a diamond solitaire of two carats?
Debra Wolski: Approximately.
Mark Geragos: And a set of diamond earrings, right?
Debra Wolski: Yes.

[Lavindar]

Laci did wear her diamond jewelry..would you please post the TS where someone testified that Laci never wore the Croton watch..thanks..

I think Deanna Renfro got the watch from the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..I think Laci was wearing the watch when they abducted her...

From the trial:

Mark Geragos: So for the month, three weeks to a month prior, after you guys had gone through the jewelry, she was wearing quite a few of the pieces on the occasions when you would see her?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And some of those pieces were pretty stunning pieces, weren't they?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And definitely eye catching?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. A number of those pieces were worth ten, fifteen, twenty thousand dollars?
Amy Rocha: Again, I don't know the, how much they were worth, but possibly.
Mark Geragos: And a number of them had numerous diamonds and semi-precious stones?
Amy Rocha: Yes.

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

Mary Anna Felix: She said that what she was going to keep was the watch and the sapphire diamond ring, and she loved that bezel pendant. She wore that all the time. And then she also wore a pair of one carat, well, actually it was a total of two carat diamond earrings, which was a carat on each ear. She wore those all the time, too. And those were what she was going to keep.
David Harris: Do you know if those were, not being a person who wears earrings, are they screw-back or sliding? Or do you know?
Mary Anna Felix: They were screw-backs.

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

Mark Geragos: And she was wearing a lot of it at this party?
Stacey Boyers: Yes, she was.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you thought that was a little bit unusual?
Stacey Boyers: It was, it was for Laci, yeah. It was a little gaudy.
Mark Geragos: Why do you say that? Why was it unusual for her?
Stacey Boyers: It was gaudy jewelry. It was very big.
Mark Geragos: Could you describe for the jury what you remember? I'm not going to quiz you on this.
Stacey Boyers: She had on a pendant necklace. It was quite large. She had a ring on. I do not recall the ring. I just remember her making jokes about it. She had on a pair of earrings, and she had on a watch.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Is it a fair statement that on her this amount of jewelry and as gaudy as it was it was noticeable?
Stacey Boyers: It was very noticeable, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. It would attract your attention?
Stacey Boyers: Yes.

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you also described the clothing that she wore as black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes and a red fleece vest, correct?
Debra Wolski: In the winter, yes. In the cold months.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you described what she was wearing on December 4th, do you remember that?
Debra Wolski: It would have been the same. The white shirt, the black stretch pants, the red fleece vest.
Mark Geragos: And you said she was wearing a gold watch with diamonds around the face, correct?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A modest wedding ring set?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A large wedding set on her right finger?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A gold chain with a diamond solitaire of two carats?
Debra Wolski: Approximately.
Mark Geragos: And a set of diamond earrings, right?
Debra Wolski: Yes.


From Scott's description the watch was a very dressy watch. I'm sure Laci wore that for dog walking.

If you look at the picture of her at the Christmas party on the 14th, she is NOT wearing all that gaudy jewelry, or if she is, it's not apparent. She certainly is not wearing a diamond pendant. Correct me if I am wrong, but that party was a dressy occasion.

[PsychNurse;~)]

aw2b wasn't it established in testimony at the trial that the watch laci was going to keep was NOT the croton watch?

funny how such things get left out.....

~~cyn~~

[Miss Bootsie]

Laci did wear her diamond jewelry..would you please post the TS where someone testified that Laci never wore the Croton watch..thanks..

I think Deanna Renfro got the watch from the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..I think Laci was wearing the watch when they abducted her...

From the trial:

Mark Geragos: So for the month, three weeks to a month prior, after you guys had gone through the jewelry, she was wearing quite a few of the pieces on the occasions when you would see her?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And some of those pieces were pretty stunning pieces, weren't they?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And definitely eye catching?
Amy Rocha: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. A number of those pieces were worth ten, fifteen, twenty thousand dollars?
Amy Rocha: Again, I don't know the, how much they were worth, but possibly.
Mark Geragos: And a number of them had numerous diamonds and semi-precious stones?
Amy Rocha: Yes.

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

Mary Anna Felix: She said that what she was going to keep was the watch and the sapphire diamond ring, and she loved that bezel pendant. She wore that all the time. And then she also wore a pair of one carat, well, actually it was a total of two carat diamond earrings, which was a carat on each ear. She wore those all the time, too. And those were what she was going to keep.
David Harris: Do you know if those were, not being a person who wears earrings, are they screw-back or sliding? Or do you know?
Mary Anna Felix: They were screw-backs.

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

Mark Geragos: And she was wearing a lot of it at this party?
Stacey Boyers: Yes, she was.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you thought that was a little bit unusual?
Stacey Boyers: It was, it was for Laci, yeah. It was a little gaudy.
Mark Geragos: Why do you say that? Why was it unusual for her?
Stacey Boyers: It was gaudy jewelry. It was very big.
Mark Geragos: Could you describe for the jury what you remember? I'm not going to quiz you on this.
Stacey Boyers: She had on a pendant necklace. It was quite large. She had a ring on. I do not recall the ring. I just remember her making jokes about it. She had on a pair of earrings, and she had on a watch.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Is it a fair statement that on her this amount of jewelry and as gaudy as it was it was noticeable?
Stacey Boyers: It was very noticeable, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. It would attract your attention?
Stacey Boyers: Yes.

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you also described the clothing that she wore as black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes and a red fleece vest, correct?
Debra Wolski: In the winter, yes. In the cold months.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you described what she was wearing on December 4th, do you remember that?
Debra Wolski: It would have been the same. The white shirt, the black stretch pants, the red fleece vest.
Mark Geragos: And you said she was wearing a gold watch with diamonds around the face, correct?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A modest wedding ring set?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A large wedding set on her right finger?
Debra Wolski: Yes.
Mark Geragos: A gold chain with a diamond solitaire of two carats?
Debra Wolski: Approximately.
Mark Geragos: And a set of diamond earrings, right?
Debra Wolski: Yes.



Now, lets take a look at the testimony that you failed to post.

HARRIS: When you were with Detective Grogan, did he show you some actual jewelry and did you look at those and recognize those?

WOLSKI: Yes.

HARRIS: I'd like to show you what's been marked as People's number 8, and we'll start with this. Take a second, take a moment to look at that. We'll give counsel a second to look and see what you have. Do you recognize any of items depicted in People's number 8?

WOLSKI: There's a gold watch, a woman's watch with diamonds around the face. And it appears that there are two diamond necklaces, both of which I think I've seen Laci wear.

HARRIS: To go through that, when you were asked to look at these photographs, black and white ones, did you go through and pick out the two diamond pendants that you see there in that photograph?

WOLSKI: Well, I described them first. And then when I saw the photos, it would match the description, it appeared to be the same.

HARRIS: Then you were shown the actual jewelry?

WOLSKI: I believe so.

HARRIS: The same thing with the watch. Did you look at the black and white photograph, look at that particular watch and identify it and then look at the actual item?

WOLSKI: Yes, there was more than one watch, and when she came to the studio wearing the jewelry,

HARRIS: Referring to Laci?

WOLSKI: Laci.

HARRIS: All right.

WOLSKI: When she came to the studio wearing the jewelry, it was uncommon to wear jewelry to the studio, and so much jewelry, that I had asked her about it.

HARRIS: About the jewelry that she was wearing?

WOLSKI: Yes.

HARRIS: Let's go back through that. At some point in time did you see her with a significant amount of jewelry that she was wearing?

WOLSKI: Yes.

HARRIS: And did she indicate that she was taking it someplace after the class?

WOLSKI: My first question was is it real, because they were stunning. The diamonds were very nice quality. And she blushed, said Yes, they were real, that she had gotten them out of the safe deposit box, that they had belonged to her grandmother, that she was going to have them appraised later that afternoon or after the class, she didn't want to leave them in the car. Which was apparent, they were worth a considerable sum of money, I'm sure.

GERAGOS: Objection.

JUDGE: No question pending.

GERAGOS: Non-responsive. No question pending.

HARRIS: Was this information relayed to Detective Grogan as part of the process of looking at the jewelry?

WOLSKI: Yes.

HARRIS: And when you were done looking at the, the black and white photographs and looking at the actual pieces of jewelry that you identified for the detective, that you're describing there, People's number 8, did he also ask you to look at another watch? And let me just refer to it as the eBay watch?

WOLSKI: Yes.

HARRIS: I'd like to show you what's been marked as People's number 4, a two page document. Turning to the second page, the large photograph.
Note:People's Exhibit 4 eBay auction for the Croton bezel watch



WOLSKI: Uh-huh. Yes, I remember seeing this picture.

HARRIS: And did you tell Detective Grogan that that was not a watch you had seen Laci wearing?

GERAGOS: Objection. It's leading.

JUDGE: Sustained.

HARRIS? Did you identify that watch for the detective?

WOLSKI: No. I don't believe this is the watch she had on that day that she was wearing so many diamonds.


WOLSKI: Oh, yes. I'm trying to remember the date. I think it would be late November. She remarked that her dog probably thinks she's mad at him, because she no longer walks him.


HARRIS: did you talk to her about a cell phone?

WOLSKI: Yes, we did. She brought it up.

HARRIS: What did she say?

WOLSKI: After she made the remarks about her dog, thinking that the dog might think she didn't love him anymore, actually, she said he would think she was mad at him, she said that she never leaves the home without her cell phone.

[deputydi]

aw2b wasn't it established in testimony at the trial that the watch laci was going to keep was NOT the croton watch?

funny how such things get left out.....

~~cyn~~
Yes, it was. I don't think it's reasonable to believe she put the watch on that morning just to go dog walking. Remember, she was going to be busy scrubbing the floor and baking cookies. I've seen the picture of the watch and it's not my style either, but who would wear a watch like that if they were going to be cleaning and baking -- let alone walking the dog. Doesn't make sense to me.

[PsychNurse;~)]

thanks for posting that. i was too lazy earlier to go look the information up.

~~cyn~~

[Lavindar]

Now, lets take a look at the testimony that you failed to post.


Good investigating!!!!

[Lavindar]

Yes, it was. I don't think it's reasonable to believe she put the watch on that morning just to go dog walking. Remember, she was going to be busy scrubbing the floor and baking cookies. I've seen the picture of the watch and it's not my style either, but who would wear a watch like that if they were going to be cleaning and baking -- let alone walking the dog. Doesn't make sense to me.


To believe she wore THAT watch on THAT day is to assume that someone as "correct" as Laci was would wear a formal dress watch to do ordinary, everyday things - things that she would not dress up formally for. To assume she would wear THAT watch for mundane tasks would assume that she wore heels to walk the dog also. It makes no sense whatsoever that she would wear a watch of that kind to do chores and walk the dog - not to mention that she would wear it with everyday clothes. That is my opinion

[frydaddy]

Yes, it was. I don't think it's reasonable to believe she put the watch on that morning just to go dog walking. Remember, she was going to be busy scrubbing the floor and baking cookies. I've seen the picture of the watch and it's not my style either, but who would wear a watch like that if they were going to be cleaning and baking -- let alone walking the dog. Doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to reasonable people Di and that is the biggest problem with debate on the Peterson case. I'm always willing to consider cogent thought from the other side, but there's not much, if any, presented.
What is confusing to me is that people can get behind this stuff as if it is truth or fact. It's ridiculous beyond belief.

You've got some who pretend to be on the fence about the case. You've got some who've taken a man convicted of murder, made him innocent in their minds, and then tried to formulate evidence to convince the posting public that he didn't do it. And where do these things lead us? To a time wasting argument about this damn watch.

Some time back, the stolen video (Pros. Exhibit 279B) was on the internet and it showed the Croton watch three times. Grogan testified to such to prove it was not working. Unless my memory has gone into full failure, the Croton watch in the video I saw back then, the same one pictured in the E-Bay ad, was NOT yellow gold as the pawn slip indicates. It was White Gold or Stainless, neither of which would be confused on a pawn ticket as Yellow Gold.

If someone can find a link to the video, I think we can probably put this Croton nonsense to bed for good.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Yes, it was. I don't think it's reasonable to believe she put the watch on that morning just to go dog walking. Remember, she was going to be busy scrubbing the floor and baking cookies. I've seen the picture of the watch and it's not my style either, but who would wear a watch like that if they were going to be cleaning and baking -- let alone walking the dog. Doesn't make sense to me.

especially when you consider that she'd told someone she hadn't walked mckenzie since sometime in november.

but i'm sure laci just happened to start walking mckenzie again right around the time that drisp just happened to tell shawn and amber he'd lost his wife, this would be his first holidays without her, blah blah blah and he then just happened to buy a boat right after telling amber all that, etc...

of course, drisp then just happened to get himself arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death, so i guess it all worked itself out in the end.

~~cyn~~

[PsychNurse;~)]

frydaddy, i don't believe the croton on ebay was white gold or stainless. it was listed as basket weave gold~~and since it wasn't stated to be white gold anywhere in the auction i'd really have to believe it was yellow.

~~cyn~~

[Wearing A Halo]

Does anyone have a link to Prosecution exhibit number 8? MN has omitted this one. It goes from 7 then 9. Where is 8? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

Does anyone have a link to Prosecution exhibit number 8? MN has omitted this one. It goes from 7 then 9. Where is 8? :shrug:

You can bet if it's something that is damaging to the defense, it won't be listed on her site moo

[deputydi]

frydaddy, i don't believe the croton on ebay was white gold or stainless. it was listed as basket weave gold~~and since it wasn't stated to be white gold anywhere in the auction i'd really have to believe it was yellow.

~~cyn~~
I think you're right (but not totally sure). I remember seeing the still picture of the watch but my memory isn't what it used to be. :D

[frydaddy]

Dammit...looks like my next paycheck will be going to buy a truckload of Ginkgo biloba...I should know better than to trust my memory! Thanks for the correction y'all...my apologies for my mistake!

Although, it still ain't the same watch! :)

[Rosie_02]

It doesn't make sense to reasonable people Di and that is the biggest problem with debate on the Peterson case. I'm always willing to consider cogent thought from the other side, but there's not much, if any, presented.
What is confusing to me is that people can get behind this stuff as if it is truth or fact. It's ridiculous beyond belief.

You've got some who pretend to be on the fence about the case. You've got some who've taken a man convicted of murder, made him innocent in their minds, and then tried to formulate evidence to convince the posting public that he didn't do it. And where do these things lead us? To a time wasting argument about this damn watch.

Some time back, the stolen video (Pros. Exhibit 279B) was on the internet and it showed the Croton watch three times. Grogan testified to such to prove it was not working. Unless my memory has gone into full failure, the Croton watch in the video I saw back then, the same one pictured in the E-Bay ad, was NOT yellow gold as the pawn slip indicates. It was White Gold or Stainless, neither of which would be confused on a pawn ticket as Yellow Gold.

If someone can find a link to the video, I think we can probably put this Croton nonsense to bed for good.

http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=Vmx0B5gElfSfctYCF28jj0B2ZTp6P1w l

its towards the end of the video.

[accordn2me]

http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=Vmx0B5gElfSfctYCF28jj0B2ZTp6P1w l

its towards the end of the video.Frydaddy said we have to go to bed now. :seeya:

[TopGunner]

Frydaddy said we have to go to bed now. :seeya:

Ww ww we DO? But I don't WANT to go to bed. :cuss: :punch:

[Rosie_02]

Frydaddy said we have to go to bed now. :seeya:

Thank God! Now we can all get some rest, now that we know the dress watch that laci wore while she was mopping and walking the dog, was broken. :biggrin:

I'm sure the guy at the pawnshop just accidentally forgot to write down that Laci's watch, that DR pawned wasn't working... or that it had diamonds... or.. or.... pffft!:rolleyes:

[accordn2me]

Ww ww we DO? But I don't WANT to go to bed. :cuss: :punch:We can sneak back up after he's asleep. I can guarantee us a good solid 5 hours of prowlin' time once he zoinks.:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=Vmx0B5gElfSfctYCF28jj0B2ZTp6P1w l

its towards the end of the video.

Rosie, thanks for the link. Scott is a crappy videographer. I couldn't tell which one was the Croton from his description.

I also got very tired of seeing the corner of Encina & La Loma and that
annoying round-a-bout they put there to slow down traffic. You can sure get a good idea of how fast traffic moves on La Loma tho and how the Orowheat driver would have had a hard time identifying anyone if he was moving at the speed of traffic.

[frydaddy]

Frydaddy said we have to go to bed now. :seeya:

It's only to make sure you are all bright eyed and bushy tailed the next day. And the fact I can't hang with the night owls anymore! :o

[Rachel Cory]

AW2B, do you know a Jane Hamilton from Naples, Florida or know about her from PWC? Just wondering because there is something in common about the both you (AW2B and JH.)
They are not the same person. Neither one is Marlene Newell, either. You can believe me. Oh, by the way, when did Jane move to Florida?

[Wearing A Halo]

They are not the same person. Neither one is Marlene Newell, either. You can believe me. Oh, by the way, when did Jane move to Florida?

I don't know when Jane moved to or moved out of Naples, Florida. That is a question that you will have to ask her about if you want the answer.

[Lili007]

Now, lets take a look at the testimony that you failed to post.

Miss Bootsie, thank you for an outstanding post!

I don't leave home or even go down to the shed without my mobile/cell and I'm quite fit and not pregnant. IMO, Laci would have been VERY careful, if not for herself, then for the child she was carrying.

JMO

[Lili007]

aw2b wasn't it established in testimony at the trial that the watch laci was going to keep was NOT the croton watch?

funny how such things get left out.....

~~cyn~~

No, not funny... just par for the course for the NGs. Anything will do as long as it diverts attention from Scott's actions on the day his wife "disappeared" and a couple of months before, when... 'nough said.

JMO

[Miss Bootsie]

Miss Bootsie, thank you for an outstanding post!

I don't leave home or even go down to the shed without my mobile/cell and I'm quite fit and not pregnant. IMO, Laci would have been VERY careful, if not for herself, then for the child she was carrying.

JMO

Thank-you Lili.

I'm quite sure Laci was in the habit of taking her cell phone with her everywhere she went as well.

[Lili007]

Exactly...the idea here is that gold Croton watches are not that common..so Laci went missing on the 24th ...her 14 kt gold Croton watch was never accounted for...on the 31st a woman with a criminal record pawned a 14kt Croton watch..to me, that's no coincidence...!

example:

http://www.like.com/search?searchText=croton_14k&sortBy=price&btnSearch=womenswatches&pageSize=100

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

Quotes:

The host of Court TV's "Crier Live" obtained a pawn shop receipt revealing the identity of a "mystery woman" cited by Scott Peterson's lawyer and her possible connection to the owners of a brown van allegedly spotted in the Petersons' neighborhood before her disappearance.

The document indicates that Deanna Renfro pawned a gold Croton watch six days after Laci Peterson's disappearance — a gold watch almost identical to one Laci tried to auction on eBay weeks earlier, according to the records of the Petersons' eBay account.

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

The receipt from the pawn shop indicates that, the day after the police visit to the campsite, Deanna Renfro, who has a long criminal history including at least one methamphetamine arrest, pawned the gold Croton watch for $20.


http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/070604_crier_ctv.html

1. If you cite as "no coincidence" because someone pawning a Croton watch "resembling" that owned by Laci as proof of Scott's innocence, how do you rate Laci's and Conner's bodies being washed up where Scott made "a morning decision" to take his secret boat "fishing" on the day they disappeared? Is that a more believeable "coincidence", or less?

2. Laci didn't advertise her jewellery for sale on ebay - Scott did. Read up.

JMO

[Lili007]

Dr. March was only trying to extend Conner's age (and date of death) by FOUR days.

There was also a rumor floated that Kim McGregor stole the sonogram pic during her break-in.

:seeya:

Dr March got a bit uncertain on the stand as to when he thought Laci had conceived, in relation to her expected delivery date. When he got it wrong, he asked the jury to give him some slack...

JMO

[Lili007]

Im not trying to be sarcastic or anything but I couldnt remember this? How did they determine that Laci was "not" wearing a jacket that day? is it because someone verified that nothing was missing? just wondering because my husband has no idea which jackets/sweatshirts shoes, etc I have (I do that because I have a tendancy to buy too many!) so if my husband had to look in our closet and let police know what was missing he would have no idea. I just wondered because I agree that I cant see her going out without a jacket in that weather I just dont remember how they felt like she "didnt have one when she left" same with shoes etc. I have stuff buried in my closet on purpose.

Along the lines you suggest... Scott stated that his wife was wearing BLACK PANTS and WHITE TOP and he observed her washing the floor and getting ready to walk Mackenzie. Yet when her body washed up, she was wearing the tan pants that she was observed to be wearing the last time she was seen by anyone other than Scott, the evening before she disappeared.

So we have thieves who prey on her for her Croton watch, but then come back to the house, re-dress her in what she was weraring the day before (and of course they knew that somehow!:rolleyes: ), take the Croton watch and diamond earrings she was supposedly wearing, but consideratly leave all other jewellery behind, including leaving her purse, cell and car keys, then take her out in some van, keep her there until she gives birth to Conner, kill Conner by tying a string bow around his neck, then take them both to the place where Scott went "fishing" the day they supposedly "disappeared" and made sure that Conner was somehow protected for a couple of months, in an attempt to fool LE, then placed him in the water just before they KNEW - somehow! - that his mother's partial remains were going to surface. Pretty clever petty thieves, no? NO.

Please. To suggest that some drifter happened to kill a pregnant lady for her Croton watch (presumably they even had an idea what that was) and her earrings, then pawn them in the vicinity and then extract the baby and keep him alive, after killing the mother, for months before tying a ribbon around his neck and dumping him in the place where his father was "fishing" on the very same day pregnant wife "disappeared", just before the trunk of the mother washed up on shore...

If anyone can believe that scenario, I believe the average garden gnome is capable of better logic, IMO.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Thank-you Lili.

I'm quite sure Laci was in the habit of taking her cell phone with her everywhere she went as well.

Wasn't Laci's cell phone found in her Land Rover with dead batteries? Didn't Jackie say everyone knew her cell phone batteries were dead, or words to that effect? If she took it everywhere with her why would she leave it in her car? Why wouldn't it be in her handbag or somewhere in the house?

[Lili007]

Wasn't Laci's cell phone found in her Land Rover with dead batteries? Didn't Jackie say everyone knew her cell phone batteries were dead, or words to that effect? If she took it everywhere with her why would she leave it in her car? Why wouldn't it be in her handbag or somewhere in the house?

I suggest it's because Laci didn't leave her phone behind - her husband did after he killed her. Just another thing he overlooked, like telling anyone he's just bought a boat and telling anyone about his affair with another woman, like telling anyone that he'd told that other woman he'd "lost" his wife a month before he made sure she was, like telling people he was golfing whwen he was actually towing a boat some 90 miles away to go "fishing".

I find it amazing (there's a Scott-word!) that anyone would possibly stop for a split-second to believe that a man didn't know whether he was golfing (as he told some) or "fishing" (as he told LE). I think there's a vast difference between the two, in more ways than one, to make the understatement of the year.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

I suggest it's because Laci didn't leave her phone behind - her husband did after he killed her. Just another thing he overlooked, like telling anyone he's just bought a boat and telling anyone about his affair with another woman, like telling anyone that he'd told that other woman he'd "lost" his wife a month before he made sure she was, like telling people he was golfing whwen he was actually towing a boat some 90 miles away to go "fishing".

I find it amazing (there's a Scott-word!) that anyone would possibly stop for a split-second to believe that a man didn't know whether he was golfing (as he told some) or "fishing" (as he told LE). I think there's a vast difference between the two, in more ways than one, to make the understatement of the year.

JMO

Still doesn't make sense to me. IMO, Laci would have taken her cell phone from her car into the house. Why would Scott put her cell phone in the Land Rover? He could have just left it in the house and told everyone she must have forgotten it when she went to walk the dog. And, getting back to Jackie, didn't she say everybody knew Laci's phone was dead? I'm just disputing the comment that Laci probably took the cell phone "everywhere she went". Obviously, she didn't.

[Lavindar]

Still doesn't make sense to me. IMO, Laci would have taken her cell phone from her car into the house. Why would Scott put her cell phone in the Land Rover? He could have just left it in the house and told everyone she must have forgotten it when she went to walk the dog. And, getting back to Jackie, didn't she say everybody knew Laci's phone was dead? I'm just disputing the comment that Laci probably took the cell phone "everywhere she went". Obviously, she didn't.

I think, prior to the cell phone dying, she did take it with her. My understanding is that it only worked when plugged into a charger. That is probably why it was in her car. Too bad Scott didn't think to share one of his numerous extra phones with her.

[Lili007]

Still doesn't make sense to me. IMO, Laci would have taken her cell phone from her car into the house. Why would Scott put her cell phone in the Land Rover? He could have just left it in the house and told everyone she must have forgotten it when she went to walk the dog. And, getting back to Jackie, didn't she say everybody knew Laci's phone was dead? I'm just disputing the comment that Laci probably took the cell phone "everywhere she went". Obviously, she didn't.

I'll just say this from personal experience. Up until a couple of weeks ago, I had a cell phone that I took everywhere with me. Then it stopped working - in other words, it "went dead", as they call it in Laci's case. I could receive calls, but no-one could hear me speak at the other end. The phone worked one way, but not the other.

I have no idea if this was a similar problem with Laci's phone or not. Just trying to illustrate a point. If Laci's phone wasn't working, why would she bother taking it with her?

I've got a new cell that my husband purchased for me and I'm not 9 months pregnant. I still take it with me everywhere I go. It stays turned on night and day. I wonder why Scott, who had several cell phones, as we all know, didn't feel that Laci could even "borrow" one that worked until he got her a replacement, especially at such a critical time when she was pregnant and still "active".

Edited to add - before I got a new cell, my husband brought home several others from work, to test. A couple were too big for my liking and not something that I'd use; the other two didn't seem to be better than my own. The point is - HE CARED, HE TRIED. And the next day he bought me another. What did Scott do?

JMO

JMO

[packy]

Interesting about how the pawn broker might describe an item on the ticket from Deputy's brother's e-mail. I guess I thought they would be knowledgeable to have glass to determine if they were diamonds, but it makes sense now that they would not list anything other than maybe 'stones.'

Could it be possible that if someone didn't want to leave something valuable in the house that they would put it on while they were going to be out? If I understood it right she had taken it out to be appraised, so she didn't normally have it around the house.

Lilli, I thought the pants she was found in were not the same ones she had on the night before just similar looking ones.

[Lili007]

Interesting about how the pawn broker might describe an item on the ticket from Deputy's brother's e-mail. I guess I thought they would be knowledgeable to have glass to determine if they were diamonds, but it makes sense now that they would not list anything other than maybe 'stones.'

Could it be possible that if someone didn't want to leave something valuable in the house that they would put it on while they were going to be out? If I understood it right she had taken it out to be appraised, so she didn't normally have it around the house.

Lilli, I thought the pants she was found in were not the same ones she had on the night before just similar looking ones.

Packy, about the pants... they were tan, not black as Scott described her wearing that morning. I believe they were said to be the same as she was wearing the night before, by her sister Amy who saw her the night before, but whatever. There's a big difference between black and tan.

As to something valuable being left in the house, I doubt that Laci went out to walk Mac wearing several watches, rings and whatever other jewellery because she didn't feel safe letting lie around the house. She supposedly left her purse and house keys there, didn't she? With the door unlocked?

She didn't go to pawn her jewellery on her own - her husband took her there, because HE needed the money. To rent a tux to take his mistress out and buy her gifts. Laci didn't need money - she needed a husband, at the most crucial point in her life.

According to Scott, she was last seen mopping the floor, watching Martha, putting a fun-flip in her hair (this is courtesy of Geragos), getting dressed in black pants and white top, "getting ready to walk Mackenzie", all this before she was intending to prepare a family breakfast for the next morning, and before she was supposed to bake for that evening's meal at her parents'.

What did Scott do? Made a "morning decision" to go "fishing" in a boat no-one knew about, instead of the golfing he had teed up. He couldn't even bring himself to pick up a basket he promised his sister-in-law that he would.

Why? I think it's because he was all too busy doing other things - like disposing of his wife's body after he killed her.

JMO

[packy]

Packy, about the pants... they were tan, not black as Scott described her wearing that morning. I believe they were said to be the same as she was wearing the night before, by her sister Amy who saw her the night before, but whatever. There's a big difference between black and tan.

As to something valuable being left in the house, I doubt that Laci went out to walk Mac wearing several watches, rings and whatever other jewellery because she didn't feel safe letting lie around the house. She supposedly left her purse and house keys there, didn't she? With the door unlocked?

She didn't go to pawn her jewellery on her own - her husband took her there, because HE needed the money. To rent a tux to take his mistress out and buy her gifts. Laci didn't need money - she needed a husband, at the most crucial point in her life.

According to Scott, she was last seen mopping the floor, watching Martha, putting a fun-flip in her hair (this is courtesy of Geragos), getting dressed in black pants and white top, "getting ready to walk Mackenzie", all this before she was intending to prepare a family breakfast for the next morning, and before she was supposed to bake for that evening's meal at her parents'.

What did Scott do? Made a "morning decision" to go "fishing" in a boat no-one knew about, instead of the golfing he had teed up. He couldn't even bring himself to pick up a basket he promised his sister-in-law that he would.

Why? I think it's because he was all too busy doing other things - like disposing of his wife's body after he killed her.

JMO

In a scenario that she really did go for a walk, I was thinking more that just the watch might be something she'd put on rather than leave it because it was supposed to be so expensive. I know that seems not too plausible but yet she could have felt it was safer with her rather than leave it.

I really thought those were different pants per Amy, but actually she could have changed for any reason imaginable that morning. Scott may have thought she had on black or she may have had black on and changed for some reason.

[Lili007]

In a scenario that she really did go for a walk, I was thinking more that just the watch might be something she'd put on rather than leave it because it was supposed to be so expensive. I know that seems not too plausible but yet she could have felt it was safer with her rather than leave it.

I really thought those were different pants per Amy, but actually she could have changed for any reason imaginable that morning. Scott may have thought she had on black or she may have had black on and changed for some reason.

If you were to look at the video which showed all the items of jewellery that Scott put up, or intended to put up for sale on E-bay, it would be obvious that she couldn't have been able to wear them all at once.

I doubt that a heavily pregnant woman would be mopping, watching TV, doing her hair, putting on one pair of pants while Scott was there and then changing into another after he left.

If Scott was mistaken about the colour of the pants she wore that morning (presuming she "wore" them at all, as in being alive), why was it that some people saw a woman in black pants and white top walking a dog thought that it was Laci? I suggest it's because that's how she was described by her husband.

There are many women who wear black pants and white tops and walk dogs. I'm one of them. But not many husbands who get it THAT wrong as to confuse tan for black. If he didn't remember what she wore that morning, it would have been much simpler to say so. Instead, he said black and white.

IMO, that illustrates the case perfectly - black and white.

JMO

[packy]

I hear you, Lili and the way you see it black and white fits perfectly. I like the way you put that. I just can't see it all that way but I'm listening to everything.

I'm puzzled about the pants all the way around. I could see myself throwing some different pants on just to take a walk, maybe something more comfortable or warmer etc. I wonder the pants she was found in were recognized by any of her family.

[Lili007]

I hear you, Lili and the way you see it black and white fits perfectly. I like the way you put that. I just can't see it all that way but I'm listening to everything.

I'm puzzled about the pants all the way around. I could see myself throwing some different pants on just to take a walk, maybe something more comfortable or warmer etc. I wonder the pants she was found in were recognized by any of her family.

The problem I have with that, Packy, is that Laci was heavily pregnant at the time, and I just don't see her putting on black pants to mop the floor and walk around the house, then change into another pair that was more comfortable. I would have thought she'd put on the more comfortable pants to start with.:shrug: I thought the pants she was found in were identified by her sister Amy as the ones she wore the night before.

JMO

[Mysteri]

The problem I have with that, Packy, is that Laci was heavily pregnant at the time, and I just don't see her putting on black pants to mop the floor and walk around the house, then change into another pair that was more comfortable. I would have thought she'd put on the more comfortable pants to start with.:shrug: I thought the pants she was found in were identified by her sister Amy as the ones she wore the night before.

JMO

No, Amy wasn't sure.
She said the pants were 'close.'

http://www.findlaci2003.us/trial-amy-6-3-04.html

But as for the Croton watch, it wasn't really worth very much as compared to other peices of jewlery Laci had from her Grandmother Rocha's estate which were appraised for more than $100,000.

In fact had Geragos been correct that homless people in the area were dangerous ( never substantiated ) Laci would have been careful NOT to wear flashy jewelery while out walking. Amy said the watch was too 'gaudy' for her and Laci's personal taste. She also agreed with Rick Distaso during questioning that some of their Grandmother's pieces were a bit too ostentacious for them.

imo

[Lavindar]

In a scenario that she really did go for a walk, I was thinking more that just the watch might be something she'd put on rather than leave it because it was supposed to be so expensive. I know that seems not too plausible but yet she could have felt it was safer with her rather than leave it.

I really thought those were different pants per Amy, but actually she could have changed for any reason imaginable that morning. Scott may have thought she had on black or she may have had black on and changed for some reason.

She WAS wearing black pants with a whtie top THE DAY BEFORE. Her body washed ashore in a bra and tan pants. Kidnappers don't take changes of clothes when they kidnap someone. Laci was not wearing black pants that morning. She wasn't changing into them as the only black pants found that morning iirc were in a bag in the baby's room, not lying out on a bed to be put on or in a hamper where she might have put them had she changed that morning.

I find it fascinating that Scott describes her in the clothes she was wearing the day before, not to mention that the infamous meringue was mentioned on Martha Stewart 8 times the day before, yet only once on then day she went missing. This lends great plausibilty to the two trip theory imo

[Luke Davis]

She WAS wearing black pants with a whtie top THE DAY BEFORE. Her body washed ashore in a bra and tan pants. Kidnappers don\'t take changes of clothes when they kidnap someone. Laci was not wearing black pants that morning. She wasn\'t changing into them as the only black pants found that morning iirc were in a bag in the baby\'s room, not lying out on a bed to be put on or in a hamper where she might have put them had she changed that morning.

I find it fascinating that Scott describes her in the clothes she was wearing the day before, not to mention that the infamous meringue was mentioned on Martha Stewart 8 times the day before, yet only once on then day she went missing. This lends great plausibilty to the two trip theory imo

IIRC there was a woman with white top and black pants walking a dog. I\'ve always thought Scott saw her and described Laci that way. IIRC some people thought it was Laci. IIRC there was a similar dog in the neighborhood and the woman was pregnant.

[Lavindar]

IIRC there was a woman with white top and black pants walking a dog. I\'ve always thought Scott saw her and described Laci that way. IIRC some people thought it was Laci. IIRC there was a similar dog in the neighborhood and the woman was pregnant.

I believe Mike saw a woman with a dog not on a leash in the park that morning, And the bike rider saw a woman with a dog in the park and said it was NOT Laci - he rode from one end of the park to the other and back agiain.

I still think that Scott was describing what he last saw Laci in at the house - the morning of the day before. He ws 100% correct in what she was wearing (the day before).

[deputydi]

She WAS wearing black pants with a whtie top THE DAY BEFORE. Her body washed ashore in a bra and tan pants. Kidnappers don't take changes of clothes when they kidnap someone. Laci was not wearing black pants that morning. She wasn't changing into them as the only black pants found that morning iirc were in a bag in the baby's room, not lying out on a bed to be put on or in a hamper where she might have put them had she changed that morning.

I find it fascinating that Scott describes her in the clothes she was wearing the day before, not to mention that the infamous meringue was mentioned on Martha Stewart 8 times the day before, yet only once on then day she went missing. This lends great plausibilty to the two trip theory imo
I completely agree, Lav. I, too, have always believed Scott described many things that had actually happened the day before -- including what Laci was wearing and what was on the MS show regarding meringue. He just got lucky when it was found that she made ONE BRIEF mention of meringue on the 24th. His luck ended when Laci's body washed ashore and there was no longer just Scott's word about what she had been wearing.

[Lili007]

I completely agree, Lav. I, too, have always believed Scott described many things that had actually happened the day before -- including what Laci was wearing and what was on the MS show regarding meringue. He just got lucky when it was found that she made ONE BRIEF mention of meringue on the 24th. His luck ended when Laci's body washed ashore and there was no longer just Scott's word about what she had been wearing.

AMEN! On ALL counts.

JMO

[Lili007]

I completely agree, Lav. I, too, have always believed Scott described many things that had actually happened the day before -- including what Laci was wearing and what was on the MS show regarding meringue. He just got lucky when it was found that she made ONE BRIEF mention of meringue on the 24th. His luck ended when Laci's body washed ashore and there was no longer just Scott's word about what she had been wearing.

I think the same. It's easy to bring back a photo of what Laci was wearing on the eve of her death, or should I say murder? But there's no bringing her or her child back to "life", and that was horrible. I don't know how he can live with himself, even in San Quentin on death row. That he took two lives because he couldn't be bothered with the responsibility of "supporting" them.

Hope he somehow gets some light, some day.

JMO