The Croton Watch

[Cadillakin]

Would somebody explain what the deal is with that Croton watch? Scott was trying to sell that watch online, if not jointly with Laci, by himself. He was using his own email and Ebay accounts. Note the description on the link below, with Scott's obvious verbiage. Does anybody doubt that Scott wrote that? How is it that the NG's latched onto this as some kind of exonerating evidence or evidence of nefarious activities?

Did Scott tell somebody that the watch was missing? Or stolen by the kidnapper/burglars? After he had been trying to sell it and failed? (no sale on Ebay)

The brown van people, the Renfro's, pawned a crappy scratched croton watch for 20 bucks, while Scott was trying to get $750 for his/Laci's on Ebay.. Somebody suggests it's the same watch? Based on what evidence? I noticed when reading from the past that one of the NG's considered the Croton Watch the most important "exonerating evidence." Huh? How does it all tie together?

Link to ebay Croton watch sale... Use the zoom that your browser provides to enlarge the text, if needed.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg

[TopGunner]

Would somebody explain what the deal is with that Croton watch? Scott was trying to sell that watch online, if not jointly with Laci, by himself. He was using his own email and Ebay accounts. Note the description on the link below, with Scott's obvious verbiage. Does anybody doubt that Scott wrote that? How is it that the NG's latched onto this as some kind of exonerating evidence or evidence of nefarious activities?

Did Scott tell somebody that the watch was missing? Or stolen by the kidnapper/burglars? After he had been trying to sell it and failed? (no sale on Ebay)

The brown van people, the Renfro's, pawned a crappy scratched croton watch for 20 bucks, while Scott was trying to get $750 for his/Laci's on Ebay.. Somebody suggests it's the same watch? Based on what evidence? I noticed when reading from the past that one of the NG's considered the Croton Watch the most important "exonerating evidence." Huh? How does it all tie together?

Link to ebay Croton watch sale... Use the zoom that your browser provides to enlarge the text, if needed.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg


Hey Cadi - sure hope it's cooler on the west coast today then it is on the east, bleh.......

Anyhow, here's what the P's say on their site:

We are also offering a $5000 reward for specific information leading to the recovery of Laci's missing Croton watch. Laci is believed to have been wearing this watch the day she went missing. The watch is pictured in the flyer below.

I'm sure they have more about it over there, but anyway, I personally have no clue where they came up with the idea that Laci was wearing a broken watch the day she went missing. From all that I remember, the P's are the only one's floating that theory, and since the kidnappers took Laci home to change, I'm suspicious as to why they didn't take the rest of her jewelry which was out in the open and way more valuable that a non-working watch.

[Cadillakin]

Hey Cadi - sure hope it's cooler on the west coast today then it is on the east, bleh.......It's been consistenly 100 degrees or thereabouts in Modesto for the last month.. but we think that's pretty cool. Last year, we had 12 consecutive days of 112 or higher temperature.. I think we had nearly 50 die in ours and surrounding counties..

[Cadillakin]

I'm sure they have more about it over there, but anyway, I personally have no clue where they came up with the idea that Laci was wearing a broken watch the day she went missing. So, she put on her diamond earrings AND her broken croton watch to go walk the dog, without a jacket on when it was 40 degrees in Modesto.

I had to add that last part.. It was very cold in Modesto. Those who were insisting Laci walked forgot how cold it really was to be outside without a jacket. Both myself and Royal Purple, both residents here had comments about the weather. Scott himself said it was too cold to even golf.. And for sure, golfers are pretty devoted... and they will get out there unless the conditions are very adverse.

I really got a taste of the lengths to which the NG's would go as I suggested that nobody in their right mind, particularly a young woman carrying another life would be outside for a long walk when it was very cold, misting, and 8 degrees above freezing.. One of the NG's replied that when they were pregnant they used to walk around outside in their Tshirts when it was freezing because it was easy to overheat themselves carrying the extra weight... The first one that said that elicited similar comments from other NG's who thought that sounded plausible.. :confused::confused::confused: So, pretty soon the thread evolved to NG women asserting they loved to walk in the freezing weather when they were pregnant, with barely a stitch of clothing on. LOLOLOL.. What a bunch of nuts!!

[I'mSun]

It's been consistenly 100 degrees or thereabouts in Modesto for the last month.. but we think that's pretty cool. Last year, we had 12 consecutive days of 112 or higher temperature.. I think we had nearly 50 die in ours and surrounding counties..Yep, last year our heat wave was terrible. Record highs everywhere including 114 degrees in Dublin. I remember a few of us posting the high temps at San Quentin. ISP in on the 4th tier with no a/c and no way to cool off. It must have been unbearable. What a shame. :tongue:

[TopGunner]

Hi Cali & Sun, thanks for sharing last years misery, LOL. 4th tier, no air...I actually CAN imagine. Yesterday I took child to college. Child is on 3rd floor, all outdoor steps. Had to be around 100 with 100% humidity. We had 2 car loads to haul up and then groceries. I am half the size I was when I woke up yesterday.......:tongue:

Back on topic: I hate the heat, LOVE the cold/snow. I assure you I never walked around outside when it was FREEZING without coat, shoes, etc. I may have been pregnant, but I was still human. Geez...

[Cadillakin]

I really got a taste of the lengths to which the NG's would go as I suggested that nobody in their right mind, particularly a young woman carrying another life would be outside for a long walk when it was very cold, misting, and 8 degrees above freezing.. !I meant to append to that, "without a jacket"

[I'mSun]

Hi Cali & Sun, thanks for sharing last years misery, LOL. 4th tier, no air...I actually CAN imagine. Yesterday I took child to college. Child is on 3rd floor, all outdoor steps. Had to be around 100 with 100% humidity. We had 2 car loads to haul up and then groceries. I am half the size I was when I woke up yesterday.......:tongue:

Back on topic: I hate the heat, LOVE the cold/snow. I assure you I never walked around outside when it was FREEZING without coat, shoes, etc. I may have been pregnant, but I was still human. Geez...I sure don't envy you, TG, making several trips up the stairs in that heat and humidity. The heat is one thing, but together with humidity, it is awful! I dislike the heat, too. When it is cold, we can put on a sweater or jacket to stay warm. Now, I have 5 children, which means I've been pregnant 5 times. I assure you that never once did I go for a walk in 40, or even 50, degree weather without a jacket. Nope, not even once.

[Cadillakin]

Now, I have 5 children, which means I've been pregnant 5 times. I assure you that never once did I go for a walk in 40, or even 50, degree weather without a jacket. Nope, not even once.Right, and that made those of us who followed the drama in real time, within the Modesto environment, very skeptical that any of the descriptions of Laci with black pants and white top, sans jacket, were accurate.

Everything about every story Scott told stunk. His fishing story the first day as well as Laci's description that morning for her "walk", right on thru to the last time he publicly opened his mouth. Men should not tell tall tales when their wives have just been murdered.. Juries take it as a certain sign of guilt. As they should...

[Lavindar]

So, she put on her diamond earrings AND her broken croton watch to go walk the dog, without a jacket on when it was 40 degrees in Modesto.

I had to add that last part.. It was very cold in Modesto. Those who were insisting Laci walked forgot how cold it really was to be outside without a jacket. Both myself and Royal Purple, both residents here had comments about the weather. Scott himself said it was too cold to even golf.. And for sure, golfers are pretty devoted... and they will get out there unless the conditions are very adverse.

I really got a taste of the lengths to which the NG's would go as I suggested that nobody in their right mind, particularly a young woman carrying another life would be outside for a long walk when it was very cold, misting, and 8 degrees above freezing.. One of the NG's replied that when they were pregnant they used to walk around outside in their Tshirts when it was freezing because it was easy to overheat themselves carrying the extra weight... The first one that said that elicited similar comments from other NG's who thought that sounded plausible.. :confused::confused::confused: So, pretty soon the thread evolved to NG women asserting they loved to walk in the freezing weather when they were pregnant, with barely a stitch of clothing on. LOLOLOL.. What a bunch of nuts!!


I'll third that VERY COLD statement. I was working that day and it was VERY VERY cold. To think that ANYONE would venture out without a coat on is ludicrous.

I want to ad my comment about the watch fiasco. I do not believe that Deanna Renfro (who pawned the watch) was related to Donnie and Mary Ann Renfrow. Renfro was Deanna's married name and, although their last names sound and even look alike, I believe they are no more related than Bruce Peterson is to Scott Peterson.

[Lavindar]

Would somebody explain what the deal is with that Croton watch? Scott was trying to sell that watch online, if not jointly with Laci, by himself. He was using his own email and Ebay accounts. Note the description on the link below, with Scott's obvious verbiage. Does anybody doubt that Scott wrote that? How is it that the NG's latched onto this as some kind of exonerating evidence or evidence of nefarious activities?

Did Scott tell somebody that the watch was missing? Or stolen by the kidnapper/burglars? After he had been trying to sell it and failed? (no sale on Ebay)

The brown van people, the Renfro's, pawned a crappy scratched croton watch for 20 bucks, while Scott was trying to get $750 for his/Laci's on Ebay.. Somebody suggests it's the same watch? Based on what evidence? I noticed when reading from the past that one of the NG's considered the Croton Watch the most important "exonerating evidence." Huh? How does it all tie together?

Link to ebay Croton watch sale... Use the zoom that your browser provides to enlarge the text, if needed.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg


Amazing watch, Amazing Laci. The guy needs some vocabularly help.

[Cadillakin]

I believe they are no more related than Bruce Peterson is to Scott Peterson.That figures..

[Lili007]

So, she put on her diamond earrings AND her broken croton watch to go walk the dog, without a jacket on when it was 40 degrees in Modesto.

I had to add that last part.. It was very cold in Modesto. Those who were insisting Laci walked forgot how cold it really was to be outside without a jacket. Both myself and Royal Purple, both residents here had comments about the weather. Scott himself said it was too cold to even golf.. And for sure, golfers are pretty devoted... and they will get out there unless the conditions are very adverse.

I really got a taste of the lengths to which the NG's would go as I suggested that nobody in their right mind, particularly a young woman carrying another life would be outside for a long walk when it was very cold, misting, and 8 degrees above freezing.. One of the NG's replied that when they were pregnant they used to walk around outside in their Tshirts when it was freezing because it was easy to overheat themselves carrying the extra weight... The first one that said that elicited similar comments from other NG's who thought that sounded plausible.. :confused::confused::confused: So, pretty soon the thread evolved to NG women asserting they loved to walk in the freezing weather when they were pregnant, with barely a stitch of clothing on. LOLOLOL.. What a bunch of nuts!!


If I could vote for this post, it would be tops. So astute, so simple and so right.

IMO, of course.

[Trixy]

So, she put on her diamond earrings AND her broken croton watch to go walk the dog, without a jacket on when it was 40 degrees in Modesto.

I had to add that last part.. It was very cold in Modesto. Those who were insisting Laci walked forgot how cold it really was to be outside without a jacket. Both myself and Royal Purple, both residents here had comments about the weather. Scott himself said it was too cold to even golf.. And for sure, golfers are pretty devoted... and they will get out there unless the conditions are very adverse.

I really got a taste of the lengths to which the NG's would go as I suggested that nobody in their right mind, particularly a young woman carrying another life would be outside for a long walk when it was very cold, misting, and 8 degrees above freezing.. One of the NG's replied that when they were pregnant they used to walk around outside in their Tshirts when it was freezing because it was easy to overheat themselves carrying the extra weight... The first one that said that elicited similar comments from other NG's who thought that sounded plausible.. :confused::confused::confused: So, pretty soon the thread evolved to NG women asserting they loved to walk in the freezing weather when they were pregnant, with barely a stitch of clothing on. LOLOLOL.. What a bunch of nuts!!

:lol: Just goes to show you the depths they'll go to excuse Scott.

[deputydi]

<snip> . . . without a jacket on when it was 40 degrees in Modesto.
<snip>
I really got a taste of the lengths to which the NG's would go as I suggested that nobody in their right mind, particularly a young woman carrying another life would be outside for a long walk when it was very cold, misting, and 8 degrees above freezing.. One of the NG's replied that when they were pregnant they used to walk around outside in their Tshirts when it was freezing because it was easy to overheat themselves carrying the extra weight... The first one that said that elicited similar comments from other NG's who thought that sounded plausible.. :confused::confused::confused: So, pretty soon the thread evolved to NG women asserting they loved to walk in the freezing weather when they were pregnant, with barely a stitch of clothing on. LOLOLOL.. What a bunch of nuts!!
Don't you love tripping down memory lane? It's great having someone here who actually lives in Modesto and can bring some reality into the conversation.

I don't remember that particular conversation, but I do remember being told 40 degress in Modesto, CA is not the same as 40 degrees in Pgh, PA. I never did understand that logic. As far as I'm concerned 40 degrees is darned cold no matter where you are.

[deputydi]

Would somebody explain what the deal is with that Croton watch? Scott was trying to sell that watch online, if not jointly with Laci, by himself. He was using his own email and Ebay accounts. Note the description on the link below, with Scott's obvious verbiage. Does anybody doubt that Scott wrote that? How is it that the NG's latched onto this as some kind of exonerating evidence or evidence of nefarious activities?
<snip>http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg
I'm with you. I would like one of the NGs to return long enough to explain the significance of the watch.

Who said the watch was broken? The ebay listing says "excellent condition" and I couldn't find anything that indicates the watch wasn't running. Isn't that a material fact that would have to be disclosed?

The ebay auction began on Dec 8 (one day before the boat purchase and one day before he told Amber he had "lost" his wife). The auction ended 9 days before Laci "disappeared". I don't know (and I'm not going to speculate) what happened to the watch, but IMO his plan was forming then. Coincidence??? The NGs will claim it is, but in Distaso's words "how many do we have to accept . . . .".

[Cadillakin]

I'm with you. I would like one of the NGs to return long enough to explain the significance of the watch. Oh hell, they don't know anything.. It's all talking points. First Geragos, Jackie, Lee, or Marlene, invents something.. Then they pass it off to their supporters.. and one by one, they spew it out.

A perfect example of that was the phantom sonogram People Magazine reported. People disclosed that Laci had a sonogram on Dec 23, 2002. Comparing the results of that imaginary sonogram with Conner's increased size when found on the shoreline, speculation began that Conner lived at least 6 weeks after Laci's disappearance. I vividly recall Lee Peterson as he stood front and center before the cameras and stated unequivocally that Scott was innocent because Conner lived for 6 weeks after Laci disappeared. (You can see references to this "6 week theory" many places. In fact, it's here in these forums, at least one time, probably more on the SII: Evidence that Points to Scott's Innocent Thread, Part 1, the first posting) Though it was known soon after the publishing that the reported sonogram of Dec 23rd was fiction, as the doctors involved publicly refuted the reporting, the NG's never let that theory go. They just modified, rationalized, and denied, and that fictional story became the basis for one of the more prevalent "Scott is innocent" themes.

In fact, Peterson and Geragos hired a guy, Dr. March, to basically flesh out the lie into so-called scientific fact. But unfortunately for them, nobody believed what he was saying except the Peterson's and NG's who had invented and furthered the theme.

[enlightenme]

Oh hell, they don't know anything.. It's all talking points. First Geragos, Jackie, Lee, or Marlene, invents something.. Then they pass it off to their supporters.. and one by one, they spew it out.

A perfect example of that was the phantom sonogram People Magazine reported. People disclosed that Laci had a sonogram on Dec 23, 2002. Comparing the results of that imaginary sonogram with Conner's increased size when found on the shoreline, speculation began that Conner lived at least 6 weeks after Laci's disappearance. I vividly recall Lee Peterson as he stood front and center before the cameras and stated unequivocally that Scott was innocent because Conner lived for 6 weeks after Laci disappeared. (You can see references to this "6 week theory" many places. In fact, it's here in these forums, at least one time, probably more on the SII: Evidence that Points to Scott's Innocent Thread, Part 1, the first posting) Though it was known soon after the publishing that the reported sonogram of Dec 23rd was fiction, as the doctors involved publicly refuted the reporting, the NG's never let that theory go. They just modified, rationalized, and denied, and that fictional story became the basis for one of the more prevalent "Scott is innocent" themes.

In fact, Peterson and Geragos hired a guy, Dr. March, to basically flesh out the lie into so-called scientific fact. But unfortunately for them, nobody believed what he was saying except the Peterson's and NG's who had invented and furthered the theme.


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:

[sonoma]

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.

[Cadillakin]

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.Laci never went anywhere, with jacket or without, but yours is a good question. In testimony, at least two parties asked Scott about Laci wearing a jacket. Scott of course, acted like it didn't really matter... (Read below) Also, I believe Amy was the one who knew Laci's wardrobe and habits the best. I know she was called upon to see if the clothes Laci wore the previous night, before she disappeared, while accompanying Scott while he got his haircut, were still in the house. The tan pants were gone of course.. and the blouse I believe was stuffed into the hamper. The police may have asked Amy about the jackets Laci wore, as well.

Brocchini asking Scott about the jacket she might have worn;

BROCCHINI: Did you notice what jack—her jacket was there, ‘cause if she went, like if she went walk—walkin’ at 10 o’clock or 9:30…PETERSON: She usually steals my stuff.
BROCCHINI: She uses your stuff?
PETERSON: Yeah because you know …
BROCCHINI: Um hum.
PETERSON: Instead of maternity stuff, so I don’t really know.
BROCCHINI: You don’t know
PETERSON: What type though? She could have had hers or mine or nothing, I don’t know.

Gwen Kemple addressing Scott... and testifying about it..


Rick Distaso: And how are normal, you know, December days in Modesto?
Gwen Kemple: I believe it was like in the 30s,
Rick Distaso: Okay.
Gwen Kemple: 40s.
Rick Distaso: And did you ask him anything about Laci wearing a jacket?
Gwen Kemple: I said, "Did she have on a jacket?" It was cold. I said, "Did she have on a jacket?" And he said, "I don't know.
I said, "Did you see if her jacket was missing?" And he said "No."
Rick Distaso: What was his demeanor during the times that you were having these conversations with him?
Gwen Kemple: Well, he wouldn't look at me. He just answered my questions calmly, just matter of fact.

That's all I know to answer your question... But as I recall, while living in the Modesto environment, a jacket was never mentioned by the "witnesses" or those who were asking us to keep an eye out for her.

Scott seems real concerned doesn't he? Even I know that my wife only has two likely jackets to wear in the cold.. I could search for those.. ask my daughters to help... Id ask her friends to see if maybe I overlooked something.. But Scott, he just doesn't give a sh*t.

[sonoma]

thank you for your quick response. I do understand that usually you'd think that someone would know which jackets were missing and Im not trying to excuse his behavior etc but honestly, when I was pregnant I grabbed many of my husbands jackets/sweatshirts because they fit better (before I got pregnant I was a size 5!) and honestly he wouldnt even know out of all teh stuff he has which one I took?? he has some clothes there sweaters and jackets included that he hasnt actually worn in years. He would never even be able to list his own stuff let alone mine. To be honest even my close friends and family members would not be able to tell you what jackets I have. there are just to many overall. Same with jewelry, my husband wouldnt have a clue. After this case I thought about if this were me and my husband was in the same situation as Scott (again Im not trying to excuse him or anything, Im just thinking...) there are alot of things my husband would absoultely "not" due but some of the things like coming home and not worrying etc he would have assumed as well, that I was at my grandmothers house etc and would not panic. He is one to think nothing happens and doesnt worry alot of course that would change if I was missing but initially if he came home and found everything dark etc, pregnant or not. He just doesnt worry about stuff and as far as emotions? he could be totally upset inside and the way he is, he would not be panicking and blubbering and it could be misconstrued as not caring. The cheating????? heck no! Alot of people though would think him "uncaring" by his outward emotions. You would never know his pain by looking at him. course the lying??? another story!

[Wearing A Halo]

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.

DRISP said that Laci could have been wearing a jacket she stole from him (cause she would always steal from him), or one of her own or simply not wearing a jacket at all.

[Lavindar]

Oh hell, they don't know anything.. It's all talking points. First Geragos, Jackie, Lee, or Marlene, invents something.. Then they pass it off to their supporters.. and one by one, they spew it out.

A perfect example of that was the phantom sonogram People Magazine reported. People disclosed that Laci had a sonogram on Dec 23, 2002. Comparing the results of that imaginary sonogram with Conner's increased size when found on the shoreline, speculation began that Conner lived at least 6 weeks after Laci's disappearance. I vividly recall Lee Peterson as he stood front and center before the cameras and stated unequivocally that Scott was innocent because Conner lived for 6 weeks after Laci disappeared. (You can see references to this "6 week theory" many places. In fact, it's here in these forums, at least one time, probably more on the SII: Evidence that Points to Scott's Innocent Thread, Part 1, the first posting) Though it was known soon after the publishing that the reported sonogram of Dec 23rd was fiction, as the doctors involved publicly refuted the reporting, the NG's never let that theory go. They just modified, rationalized, and denied, and that fictional story became the basis for one of the more prevalent "Scott is innocent" themes.

In fact, Peterson and Geragos hired a guy, Dr. March, to basically flesh out the lie into so-called scientific fact. But unfortunately for them, nobody believed what he was saying except the Peterson's and NG's who had invented and furthered the theme.

Did the sonogram on the 23rd first come out in People Magazine. That irritated the hell out of me. More media manipulation by Garegos the Liar.

What made Dr. March so ridiculous (in addition to "cut me some slack" was the fact that he did not have a speciality of fetal age or anthropology in his background. He put down what Dr. Devore said, but then admitted that he recommended people to Dr. Devore. He's a stupid stupid man and hopefully he damaged his career with his comments. Talk about PAID experts.

[Lavindar]

That figures..
Makes you wonder how long Geragos had to look for a Renfro with a record and a croton watch to pawn.

[Cadillakin]

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

:seeya:Yeah, but I wasn't trying to suggest March said that Conner lived 6 weeks after Laci died.. only that he was hired to further the "Conner lived after Laci died" theory. The first was when the policeman who discovered Conner suggested he was a full grown baby boy.. The second was when Dr Peterson suggested that the baby might have been a live birth. The third was when People published that phony story on the sonogram. That really gave the story impetus because it was being discussed on National TV by respected analysts...

And last but not least.. The 4th was March.

He only had to extend Conner's life one day for Scott to get a pass, but for some reason, as you said, he suggested Conner lived for four days. The 6weeks of the People Magazine story was too long to try in the courtroom, Ridiculous really.. while one day might have seemed not enough to convince the jury of anything meaningful.. so I guess he and Geragos decided Conner living 4 days was worth a shot.

It's all the same theory, just different principals and circumstances..

[sonoma]

re: the watch, wasnt the location of the pawn shop close to the Peterson neighborhood and wasnt it close to the time after she went missing. Having the name Renfro, pawning a Croton Watch close to the time and place is awfully coincidental?? even if Geragos was looking for one to bring up possible questions. The odds of that are pretty slim to find all of that? and as far as the value of the watch Laci had being way more than what this watch was pawned for means nothing to someone who is desparate for cash. Unfortunately I have family members who pawned expensive items for nearly no cash just because they needed it for drugs etc. Sad but it happens all the time. Value means nothing at that point. You just want the money and you dont think real hard when it comes to gee, they might be able to trace this to that woman??? People who are desparate dont think about stuff like that. They are living for the moment.

[TopGunner]

re: the watch, wasnt the location of the pawn shop close to the Peterson neighborhood and wasnt it close to the time after she went missing. Having the name Renfro, pawning a Croton Watch close to the time and place is awfully coincidental?? even if Geragos was looking for one to bring up possible questions. The odds of that are pretty slim to find all of that? and as far as the value of the watch Laci had being way more than what this watch was pawned for means nothing to someone who is desparate for cash. Unfortunately I have family members who pawned expensive items for nearly no cash just because they needed it for drugs etc. Sad but it happens all the time. Value means nothing at that point. You just want the money and you dont think real hard when it comes to gee, they might be able to trace this to that woman??? People who are desparate dont think about stuff like that. They are living for the moment.


Hi Sonoma, you certainly to have a lot of real life examples to explain ISP behavior/innocence. Fortunately, I have none.

What are the odds of Renfro pawing a croton watch a few days after Laci disappeared? Considering it was never identified as her watch, only "similar", I'd say there's no chance it happened. I find it interesting that we could fill full threads with many pages of all the *coincidences* that pointed to ISP guilt, but no one outside of him can have a single coincidence. Very interesting actually.

[Lavindar]

Hi Sonoma, you certainly to have a lot of real life examples to explain ISP behavior/innocence. Fortunately, I have none.

What are the odds of Renfro pawing a croton watch a few days after Laci disappeared? Considering it was never identified as her watch, only "similar", I'd say there's no chance it happened. I find it interesting that we could fill full threads with many pages of all the *coincidences* that pointed to ISP guilt, but no one outside of him can have a single coincidence. Very interesting actually.
Croton makes a vast array of watches. The pawn shop is in the same general area of the Peterson house - on the east side, but then I believe Renfro lived in Empire (which is east of Modesto) so that pawn shop would be the logical one to use.

I believe the watch was reclaimed within a few days. Guess she didn't really need to pawn it. Given the description of the watch on the EBAY -- top of the line - I seriously doubt that it was Laci's watch. The Petersons obviously don't think so.

The only similarity to Laci's watch was that it was made by Croton.

[One2Snoop]

Hi Sonoma, you certainly to have a lot of real life examples to explain ISP behavior/innocence. Fortunately, I have none.

What are the odds of Renfro pawing a croton watch a few days after Laci disappeared? Considering it was never identified as her watch, only "similar", I'd say there's no chance it happened. I find it interesting that we could fill full threads with many pages of all the *coincidences* that pointed to ISP guilt, but no one outside of him can have a single coincidence. Very interesting actually.

Hey, I tried to start a thread like that. It got shot down faster than a person can blink. Maybe someone else can start one. They might have more success with it than I did. :o

And FWIW, I agree TG. :beer:

[TopGunner]

Hey, I tried to start a thread like that. It got shot down faster than a person can blink. Maybe someone else can start one. They might have more success with it than I did. :o

And FWIW, I agree TG. :beer:

What got shot down Snoops, a thread with all the *coincidences* pointing to ISP guilt? I would think that would be a very interesting/active thread. Maybe it just got burried before too many people saw it. Try again. :D

[One2Snoop]

What got shot down Snoops, a thread with all the *coincidences* pointing to ISP guilt? I would think that would be a very interesting/active thread. Maybe it just got burried before too many people saw it. Try again. :D

Nope it got deleted. No one could agree on his coincidences. I don't know why? :shrug: :tongue:

[TopGunner]

Nope it got deleted. No one could agree on his coincidences. I don't know why? :shrug: :tongue:


LOL, got it Snoops. I guess to us, connect the conincidences and it's so obvious what happened. The NG's, however, will isolate each event......it doesn't jive.

[enlightenme]

Croton makes a vast array of watches. The pawn shop is in the same general area of the Peterson house - on the east side, but then I believe Renfro lived in Empire (which is east of Modesto) so that pawn shop would be the logical one to use.

I believe the watch was reclaimed within a few days. Guess she didn't really need to pawn it. Given the description of the watch on the EBAY -- top of the line - I seriously doubt that it was Laci's watch. The Petersons obviously don't think so.

The only similarity to Laci's watch was that it was made by Croton.

Geragos already KNEW it wasn't Laci's watch, that's why he waved around a pawn shop receipt instead of calling witnesses. He was just trying to create any kind of doubt he could but none of it was reasonable doubt.

[Wearing A Halo]

Kudos to those who can identify whom, following the conviction of DRISP, stated, "It kind of put my faith back into the American justice system."

[Lavindar]

Kudos to those who can identify whom, following the conviction of DRISP, stated, "It kind of put my faith back into the American justice system."

Moi!!!!!!!!!!! roflmao

[deputydi]

thank you for your quick response. I do understand that usually you'd think that someone would know which jackets were missing and Im not trying to excuse his behavior etc but honestly, when I was pregnant I grabbed many of my husbands jackets/sweatshirts because they fit better (before I got pregnant I was a size 5!) and honestly he wouldnt even know out of all teh stuff he has which one I took?? <snip>
Cadi's response to this post was perfect, but I'd like to add something. If Laci was wearing a jacket (her own or Scott's) this would PROVE each and every one of the eyewitnesses was mistaken. NOT ONE described her wearing a jacket. If she wasn't wearing a jacket, it defies common sense. No one (pregnant or not) is going to take the dog for a walk to the park wearing just a white blouse and black pants in 40 degree weather. We all know these weren't the clothes she was found in 4 months later. So, to me, that means we either must believe the kidnappers took her home to change or Scott was mistaken about the clothes she was wearing that morning. If he wasn't sure what she was wearing, why didn't he simply say "I can't remember" instead of giving the detailed information that was on the poster? If he was too distraught that night to think straight, why didn't he change the description the next day -- the next week -- anytime?

I could go on and on but I'm at work. I ask you, given the choices, which make the most sense? Which are the most believable? Which are the REASONABLE conclusions?

[TopGunner]

This post makes you look bad.....really. It's uncalled for. :no: Is the purpose of the board to discuss the case-all viewpoints, or not? why all the unprovoked snide remarks, calling people that have different ideas than you, "nuts", etc? or is this stuff the only thing some posters can still rally around together? Too bad it is what the discussion is ultimately reduced to.


OTF, I believe it is you who provokes. If you were interested in this thread, you'd be posting about the watch, not looking for someone who made an example (a good one I might add), that doesn't suit YOU. I also believe that if you posted here more often, not just to bring people you don't know to task, you'd get to know the posters and how they explain things...therefore, you wouldn't be so quick to judge. :no:

Now, do you have an OPINION about the watch?

[onthefence]

OTF, I believe it is you who provokes. If you were interested in this thread, you'd be posting about the watch, not looking for someone who made an example (a good one I might add), that doesn't suit YOU. I also believe that if you posted here more often, not just to bring people you don't know to task, you'd get to know the posters and how they explain things...therefore, you wouldn't be so quick to judge. :no:

Now, do you have an OPINION about the watch?


I don't have to get to know someone to know that snide remarks and personal attacks such as the one I was referring to are unneccessary and uncalled for. If that provokes someone, then I don't know what to say about that.

I did not know about the Croton watch. Based on what is on this thread it seems as an unlikely coincidence as many of the others I've read here-that a Croton watch was pawned close to the time of this crime. They are not rare, but they are also not common. Would be interesting to know how often the Modesto pawnbroker receives Croton watch to be pawned? How many per year, per month? Those are questions both sides could have asked, imo. If it is a pretty common watch, then maybe this one isn't as big a coincidence. If they get one or two a year, then it seems a pretty BIG coincidence that they recieved one shortly after this crime.

A few have mentioned the location of the pawn in relation to the PEterson home as an indicator of whether or not the watch belonged to them/Lacii.e. Imo, if the watch was stolen from Laci or the Peterson home, it was probably not pawned by the person that did the stealing (unless they were mentally retarded). Imo, it would have been taken to a "fence", then sold or traded for drugs,to someone who had no idea whose watch or under what circumstances it was stolen and then pawned it wherever-fastest cash.

That is was pawned for $20 also doesn't mean it wasn't the Peterson watch that listed (not SOLD) on ebay for $700. A watch that is obtained by the means this one was, isn't going to shop it around to their friends or on ebay or shop around for the best price, they are going to take it and get what they can get in cash as fast as they can. It is too bad the watch was claimed, because now we will probably never know.

Based on what i have read here, so far it is a pretty big coincidence-Geragos was right to bring it up. If I were him, I would have done more to establish that it was rare-or on the flip side from prosecution that it wasn't that rare, but hey, I am not an attorney, so, what do I know.

[TopGunner]

Cadi's response to this post was perfect, but I'd like to add something. If Laci was wearing a jacket (her own or Scott's) this would PROVE each and every one of the eyewitnesses was mistaken. NOT ONE described her wearing a jacket. If she wasn't wearing a jacket, it defies common sense. No one (pregnant or not) is going to take the dog for a walk to the park wearing just a white blouse and black pants in 40 degree weather. We all know these weren't the clothes she was found in 4 months later. So, to me, that means we either must believe the kidnappers took her home to change or Scott was mistaken about the clothes she was wearing that morning. If he wasn't sure what she was wearing, why didn't he simply say "I can't remember" instead of giving the detailed information that was on the poster? If he was too distraught that night to think straight, why didn't he change the description the next day -- the next week -- anytime?

I could go on and on but I'm at work. I ask you, given the choices, which make the most sense? Which are the most believable? Which are the REASONABLE conclusions?

Hi DD at work, I am home today - and it's the perfect BEACH day! :seeya: Yeah, I'm rubbing it in.......but soon I'll be back to work 24/7 and it'll be your turn, LOL.

Excellent questions here. IMO there was no sense asking ISP anything. Everytime he opened his mouth he lied. He lied when he didn't have to. He lied about lying...I think to continue asking him specific questions was simply muddying the water (no pun). He'd just add another false spin to check out and eliminate. Based on what Laci was found in, all the questions were answered. She never went for a walk. She never even changed out of the cloths she wore on the 23rd. No need to ask about a jacket........:(

[deputydi]

<SNIP>Based on what i have read here, so far it is a pretty big coincidence-Geragos was right to bring it up. If I were him, I would have done more to establish that it was rare-or on the flip side from prosecution that it wasn't that rare, but hey, I am not an attorney, so, what do I know.
I'd have to dig deep into my memory bank to recall all the details surrounding the watch. IIRC (and I may not), the description of the pawned watch did not match Laci's watch. MG brought it up by waving a receipt around in the air hoping at least one juror would believe it was Laci's watch that was pawned. You can call it a coincidence if you like, but don't expect me to believe it proves anything. It was just ONE -- how many coincidences surrounded Scott's defense? ONE I can accept, but there is a limit before you start sounding gullible.

[sonoma]

how else besides personal can I take things if someone says that I have a "bad husband"????? I was only trying to put forth some questions. Being told that I had a bad husband because he sounded alot like Scott was totally uncalled for and it was hurtful. How would you feel if someone said that about your family? I wasnt trying to give my life story I was only using a couple things as comparison to show that not everyone is the same or reacts the same. That was my only point. The media showed alot of things that pointed to "behaviors" and "why did he or didnt he do this" I was only trying to shed light on why someone might react different. I dont know if he did this or not. I was not there. Nobody on this board was so no matter what points to guilt or not the only ones that know the 100% truth is Laci. If it were all 100% cut and dry there would be no need for discussion and/or a board like this. I am not 100% sure how I feel and if someone is 100% sure of his guilt than why discuss it so long after the fact? I guess I dont get that I thoughtt the purpose was to discuss things. I didnt know it was for people to get put down.

[deputydi]

Hi DD at work, I am home today - and it's the perfect BEACH day! :seeya: Yeah, I'm rubbing it in.......but soon I'll be back to work 24/7 and it'll be your turn, LOL.<SNIP>
How lucky you are. The closest thing PA has to a beach is Erie and it's a LAKE. I love the ocean!

[onthefence]

I'd have to dig deep into my memory bank to recall all the details surrounding the watch. IIRC (and I may not), the description of the pawned watch did not match Laci's watch. MG brought it up by waving a receipt around in the air hoping at least one juror would believe it was Laci's watch that was pawned. You can call it a coincidence if you like, but don't expect me to believe it proves anything. It was just ONE -- how many coincidences surrounded Scott's defense? ONE I can accept, but there is a limit before you start sounding gullible.

The coincidences and the associated agreement or disagreement on those are what keeps all the various discussion boards going on this case, that and some people with more free time on their hands than me ;) !

If I were a juror, a pawn ticket waved around by either attorney would not be enough to convince me that it was more than a coincidence. As a juror, in absence of the watch itself or pictures of the watch (the one pawned) or model, make, info, so you could compare to the one that Laci owned, I would have to hear testimony such as -does the pawnbroker get a lot of pawned Croton watches? how many a year, how many a month. How common are the watches themselves (are they as common as timex, swatch, seiko). If the jurors didn't hear that info they are not supposed to consider it-even if they have personal knowledge on the subject. So, the jury was left with no choice, imo.. On the other hand, we are not jurors, so can ask around, and find that Croton watches are not real common to start with, you can go to your local pawn store and see how many you can count, or tell the pawnbroker you are in the market for a Croton watch, and do they ever get any in the shop?

A co workers husband owns 3 pawn shops in the city I live in (much larger than Modesto), so, had her call him and ask him. In the last 2 years he has record of one Croton watch being pawned. I reside in a different geographic area altogether, so not sure if that is a factor-maybe Modesto/California is a Croton watch mecca. All I have to go on so far is what has been posted here and what this pawnbroker told me. Based on that, the Croton watch may not be an insignificant coincidence :cool: .

If it could be determined that the watch that was pawned did belong to Laci Peterson, how would you look at all the other coincidences?

[Lavindar]

snipped
If it could be determined that the watch that was pawned did belong to Laci Peterson, how would you look at all the other coincidences?

It wasn't so it's not an issue. Did you even look at the Ebay ad that Scott put up. AMAZING Croton watch. 44 diamonds

[Trixy]

I'd have to dig deep into my memory bank to recall all the details surrounding the watch. IIRC (and I may not), the description of the pawned watch did not match Laci's watch. MG brought it up by waving a receipt around in the air hoping at least one juror would believe it was Laci's watch that was pawned. You can call it a coincidence if you like, but don't expect me to believe it proves anything. It was just ONE -- how many coincidences surrounded Scott's defense? ONE I can accept, but there is a limit before you start sounding gullible.

MG playing his bs game as usual. Very bad habit that man has. Remember when he said Wynonna had receipts when she was caught shop lifting at Saks. Did he ever show the receipts? No, he most certainly did not.

IMO, this much to do about nothing won't free Scott either.

:seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

I did not know about the Croton watch. Based on what is on this thread it seems as an unlikely coincidence as many of the others I've read here-that a Croton watch was pawned close to the time of this crime. They are not rare, but they are also not common. Would be interesting to know how often the Modesto pawnbroker receives Croton watch to be pawned? How many per year, per month? Those are questions both sides could have asked, imo. If it is a pretty common watch, then maybe this one isn't as big a coincidence. If they get one or two a year, then it seems a pretty BIG coincidence that they recieved one shortly after this crime.



I agree...excellent questions..

IMO, the pawned Croton watch was Laci's ...I based my theory on the following facts:

1-a 14 kt gold Croton watch was pawned few days after Laci's disappearance..based on my conversation with the "Pawn Shop" withG means with gems which include diamonds..

2-Laci's Croton watch was a 14 kt gold watch and had diamonds and it is still missing to this date...

3-The person who pawned the watch had a criminal record..."Deanna Renfro"...IMO, it is not a person you would expect to have a 14 kt gold Croton watch...and there is a strong possibility she is connected to the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..

4-IMO, Croton watches are not that common SPECIALLY the ones made of 14 kt gold..the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel...

5-To this date no one came forward regarding the watch that was pawned ..what's the big secret?!

[Lavindar]

I agree...excellent questions..

IMO, the pawned Croton watch was Laci's ...I based my theory on the following facts:

1-a 14 kt gold Croton watch was pawned few days after Laci's disappearance..based on my conversation with the "Pawn Shop" withG means with gems which include diamonds..

2-Laci's Croton watch was a 14 kt gold watch and had diamonds and it is still missing to this date...

3-The person who pawned the watch had a criminal record..."Deanna Renfro"...IMO, it is not a person you would expect to have a 14 kt gold Croton watch...and there is a strong possibility she is connected to the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..

4-IMO, Croton watches are not that common SPECIALLY the ones made of 14 kt gold..the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel...

5-To this date no one came forward regarding the watch that was pawned ..what's the big secret?!

The watch was picked up soon after it was pawned IIRC. Maybe they don't want anyone in their busienss, maybe they don't have a computer, maybe they were paid by Geragos to keep their mouth's shut. I sure wouldn't come forward if I had the pawned watch cuz it's no one's buseiness but the owner. I talked to that pawn shop and they said if it had a diamond bezel, they would have put down diamond bezel on the description - it was not on the pawn ticket.

Why didn't Geragos call the pawn shop owner about it? Because he KNEW it wasn't Laci's watch. Why didn't he call Deanna Renfro?

[enlightenme]

I'd have to dig deep into my memory bank to recall all the details surrounding the watch. IIRC (and I may not), the description of the pawned watch did not match Laci's watch. MG brought it up by waving a receipt around in the air hoping at least one juror would believe it was Laci's watch that was pawned. You can call it a coincidence if you like, but don't expect me to believe it proves anything. It was just ONE -- how many coincidences surrounded Scott's defense? ONE I can accept, but there is a limit before you start sounding gullible.


There was no reason Geragos or his investigator, Carl Jensen, could not have interviewed Renfro and found out how she obtained the watch. He could have subpoened her and the pawn shop owner to prove whether the watch was even close to Laci's watch.

IMO, Geragos did find out that it wasn't Laci's watch but waving around the pawn shop ticket was more smoke & mirrors from the Geragos camp.

[Trixy]

Why didn't Geragos call the pawn shop owner about it? Because he KNEW it wasn't Laci's watch. Why didn't he call Deanna Renfro?

ITA, he knew. No coincidence MG knew he had a guilty client and that is why he chose not to do a lot of things. He said he would, but we know now that was a lie.

:seeya:

[onthefence]

I agree...excellent questions..

IMO, the pawned Croton watch was Laci's ...I based my theory on the following facts:

1-a 14 kt gold Croton watch was pawned few days after Laci's disappearance..based on my conversation with the "Pawn Shop" withG means with gems which include diamonds..

2-Laci's Croton watch was a 14 kt gold watch and had diamonds and it is still missing to this date...

3-The person who pawned the watch had a criminal record..."Deanna Renfro"...IMO, it is not a person you would expect to have a 14 kt gold Croton watch...and there is a strong possibility she is connected to the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..

4-IMO, Croton watches are not that common SPECIALLY the ones made of 14 kt gold..the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel...

5-To this date no one came forward regarding the watch that was pawned ..what's the big secret?!

I did not know that the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel. Interesting! The plot thickens........:cool:

So, the pawnshop indicates that the watch was 14K gold with gems?

If this is correct, a 14K gold Croton watch, with gems, was pawned at a pawnshop, in Modesto, CA, by someone with a known criminal record soon after the disappearance of Laci Peterson, who owned a gold croton watch with gems.

Is there any info on when the watch was pawned and when was it claimed?

[TopGunner]

I agree...excellent questions..

IMO, the pawned Croton watch was Laci's ...I based my theory on the following facts:

1-a 14 kt gold Croton watch was pawned few days after Laci's disappearance..based on my conversation with the "Pawn Shop" withG means with gems which include diamonds..

2-Laci's Croton watch was a 14 kt gold watch and had diamonds and it is still missing to this date...

3-The person who pawned the watch had a criminal record..."Deanna Renfro"...IMO, it is not a person you would expect to have a 14 kt gold Croton watch...and there is a strong possibility she is connected to the burglars who burglarized the Medina's house..

4-IMO, Croton watches are not that common SPECIALLY the ones made of 14 kt gold..the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel...

5-To this date no one came forward regarding the watch that was pawned ..what's the big secret?!

Hi AW2B, good to see you posting and I hope this means you're feeling better.:)

I personally see no issue w/the watch what-so-ever. As other posters said, Geregos would have put Renfro and the pawn shop owner on the stand SO FAST, heads would spin. Not only did he not do that, but the watch Renfro pawned (and then picked up again, which is telling in and of itself), was never, ever, EVER shown to be Laci's. The "real" watch, IMO, could be anywhere. The bottom of the SFB, in a dumpster, on another of ISP girlfriends........packed away in a box somewhere. Maybe it fell behind the seat in a vehicle. There are so many possibilities, it's not even worth arguing about. Had it been PROVEN that the watch Renfro has was Laci's, then it'd be worth discussing, but it wasn't ...and looks like it never will be. It's taking me a really long time to say it's a moot point, isn't it?:biggrin: :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

I did not know that the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel. Interesting! The plot thickens........:cool:

So, the pawnshop indicates that the watch was 14K gold with gems?

If this is correct, a 14K gold Croton watch, with gems, was pawned at a pawnshop, in Modesto, CA, by someone with a known criminal record soon after the disappearance of Laci Peterson, who owned a gold croton watch with gems.

Is there any info on when the watch was pawned and when was it claimed?

I'm not sure when it was claimed..as I mentioned Deanna Renfro might very well be connected to the burglars that burglarized the Medina's house which is across the street from Laci's house...I believe the burglary occurred on Dec 24th...the same day Laci disappeared...

Pawn Ticket:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/renfropawnslip1.gif

[TopGunner]

I'm not sure when it was claimed..as I mentioned Deanna Renfro might very well be connected to the burglars that burglarized the Medina's house which is across the street from Laci's house...I believe the burglary occurred on Dec 24th...the same day Laci disappeared...

Pawn Ticket:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/dream777/renfropawnslip1.gif


Did Laci's ebay description of her watch mention scratches? This slip doesn't mention 14 diamonds either.

It doesn't sound like Laci's watch at all......which explains why Geregos didn't pursue it.

[Cadillakin]

I did not know that the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel. Interesting! The plot thickens........:cool:

So, the pawnshop indicates that the watch was 14K gold with gems?

If this is correct, a 14K gold Croton watch, with gems, was pawned at a pawnshop, in Modesto, CA, by someone with a known criminal record soon after the disappearance of Laci Peterson, who owned a gold croton watch with gems.

Is there any info on when the watch was pawned and when was it claimed?Gosh.. You and the the other poster quoted in your posting sure have a lot of connections at the pawn shops.. Lots of interesting anecdotes too. I wonder if you have any independent links supporting your contention that croton watches are not common in pawn shops? I noticed there are 271 of them on sale at Ebay right now..

Also, there are 30 watches advertised as gold and 21 advertised as stainless by Croton on sale right now at Ebay. So, maybe we need a link for the fact that Croton makes many more watches in stainless than gold, before it can be accepted as reliable information.

[Trixy]

Did Laci's ebay description of her watch mention scratches? This slip doesn't mention 14 diamonds either.

It doesn't sound like Laci's watch at all......which explains why Geregos didn't pursue it.

Diamonds would be put on the slip. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it is not Laci's watch.

:shrug:

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B, good to see you posting and I hope this means you're feeling better.:)

I personally see no issue w/the watch what-so-ever. As other posters said, Geregos would have put Renfro and the pawn shop owner on the stand SO FAST, heads would spin. Not only did he not do that, but the watch Renfro pawned (and then picked up again, which is telling in and of itself), was never, ever, EVER shown to be Laci's. The "real" watch, IMO, could be anywhere. The bottom of the SFB, in a dumpster, on another of ISP girlfriends........packed away in a box somewhere. Maybe it fell behind the seat in a vehicle. There are so many possibilities, it's not even worth arguing about. Had it been PROVEN that the watch Renfro has was Laci's, then it'd be worth discussing, but it wasn't ...and looks like it never will be. It's taking me a really long time to say it's a moot point, isn't it?:biggrin: :seeya:


Hi TopGunner...thanks, I feel a bit better..

With all do respect...it is not a moot point at all...the prosecution didn't try to refute the defense theory regarding the Croton watch..they could have called Deanna Renfro... they could have called the pawn shop owner...didn't they call witnesses who supposedly walked their dogs to try to refute the defense theory that Laci was the pregnant woman that witnesses saw on Dec 24th??...yet their testimonies didn't even help their cause..anyhow, they went thru that trouble so why didn't they do the same thing as to the Croton watch?...as far as I know, the owner of the "pawn Shop" refused to talk to the defense..he referred them to the MPD...

[attorneywan2be]

Did Laci's ebay description of her watch mention scratches? This slip doesn't mention 14 diamonds either.

It doesn't sound like Laci's watch at all......which explains why Geregos didn't pursue it.


IMO, the scratches on the watch occurred in the struggle as Laci was being abducted..!

[enlightenme]

What shred of evidence is there that Renfro was connected to or knew the Medina burglars at all????? :confused:

[Trixy]

I'd like to see that as well. :shrug:

[onthefence]

Did Laci's ebay description of her watch mention scratches? This slip doesn't mention 14 diamonds either.

It doesn't sound like Laci's watch at all......which explains why Geregos didn't pursue it.

Based on the ebay description it doesn't sound like the watch was scratched at that time. Who knows what happened to it between then and the time it could have been stolen and ultimately pawned?

[onthefence]

Hi TopGunner...thanks, I feel a bit better..

With all do respect...it is not a moot point at all...the prosecution didn't try to refute the defense theory regarding the Croton watch..they could have called Deanna Renfro... they could have called the pawn shop owner...didn't they call witnesses who supposedly walked their dogs to try to refute the defense theory that Laci was the pregnant woman that witnesses saw on Dec 24th??...yet their testimonies didn't even help their cause..anyhow, they went thru that trouble so why didn't they do the same thing as to the Croton watch?...as far as I know, the owner of the "pawn Shop" refused to talk to the defense..he referred them to the MPD...

I agree that there is some reason why neither side refuted or confirmed. Possibly something legal/wasn't allowed to be presented,etc? Don't think it would have been difficult for either side to subpeona the pawn shop owner or even Dianna Renfro, but, they didn't.

[onthefence]

Gosh.. You and the the other poster quoted in your posting sure have a lot of connections at the pawn shops.. Lots of interesting anecdotes too. I wonder if you have any independent links supporting your contention that croton watches are not common in pawn shops? I noticed there are 271 of them on sale at Ebay right now..

Also, there are 30 watches advertised as gold and 21 advertised as stainless by Croton on sale right now at Ebay. So, maybe we need a link for the fact that Croton makes many more watches in stainless than gold, before it can be accepted as reliable information.

The ebay info is interesting. Sounds like some research on gold vs silver/stainless Crotons is in order. On the next point/how common they are-

To be able to follow your argument above-that they are common because there are 271 on Ebay, we have to assume that EBAY and PAWN SHOPS ARE EQUAL/SAME MARKET/PURPOSE, which they aren't, but, let's pretend for now:

Checking the higher end watches on Ebay: I noted that there are 3900+ Rolex watches for sale on Ebay, 3000+ Tag Heuer
watches for sale on ebay, 2500+ Omega watches for sale on Ebay, and 4,900 +Seiko watches for sale on ebay. But only 271 Croton. From this one could say that relatively speaking, Croton watches are not very common on ebay so, not very common in pawn shops (there are at least 10 times more in each of these higher end brands than Croton watches).

As to whether or not they are commonly pawned-if there is an internet accessible database with this info on it, I couldn't find anything, so, I just asked someone in the pawn business, not ideal, but that's all I have to go on for now. Do you have a link that says they are commonly pawned watches?

The ebay info is very interesting-271 Croton watches on Ebay. 30 gold and 21stainless. What are the other 221?

[attorneywan2be]

The ebay info is interesting. Sounds like some research on gold vs silver/stainless Crotons is in order. On the next point/how common they are-

To be able to follow your argument above-that they are common because there are 271 on Ebay, we have to assume that EBAY and PAWN SHOPS ARE EQUAL/SAME MARKET/PURPOSE, which they aren't, but, let's pretend for now:

Checking the higher end watches on Ebay: I noted that there are 3900+ Rolex watches for sale on Ebay, 3000+ Tag Heuer
watches for sale on ebay, 2500+ Omega watches for sale on Ebay, and 4,900 +Seiko watches for sale on ebay. But only 271 Croton. From this one could say that relatively speaking, Croton watches are not very common on ebay so, not very common in pawn shops (there are at least 10 times more in each of these higher end brands than Croton watches).

As to whether or not they are commonly pawned-if there is an internet accessible database with this info on it, I couldn't find anything, so, I just asked someone in the pawn business, not ideal, but that's all I have to go on for now. Do you have a link that says they are commonly pawned watches?

The ebay info is very interesting-271 Croton watches on Ebay. 30 gold and 21stainless. What are the other 221?

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

[Cadillakin]

I agree that there is some reason why neither side refuted or confirmed. Possibly something legal/wasn't allowed to be presented,etc? Don't think it would have been difficult for either side to subpeona the pawn shop owner or even Dianna Renfro, but, they didn't.Mark Geragos never once mentioned the Renfro name in the entire trial. Did you know that?

So, why would the prosecutors call Renfro to the stand? There is no evidence at all between Deanna Renfro and the murder of Laci Peterson. None, nada, zip. Prosecutors don't call witnesses to refute red herrings and frivolous meanderings by the defense. The prosecutors are there representing the people of California. They are entrusted to present real evidence that is meaningful and relevant to the judge and jury so a proper decision can be reached. It is not their job to call witnesses with no relevance or relationship to the case. Note the exchange below in Distaso's closing making this very point.

Rick Distaso: It's not like we can't find her. (Renfro) Anyone could find her. We didn't put her on because it doesn't have anything to do with the case. If they thought it did, why didn't they?
Mark Geragos: There is a objection. That's a misstatement of the law. The defense has no burden under 471.
Judge Delucchi: But he can comment. Overruled. Go ahead.

[Cadillakin]

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.
I'm sure you know, or you should, that the EBay account listing that you refer to when you suggest Laci was selling the watch .. was Scott's account. Don't you? In fact, the very day that Laci disappeared, Scott was selling a Ping Golf Bag thru that same acount. You don't think that was Laci's golf bag, do you? Do you?

Distaso explains it clearly and simply to the jury in his closing...

"After that, the very last thing at 8:45 that morning is Scott's e-mail account. And he checks about a Ping golf bag that he is trying to sell. This guy, Scott Peterson right here. 12-24-02 8:50 a.m. Do you think Laci Peterson was checking his e-mail for his Ping golf bag? This is the same e-mail that he was getting things from Shawn Sibley. Horny Bast*rd. And do you think she could even get into this account, Horny Bast*rd, and stuff."

[onthefence]

Mark Geragos never once mentioned the Renfro name in the entire trial. Did you know that?

So, why would the prosecutors call Renfro to the stand? There is no evidence at all between Deanna Renfro and the murder of Laci Peterson. None, nada, zip. Prosecutors don't call witnesses to refute red herrings and frivolous meanderings by the defense. The prosecutors are there representing the people of California. They are entrusted to present real evidence that is meaningful and relevant to the judge and jury so a proper decision can be reached. It is not their job to call witnesses with no relevance or relationship to the case. Note the exchange below in Distaso's closing making this very point.

Rick Distaso: It's not like we can't find her. (Renfro) Anyone could find her. We didn't put her on because it doesn't have anything to do with the case. If they thought it did, why didn't they?
Mark Geragos: There is a objection. That's a misstatement of the law. The defense has no burden under 471.
Judge Delucchi: But he can comment. Overruled. Go ahead.




Based on what I know so far, I disagree that it is a fact that Renfro and the watch had nothing to do with the Laci Peterson case.

Can understand to a certain extent, why the prosecutors would not call her to the stand. Their theory was Scott P killed Laci, so, DR or the watch didn't have anything to do with their case against Scott. I can only guess as to why Geragos did not go further with all this (and I am not alone in questioning the strategies of Geragos-bad legal strategy does not make a defendant guilty) is that 1) he didn't do his homework on the watch, 2)he did the homework and didn't like the answer 3)was trying to interject reasonable doubt and did not want to get caught up in having to prove WHO did it-although he certainly set that expectation in his opening statements-which was also a bonehead move, imo..either that or 4) the Renfo/watch line was disallowed somehow (legal).

[onthefence]

I'm sure you know, or you should, that the EBay account listing that you refer to when you suggest Laci was selling the watch .. was Scott's account. Don't you? In fact, the very day that Laci disappeared, Scott was selling a Ping Golf Bag thru that same acount. You don't think that was Laci's golf bag, do you? Do you?

Distaso explains it clearly and simply to the jury in his closing...

"After that, the very last thing at 8:45 that morning is Scott's e-mail account. And he checks about a Ping golf bag that he is trying to sell. This guy, Scott Peterson right here. 12-24-02 8:50 a.m. Do you think Laci Peterson was checking his e-mail for his Ping golf bag? This is the same e-mail that he was getting things from Shawn Sibley. Horny Bast*rd. And do you think she could even get into this account, Horny Bast*rd, and stuff."

I sell stuff occasionally on my ebay account for everyone in my family (immediate family). They don't like to mess with it. THere are businesses set up to sell other people's stuff on consignment on ebay. Do you think Scott was selling the watch without Laci's consent?

[attorneywan2be]

I'm sure you know, or you should, that the EBay account listing that you refer to when you suggest Laci was selling the watch .. was Scott's account. Don't you? In fact, the very day that Laci disappeared, Scott was selling a Ping Golf Bag thru that same acount. You don't think that was Laci's golf bag, do you? Do you?

Distaso explains it clearly and simply to the jury in his closing...

"After that, the very last thing at 8:45 that morning is Scott's e-mail account. And he checks about a Ping golf bag that he is trying to sell. This guy, Scott Peterson right here. 12-24-02 8:50 a.m. Do you think Laci Peterson was checking his e-mail for his Ping golf bag? This is the same e-mail that he was getting things from Shawn Sibley. Horny Bast*rd. And do you think she could even get into this account, Horny Bast*rd, and stuff."


That was a quote from the article..I posted the link..read it..

Scott's account? so what?..does that mean Laci didn't use his account?!...how about the video tape where Laci was filming her jewelry that she put on ebay? the picture of the Croton watch that was on that video tape matched the picture on ebay...

[attorneywan2be]

I sell stuff occasionally on my ebay account for everyone in my family (immediate family). They don't like to mess with it. THere are businesses set up to sell other people's stuff on consignment on ebay. Do you think Scott was selling the watch without Laci's consent?

They had a video tape of Laci filming her jewelry that she put on ebay..the pictures on that video tape matched the pictures on ebay...!

[Pampster]

It's absolutely ridiculous to think that someone was smart enough to carry off such an elaborate frame up of Scott yet dumb enough to incriminate themselves in a murder case by pawning Laci's watch for a measly $20. It's beyond absurd! And then they went back and reclaimed the watch, so actually they would have incriminated themselves in order to "borrow" $20 for a few days?? :eek:

Why didn't Geragos put the actual pawn shop owner on the stand to testify about the watch? Obviously because, with a few simple questions, the watch would have been proven NOT to be Laci's. Why didn't Geragos call Deanna to the stand? Same reason. He hoped the jury would be too dumb to see through his little farce. They weren't.

[deputydi]

I admit until this case, I had never heard of Croton (I do not wear a watch -- ever). Try Googling "Croton Watch". You will find that these watches are extremely common and range in price from $60 to several thousand. I also went back and looked at Scott's ebay listing -- I couldn't find where it said the watch was 14, 18 or 24 karat gold. The high end Croton watches I found were all 18k white or yellow gold. The lower end watches were 14k white or yellow gold. "WithG" probably does mean with gems, but those gems are more likely Swaroski Crystals (found lots of those) and not diamonds. The pawn receipt definitely says 14k gold WithG, scratched. Compare that to Scott's ebay listing -- excellent condition, no mention of gold although it was most likely 18k and it says 44 diamonds. The receipt doesn't mention diamonds and, for their own protection, if these were diamonds and not cheap crystals, it would say DIAMOND BEZEL or something similar.

You can buy Croton watches at Sears, Sams Club, ebay, Amazon, craigslist as well as fine jewelry stores.

The pawned watch IMO is not even close to being Laci's watch. We have no picture of Deanna's watch. It was picked up, which means to me that it was in her possession. Her testimony as to where she obtained this watch would have been disallowed, but her testimony about the watch itself would have been permitted. I have no doubt MG interviewed her, found out the watch bears no resemblance to Laci's so he waved the meaningless pawn receipt around instead.

RD addressed this in his closing when he said (paraphrasing), "I know pawn shops are in the business to make money, and I know you don't get the real worth of the item, but $20 for a $750 watch is a little crazy".

ETA: I forgot to mention -- if you look at Scott's ebay listing it says "Gem(blue) set on stem". I don't know what that means but there's that pesky Gem reference again.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree that there is some reason why neither side refuted or confirmed. Possibly something legal/wasn't allowed to be presented,etc? Don't think it would have been difficult for either side to subpeona the pawn shop owner or even Dianna Renfro, but, they didn't.


The defense could have subpoenaed the pawn shop owner or Deanna Renfro..but, IMO, they would have been hostile witnesses...they would not have helped the defense prove the watch was Laci's..

[Pampster]

Geragos wouldn't even have needed to interview Deanna about the watch. Reading the discovery turned over by the prosecuter's office would have told him the watch wasn't Laci's.

[Pampster]

The defense could have subpoenaed the pawn shop owner or Deanna Renfro..but, IMO, they would have been hostile witnesses...they would not have helped the defense prove the watch was Laci's..

Why would the pawn shop owner be a hostile witness? He did nothing illegal.

[deputydi]

The defense could have subpoenaed the pawn shop owner or Deanna Renfro..but, IMO, they would have been hostile witnesses...they would not have helped the defense prove the watch was Laci's..
Why do you think they would have been hostile?

[TopGunner]

IMO, the scratches on the watch occurred in the struggle as Laci was being abducted..!

Wasn't this the watch her friends said she never wore because it wasn't her style, and also the battery was dead. Who wears a watch that doesn't tell time AW2B? And where'd the diamonds go?

[TopGunner]

The defense could have subpoenaed the pawn shop owner or Deanna Renfro..but, IMO, they would have been hostile witnesses...they would not have helped the defense prove the watch was Laci's..

AW2B, this is ridiculous. They wouldn't be "hostile" witness...geez, so dramatic. They would have taken the stand and identified/described the watch, when they got it, where they got it, etc. They would NOT have said it was Laci's, that was not a question for them to answer...so it wouldn't have been asked.:no:

[deputydi]

IMO, the scratches on the watch occurred in the struggle as Laci was being abducted..!
You mean the struggle in broad daylight at or about 10:00 in the morning that was neither heard nor witnessed by ANYBODY?

[Pampster]

You mean the struggle in broad daylight at or about 10:00 in the morning that was neither heard nor witnessed by ANYBODY?

MacKenzie apparently stood by quietly and witnessed it.

[TopGunner]

You mean the struggle in broad daylight at or about 10:00 in the morning that was neither heard nor witnessed by ANYBODY?

And where's the HARD EVIDENCE? :biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

Wasn't this the watch her friends said she never wore because it wasn't her style, and also the battery was dead. Who wears a watch that doesn't tell time AW2B? And where'd the diamonds go?


-I don't recall anyone testifying that Laci never wore the Croton watch..
-Who said the battery was dead?
-As I mentioned before..I called "The Pawn Shop"...according to them: "withG" means with gems which include diamonds..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, this is ridiculous. They wouldn't be "hostile" witness...geez, so dramatic. They would have taken the stand and identified/described the watch, when they got it, where they got it, etc. They would NOT have said it was Laci's, that was not a question for them to answer...so it wouldn't have been asked.:no:

I think Deanna knew that the watch was Laci's...are we to believe that she would have honestly testified giving the exact and correct description of the watch?!...I think not...as to the owner of the shop, as far as I know, he refused to talk to the defense, to me, that's an indication that he would have been a hostile witness, IMO, the most the defense would have gotten from him is "I don't remember".."I'm not sure"..etc..etc..

[deputydi]

-I don't recall anyone testifying that Laci never wore the Croton watch..
-Who said the battery was dead?
-As I mentioned before..I called "The Pawn Shop"...according to them: "withG" means with gems which include diamonds..
Laci said the watch wasn't "her style" -- that's why she/Scott placed it for sale on ebay.

Don't know about the battery.

I need to look into that. It would leave the shop in a very precarious and indefensible position if a person pawned a watch with crystals, came back and claimed it wasn't their watch because their watch had diamonds. Can you explain the ebay listing that said "Gems(blue) . . ."?

[Pampster]

I think Deanna knew that the watch was Laci's...are we to believe that she would have honestly testified giving the exact and correct description of the watch?!...I think not...as to the owner of the shop, as far as I know, he refused to talk to the defense, to me, that's an indication that he would have been a hostile witness, IMO, the most the defense would have gotten from him is "I don't remember".."I'm not sure"..etc..etc..

So you're basing your belief that the watch was Laci's on your imaginings of what the witnesses might have said if they'd been put on the stand?

I imagine if Scott was put on the stand he would have broke down and confessed.

There you go. Case closed.

[frydaddy]

So you're basing your belief that the watch was Laci's on your imaginings of what the witnesses might have said if they'd been put on the stand?

I imagine if Scott was put on the stand he would have broke down and confessed.

There you go. Case closed.

Stellar job...very well said!

I've never understood why the Croton watch stirs more than ten seconds of debate, though I admit I'm no expert on it, so I understand the OP asking the questions. What is in evidence or testimony about the watch?

[TopGunner]

-I don't recall anyone testifying that Laci never wore the Croton watch..
-Who said the battery was dead?
-As I mentioned before..I called "The Pawn Shop"...according to them: "withG" means with gems which include diamonds..


In the video tape the watch was not working. I don't see how G's mean D's, however.......I don't believe Laci was wearing the watch. Nobody testified that she was. Nobody testified that Renfro had it. AW2B, if there was even a remote chance that Renfro had Laci's watch, do you think for a NY minute they'd just say to themselves, "oh...she probably won't tell the truth, so we'll leave her alone and not call her to the stand."

!!!

[frydaddy]

In the video tape the watch was not working. I don't see how G's mean D's, however.......I don't believe Laci was wearing the watch. Nobody testified that she was. Nobody testified that Renfro had it. AW2B, if there was even a remote chance that Renfro had Laci's watch, do you think for a NY minute they'd just say to themselves, "oh...she probably won't tell the truth, so we'll leave her alone and not call her to the stand."

!!!

How many of these hundreds of witnesses who could make out enough detail to "know" it was Laci walking, ever mentioned a watch or jewelry, eh?

[Lavindar]

http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg Here is the link to the EBAY ad. If you read Scott's description of the watch, it sounds nothing like the one that Deanno Renfro pawned. Gold basket weave, excellent condition. Excellent condition does NOT MEAN scrathches on it.

[Lavindar]

-I don't recall anyone testifying that Laci never wore the Croton watch..
-Who said the battery was dead?
-As I mentioned before..I called "The Pawn Shop"...according to them: "withG" means with gems which include diamonds..

Well, I called them too and they said if it had a DIAMOND BEZEL, they would have put that on the description.

[Lavindar]

I think Deanna knew that the watch was Laci's...are we to believe that she would have honestly testified giving the exact and correct description of the watch?!...I think not...as to the owner of the shop, as far as I know, he refused to talk to the defense, to me, that's an indication that he would have been a hostile witness, IMO, the most the defense would have gotten from him is "I don't remember".."I'm not sure"..etc..etc..


Link to the owner refusing to talk to the defense

. BTW CA Law is that awhen an item is pawned, the police are immediately notified. Don't you think they would have talked to the pawnshop owner?

[Lavindar]

There was no reason Geragos or his investigator, Carl Jensen, could not have interviewed Renfro and found out how she obtained the watch. He could have subpoened her and the pawn shop owner to prove whether the watch was even close to Laci's watch.

IMO, Geragos did find out that it wasn't Laci's watch but waving around the pawn shop ticket was more smoke & mirrors from the Geragos camp.

After all this time and all the exposing of Mark Geragos's shylock tactics, and still, people believe he was being honest.
He threw everything but the kitchen sink at the wall and none of it stuck because he never backed up ANYTHING with any proof or any testimony proving it.

Scott would have had to have known that it was not Laci's watch or his parents would not be offering a reward for it - saying she was wearing it when she was "abducted."

And it was water resistant too, so if she was wearing it while in captivity, how could deanna have pawned it? For all we know, it is still on Laci's missing wrist in the bottom of the bay under the silt.

[TopGunner]

Link to the owner refusing to talk to the defense

. BTW CA Law is that awhen an item is pawned, the police are immediately notified. Don't you think they would have talked to the pawnshop owner?

I do not believe anyone can refuse to speak to the LE, they'd just subpoena them wouldn't they?

[Lavindar]

I do not believe anyone can refuse to speak to the LE, they'd just subpoena them wouldn't they?

Yes , and contrary to what Dalton wrote in his book, the defense has subpoena power also

[onthefence]

It's absolutely ridiculous to think that someone was smart enough to carry off such an elaborate frame up of Scott yet dumb enough to incriminate themselves in a murder case by pawning Laci's watch for a measly $20. It's beyond absurd! And then they went back and reclaimed the watch, so actually they would have incriminated themselves in order to "borrow" $20 for a few days?? :eek:

Why didn't Geragos put the actual pawn shop owner on the stand to testify about the watch? Obviously because, with a few simple questions, the watch would have been proven NOT to be Laci's. Why didn't Geragos call Deanna to the stand? Same reason. He hoped the jury would be too dumb to see through his little farce. They weren't.

Not sure who this post is directed to, but, in my post, I said the jewlery was more than likely not pawned by anyone directly involved in the crime.
Chances are they knew it was "hot", but most likely had no idea of the original source of the watch, so would not even occur to them that they were linked to a murder. They pawned it for quick cash. If it was pawned to get cash for drug fix, then we are talking about someone whose thinking may not be like someone who is not a meth head.

My question is: Does anyone know if LE checked out the watch lead, and actually saw the watch to be able to say that it was same watch or not? and if not, why?

Since Mark Geragos is not LE, on what basis/grounds could Mark Geragos[/U] compel Diana Renfro to produce this watch or answer any questions about it? None. She wouldn't have to talk in court unless she was charged with something or subpeonaed. Maybe Mark Geragos brought up the watch the way he did to demonstrate that LE had not followed all the leads in this case?

[onthefence]

Link to the owner refusing to talk to the defense

. BTW CA Law is that awhen an item is pawned, the police are immediately notified. Don't you think they would have talked to the pawnshop owner?

I wonder if the police go and review all items that are reported by pawnshops? That would keep em pretty busy. When was the watch reported missing, stolen, etc? At least in this case, you would think the mention of a pawned ladies, gold Croton watch would have LE over there to follow up on it ASAP. They could have taken a picture of Laci's watch over to compare it to, or maybe asked the pawnshop owner if the watch was similiar, etc.. Were they ever able to do this?

[Lavindar]

Not sure who this post is directed to, but, in my post, I said the jewlery was more than likely not pawned by anyone directly involved in the crime.
Chances are they knew it was "hot", but most likely had no idea of the original source of the watch, so would not even occur to them that they were linked to a murder. They pawned it for quick cash. If it was pawned to get cash for drug fix, then we are talking about someone whose thinking may not be like someone who is not a meth head.

My question is: Does anyone know if LE checked out the watch lead, and actually saw the watch to be able to say that it was same watch or not? and if not, why?

Since Mark Geragos is not LE, on what basis/grounds could Mark Geragos[/U] compel Diana Renfro to produce this watch or answer any questions about it? None. She wouldn't have to talk in court unless she was charged with something or subpeonaed. Maybe Mark Geragos brought up the watch the way he did to demonstrate that LE had not followed all the leads in this case?
Of course LE knew about it and checked it out - Geragos found it in discovery. All Geragos had to do was subpoena Renfro - he has the same subpoena powers as the prosecution has.


If you think GEragos found all his information through good detective work, then you are sadly mistaken. All of the information (and the details which he conveniently left out) were in the discovery that LE turned over to him.

[onthefence]

I do not believe anyone can refuse to speak to the LE, they'd just subpoena them wouldn't they?


Sure they can refuse, nobody has to talk to the police at all if they don't want to. They can be subpeoned to testify in court, where could testify, or assert their 5th amendment rights, lie, etc..

[TopGunner]

Sure they can refuse, nobody has to talk to the police at all if they don't want to. They can be subpeoned to testify in court, where could testify, or assert their 5th amendment rights, lie, etc..

Oh, good point. Made me remember all the times ISP refused to talk with them. Thanks OTF! :patriot:

[onthefence]

Of course LE knew about it and checked it out - Geragos found it in discovery. All Geragos had to do was subpoena Renfro - he has the same subpoena powers as the prosecution has.


If you think GEragos found all his information through good detective work, then you are sadly mistaken. All of the information (and the details which he conveniently left out) were in the discovery that LE turned over to him.

Where did I ever say that Geragos found all his information through good detective work? what does this have to with anything I've posted on this topic :shrug:

How do we know that LE knew about it and checked it out if Distaso said Deanna Renfro and the watch didn't have anything to do with the case? Do you have a link to testimony or a police statement that tells how, when where or how they determined it was not Laci's watch :D ? Did the discovery show that they had checked it out and how?

[onthefence]

Oh, good point. Made me remember all the times ISP refused to talk with them. Thanks OTF! :patriot:


:patriot: Glad to be of service :patriot:

[Otter]

This is my opinion only. Insert MOO cow.

http://www.thetick.ws/images/angryredherring.jpg

The Angry Red Herring is a minor supervillian that appears in Little Wooden Boy and the Belly of Love. He rubs petroleum jelly on himself to escape the grasp of heroes, and has machine guns mounted in his eyes.

Seems so appropriate. :seeya:

[TopGunner]

Where did I ever say that Geragos found all his information through good detective work? what does this have to with anything I've posted on this topic :shrug:

How do we know that LE knew about it and checked it out if Distaso said Deanna Renfro and the watch didn't have anything to do with the case? Do you have a link to testimony or a police statement that tells how, when where or how they determined it was not Laci's watch :D ? Did the discovery show that they had checked it out and how?

We don't have links to their investigative notes OTF, although the watch was addressed in testimony and apparently went nowhere on either side.

Do you have a link to testimony or a police statement saying they passed over investigating it?:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

Where did I ever say that Geragos found all his information through good detective work? what does this have to with anything I've posted on this topic :shrug:

How do we know that LE knew about it and checked it out if Distaso said Deanna Renfro and the watch didn't have anything to do with the case? Do you have a link to testimony or a police statement that tells how, when where or how they determined it was not Laci's watch :D ? Did the discovery show that they had checked it out and how?


I do not have the discovery, but pawn shops are required by law to inform police of everything they take in to see if it's stolen goods or not. That law has been on the books since 2001.

I can see you did not read Scott's description of the watch on Ebay or you wouldn't be asking questions like this. Laci's watch was not a quartz dial - it was gold basketweave. It had 44 diamonds surrounding the watch face. I cannot believe you think a pawnbroker would not list a diamond bezel. He would not say "genstones" for a watch surrounded by diamond. It would be too easy to return some piece of junk to Deanna and say it was the watch she had given him.

[TopGunner]

This is my opinion only. Insert MOO cow.

http://www.thetick.ws/images/angryredherring.jpg

The Angry Red Herring is a minor supervillian that appears in Little Wooden Boy and the Belly of Love. He rubs petroleum jelly on himself to escape the grasp of heroes, and has machine guns mounted in his eyes.

Seems so appropriate. :seeya:

LOL Otter!!!:beer:

[Lavindar]

I wonder if the police go and review all items that are reported by pawnshops? That would keep em pretty busy. When was the watch reported missing, stolen, etc? At least in this case, you would think the mention of a pawned ladies, gold Croton watch would have LE over there to follow up on it ASAP. They could have taken a picture of Laci's watch over to compare it to, or maybe asked the pawnshop owner if the watch was similiar, etc.. Were they ever able to do this?


What makes you think they weren't over there right away?

[Cadillakin]

I do not have the discovery, but pawn shops are required by law to inform police of everything they take in to see if it's stolen goods or not. That law has been on the books since 2001.

I can see you did not read Scott's description of the watch on Ebay or you wouldn't be asking questions like this. Laci's watch was not a quartz dial - it was gold basketweave. It had 44 diamonds surrounding the watch face. I cannot believe you think a pawnbroker would not list a diamond bezel. He would not say "genstones" for a watch surrounded by diamond. It would be too easy to return some piece of junk to Deanna and say it was the watch she had given him.You're a sharpie!

[TopGunner]

You're a sharpie!


Are you calling Lavindar a magic marker? :eek: :shrug:

LOL.........:chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

[Lavindar]

IMO, the scratches on the watch occurred in the struggle as Laci was being abducted..!

OMG, we are back to the fantasy abduction again. Are we going to go into the bathtub scenario now?

[frydaddy]

You know, one thing I always noticed with those "on the fence", is that every single one of them takes a stance of arguing for Scott. When does one glance over to the other side of that fence they are on? :shrug:

G'night good people!!!

[onthefence]

We don't have links to their investigative notes OTF, although the watch was addressed in testimony and apparently went nowhere on either side.

Do you have a link to testimony or a police statement saying they passed over investigating it?:biggrin:

Who is "we" TG?

Anyway, seems there is little real public info on the extent of the investigation into the watch lead-from either side.

[onthefence]

You know, one thing I always noticed with those "on the fence", is that every single one of them takes a stance of arguing for Scott. When does one glance over to the other side of that fence they are on? :shrug:

G'night good people!!!

Do you wonder why that is? Do you wonder if maybe it is not the poster but that the discussion is pretty one sided here, and to have any sort of a 2 sided discussion , if one is unsure of there position, they are a put in a defacto devils advocate role? Somone that is NG or OTF is not looking at all the evidence and issues through the same lense you are. if one questions any of the evidence that most here believe completely and solely points to Scott P. or one disagrees with a conclusion on a particular point, you are labeled a NG, insinuated that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, etc.. :shrug: When some tell why they believe what they do I simply look at questions I would have about the same information. They may not be the same as yours and i may come to a different conclusion. If someone that solidly feels he is guilty makes a good point, or I find some things suspicious as well, I have acknowledged that. I don't assume that because the police or prosecutor say so, that it is the gospel. I don't assume everything Scott P says is a lie, or that it is the truth,. I look at it all through an I am not sure lens. :read:

[onthefence]

OMG, we are back to the fantasy abduction again. Are we going to go into the bathtub scenario now?

Let's discuss Anne Birds drowned in the pool fantasy. :eek: :D

[TopGunner]

Who is "we" TG?

Anyway, seems there is little real public info on the extent of the investigation into the watch lead-from either side.


"We" = you, me, everyone posting here, everyone period. There are no links or access to the investigative reports. I laugh when I hear the LE didn't investigate properly........the P's and Geregos threw that out, which means squat. They've blamed everyone who has a pulse. I personally feel very comfortable assuming the LE did their job, why wouldn't they?

However, I agree with you OTF...there's NO public info/access for review on either side.

[Wearing A Halo]

Do you wonder why that is? Do you wonder if maybe it is not the poster but that the discussion is pretty one sided here, and to have any sort of a 2 sided discussion , if one is unsure of there position, they are a put in a defacto devils advocate role? Somone that is NG or OTF is not looking at all the evidence and issues through the same lense you are. if one questions any of the evidence that most here believe completely and solely points to Scott P. or one disagrees with a conclusion on a particular point, you are labeled a NG, insinuated that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, etc.. :shrug: When some tell why they believe what they do I simply look at questions I would have about the same information. They may not be the same as yours and i may come to a different conclusion. If someone that solidly feels he is guilty makes a good point, or I find some things suspicious as well, I have acknowledged that. I don't assume that because the police or prosecutor say so, that it is the gospel. I don't assume everything Scott P says is a lie, or that it is the truth,. I look at it all through an I am not sure lens. :read:

Surely there is something that you, OTF, are sure about. Is there anything that you can think of on your own that sways you. One can, and should, come to some reasonableness on any aspect of the case on their own at some time or other. :read: Then be able to discuss it.

[onthefence]

What makes you think they weren't over there right away?

Why do you think that i think that they weren't over there right away?

I am saying, I do not knowif they ,or not. Does anybody else know and if so, what do they base that on? Any reasonable, semi-intelligent person could understand why someone might want to know how it was determined by LE that the watch was or was not Laci's.

[onthefence]

"We" = you, me, everyone posting here, everyone period. There are no links or access to the investigative reports. I laugh when I hear the LE didn't investigate properly........the P's and Geregos threw that out, which means squat. They've blamed everyone who has a pulse. I personally feel very comfortable assuming the LE did their job, why wouldn't they?

However, I agree with you OTF...there's NO public info/access for review on either side.

You have a different comfort level than I do with regards to the LE investigation into the watch lead. I have no information that LE did or did not investigate the watch, so, I have nothing to go on, and will assume that there is none. So, all I can say is that I am far from certain as to the origin of the watch. For now, it will remain a question mark because there are enough similiarities in the description, the timing on the pawn, the criminal background of the person that pawned it, & I don't believe that jewleled, diamond croton watches are common in Modesto (much less anywhere else) and that because they are so similiar the police or prosecutor would have mentioned it in their testimony of all the other leads they followed in finding or eliminating suspects. Too many unanswered questions for me. You are ok with it, and that is fine with me. Does that mean he is NG? Nope.

The only thing that really points to Scott, imo, is where the bodies were found.

[deputydi]

Do you wonder why that is? Do you wonder if maybe it is not the poster but that the discussion is pretty one sided here, and to have any sort of a 2 sided discussion , if one is unsure of there position, they are a put in a defacto devils advocate role? Somone that is NG or OTF is not looking at all the evidence and issues through the same lense you are. if one questions any of the evidence that most here believe completely and solely points to Scott P. or one disagrees with a conclusion on a particular point, you are labeled a NG, insinuated that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, etc.. :shrug: When some tell why they believe what they do I simply look at questions I would have about the same information. They may not be the same as yours and i may come to a different conclusion. If someone that solidly feels he is guilty makes a good point, or I find some things suspicious as well, I have acknowledged that. I don't assume that because the police or prosecutor say so, that it is the gospel. I don't assume everything Scott P says is a lie, or that it is the truth,. I look at it all through an I am not sure lens. :read:
I understand what you are saying and do appreciate it. For myself only -- it is hard for me to believe that 2 1/2 yrs after the trial ended anyone who is familiar with the facts wouldn't have formed an opinion one way or the other. I think that's where the skepticism comes in. The time for being on the fence ended a long time ago. ;)

[Wearing A Halo]

Why do you think that i think that they weren't over there right away?

I am saying, I do not knowif they ,or not. Does anybody else know and if so, what do they base that on? Any reasonable, semi-intelligent person could understand why someone might want to know how it was determined by LE that the watch was or was not Laci's.

Because:

Sam Newnam (Samuel Newnam) Owner of The Pawn Shop; contacted by reporters on June 17, 2004, after Mark Geragos produced a pawn ticket from the store for a Croton watch that supposedly resembled one owned by Laci Peterson; declined to comment concerning the pawn ticket, citing federal privacy laws; said that he was contacted by Gary Ermoian, but did not provide information to him, saying that purchase orders were turned over to the Modesto Police Department; said that he was contacted by Scott Bernstein, who was wearing a leather holder with a metal star badge reading "New York Fugitive Task Force," a meeting that later resulted in Bernstein being charged with impersonating a peace officer; on April 29, 2005, testified against Bernstein at his preliminary hearing, saying he was interested in the Croton watch: "He stated that he was out from New York and working on a national sting operation"; following the conviction of Scott Peterson, stated, "It kind of put my faith back into the American justice system"

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who8.htm

Now, it is moo that SN saw the pawned watch, then saw the picture of Laci's watch and they were not the same watch. SM was not obligated to talk to the P.I. for MG, but, SN could have been subpoenaed by MG.

[deputydi]

Why do you think that i think that they weren't over there right away?

I am saying, I do not knowif they ,or not. Does anybody else know and if so, what do they base that on? Any reasonable, semi-intelligent person could understand why someone might want to know how it was determined by LE that the watch was or was not Laci's.
Instead of ASSUMING LE did a sloppy and not very thorough job of investigating you probably need to accept the fact that there are many aspects of this case that we'll never know. If it didn't come out at trial, we don't know how thoroughly they did or did not investigate certain aspects. They haven't shared their complete notes or reports with us. :rolleyes:

[Wearing A Halo]

oh no, I can't think for myself and am incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions. I don't know why you waste your time with someone like me. :rolleyes:

I have all the time in the world. You see I am free to do what I want any time of the day. I am not confined and I can think for myself. :D

BTW- what do you imply by stating, "someone like me"? Is there something we should all know about "someone like (you)"?:rolleyes:

[TopGunner]

You have a different comfort level than I do with regards to the LE investigation into the watch lead. I have no information that LE did or did not investigate the watch, so, I have nothing to go on, and will assume that there is none. So, all I can say is that I am far from certain as to the origin of the watch. For now, it will remain a question mark because there are enough similiarities in the description, the timing on the pawn, the criminal background of the person that pawned it, & I don't believe that jewleled, diamond croton watches are common in Modesto (much less anywhere else) and that because they are so similiar the police or prosecutor would have mentioned it in their testimony of all the other leads they followed in finding or eliminating suspects. Too many unanswered questions for me. You are ok with it, and that is fine with me. Does that mean he is NG? Nope.

The only thing that really points to Scott, imo, is where the bodies were found.

I can respect your opinion OTF, no problem there, but I also must say a big deal wasn't made out of the watch during the trial, because there was NOTHING there. Geregos, the P's, and the talking heads would have made a HUGE deal out of it, if they could - but they couldn't.

If Laci was kidnapped wearing her scratched watch with the dead battery, why do you suppose the kidnappers didn't take the rest of her jewelry that was out in FULL VIEW (valued at 100k), when they took her home to change her cloths in the 10 minute window of time it had to happen in? :biggrin:

[deputydi]

<snip> For now, it will remain a question mark because there are enough similiarities in the description, the timing on the pawn, the criminal background of the person that pawned it, & I don't believe that jewleled, diamond croton watches are common in Modesto (much less anywhere else) and that because they are so similiar the police or prosecutor would have mentioned it in their testimony of all the other leads they followed in finding or eliminating suspects. <snip>
Other than the brand "Croton" what similarities do you find? We know what Laci's watch looked like but we don't have any idea whether the pawned watch had diamonds ("gems" do not necessarily mean diamonds), we don't know if the face of the watch was round, oval, octagonal, square, we don't know what the gold karat was on Laci's watch. There really isn't anything to go on other than they were both Croton. As I pointed out in a previous post, these are very common watches and the price range is immense. Do you really believe she only got $20 for a $750 watch?

[frydaddy]

Do you wonder why that is? Do you wonder if maybe it is not the poster but that the discussion is pretty one sided here, and to have any sort of a 2 sided discussion , if one is unsure of there position, they are a put in a defacto devils advocate role? Somone that is NG or OTF is not looking at all the evidence and issues through the same lense you are. if one questions any of the evidence that most here believe completely and solely points to Scott P. or one disagrees with a conclusion on a particular point, you are labeled a NG, insinuated that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, etc.. :shrug: When some tell why they believe what they do I simply look at questions I would have about the same information. They may not be the same as yours and i may come to a different conclusion. If someone that solidly feels he is guilty makes a good point, or I find some things suspicious as well, I have acknowledged that. I don't assume that because the police or prosecutor say so, that it is the gospel. I don't assume everything Scott P says is a lie, or that it is the truth,. I look at it all through an I am not sure lens. :read:

I don't buy it. NG, playing the role of OTF.

[onthefence]

Instead of ASSUMING LE did a sloppy and not very thorough job of investigating you probably need to accept the fact that there are many aspects of this case that we'll never know. If it didn't come out at trial, we don't know how thoroughly they did or did not investigate certain aspects. They haven't shared their complete notes or reports with us. :rolleyes:

Again, ave not assumed LE did a sloppy job. I cannot assume anything with regards to what they did ,or did not do, on the watch, because I have no information one way or the other (which is what I thought I had conveyed in my last post on the subject).

[onthefence]

Other than the brand "Croton" what similarities do you find? We know what Laci's watch looked like but we don't have any idea whether the pawned watch had diamonds ("gems" do not necessarily mean diamonds), we don't know if the face of the watch was round, oval, octagonal, square, we don't know what the gold karat was on Laci's watch. There really isn't anything to go on other than they were both Croton. As I pointed out in a previous post, these are very common watches and the price range is immense. Do you really believe she only got $20 for a $750 watch?

Whose says it's a $750 watch-Scott P? Do you really believe him? Do you really believe that what a watch will sell for on Ebay (and this one did not sell) is what one would expect to recieve for it at a pawn shop?

[onthefence]

I don't buy it. NG, playing the role of OTF.


OK, have it your way.:shrug:

[onthefence]

I can respect your opinion OTF, no problem there, but I also must say a big deal wasn't made out of the watch during the trial, because there was NOTHING there. Geregos, the P's, and the talking heads would have made a HUGE deal out of it, if they could - but they couldn't.

If Laci was kidnapped wearing her scratched watch with the dead battery, why do you suppose the kidnappers didn't take the rest of her jewelry that was out in FULL VIEW (valued at 100k), when they took her home to change her cloths in the 10 minute window of time it had to happen in? :biggrin:

Sorry, I don't buy the fact that the reason we didn't hear about the watch more was that there was nothing there. I am ok that we don't agree on this point.

If the watch was Laci's, it could have been scratched anywhere between the time she disappeared and the time it showed up in the pawn shop. Why do you think someone took her home to change her clothes?

[onthefence]

I have all the time in the world. You see I am free to do what I want any time of the day. I am not confined and I can think for myself. :D

BTW- what do you imply by stating, "someone like me"? Is there something we should all know about "someone like (you)"?:rolleyes:

you seem to know that I can't think for myself and that I should have already have formed a firm opinion in this case. so why would you bother to post to someone you feel has these characteristics? maybe because you have a lot of time on your hands as you indicated above?

Must be nice to be free to do what you want any time of day. Hopefully, one day I too, ill be able to do that too.

[onthefence]

I understand what you are saying and do appreciate it. For myself only -- it is hard for me to believe that 2 1/2 yrs after the trial ended anyone who is familiar with the facts wouldn't have formed an opinion one way or the other. I think that's where the skepticism comes in. The time for being on the fence ended a long time ago. ;)

Like I said when I first started posting, I had not followed this case as closely, or as long, as most of you here, and was probably too far behind and would be better off on the Phil Spector or Anna Nicole thread. That seems to be case, so, I'll leave you guys to it here. :seeya: :patriot:

[Wearing A Halo]

you seem to know that I can't think for myself and that I should have already have formed a firm opinion in this case. so why would you bother to post to someone you feel has these characteristics? maybe because you have a lot of time on your hands as you indicated above?

Must be nice to be free to do what you want any time of day. Hopefully, one day I too, ill be able to do that too.

This is your quote.

"I look at it all through an I am not sure lens."

I replied with:

Surely there is something that you, OTF, are sure about. Is there anything that you can think of on your own that sways you? One can, and should, come to some reasonableness on any aspect of the case on their own at some time or other. Then be able to discuss it.

I merely wondered that there has to be something that you are sure of which would sway you to one side of the fence. Instead of being defensive, just think objectively.

I also post this:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8961523&postcount=119

There was no reply by you OTF.:shrug:

[adnoid]

...Why didn't Geragos call the pawn shop owner about it? Because he KNEW it wasn't Laci's watch. Why didn't he call Deanna Renfro?

Excellent points - if he could show it was Laci's watch those two would have been on the stand.

EVEN IF it was PROVEN to be Laci's watch, I contend that Scott could have dropped it in the park to make it LOOK like Laci had been "abducted" and lost her watch in the struggle.

To mean anything to me there would have to a connection - and I mean a real connection, not a Skov-like "connection" - between the watch on Laci's wrist to the person that pawned it.

[adnoid]

...the prosecution didn't try to refute the defense theory regarding the Croton watch...

There was no theory advance by the Defense to refute.

[adnoid]

The defense could have subpoenaed the pawn shop owner or Deanna Renfro..but, IMO, they would have been hostile witnesses...they would not have helped the defense prove the watch was Laci's..

If the truth would have helped Scott the defense could have caused them to testify truthfully. End of discussion.

[adnoid]

...on what basis/grounds could Mark Geragos[/U] compel Diana Renfro to produce this watch or answer any questions about it?...

Subpoena as a witness - like so many other witnesses.

....She wouldn't have to talk in court unless she was charged with something or subpeonaed...

There we go. Problem solved.

[Cadillakin]

Subpoena as a witness - like so many other witnesses.

There we go. Problem solved.A subpoena to get a witness to testify under oath.. Wow.. What a great idea! Adnoid, Thank you for crystallizing that thought and bringing clarity to my life... And to learn Renfro wouldn't even have to testify without a subpoena .. well, this has all been an overwhelming revelation..

FREE SCOTT.. FREE SCOTT... JUSTICE FOR SCOTT

[attorneywan2be]

Who is "we" TG?

Anyway, seems there is little real public info on the extent of the investigation into the watch lead-from either side.

Actually the extent of the investigation regarding the pawned Croton watch was addressed at the trial...the MPD didn't even attempt to physically examine the watch..they just read the description on the form..they didn't even talk to the pawn shop owner...the pawn shop might not have put down all the details...the exact details of the item is to protect the owner of the item who is pawning it...the MPD didn't even investigate Deanna Renfro who pawned the Croton watch...I think this is outrageous...! IMO, they were interested only in things that pointed to Scott.. I also believe that Laci could have been saved had the MPD done their job..:flamemad:

Birgit Fladager: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
Craig Grogan: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
Judge Delucchi: What were the results?
Craig Grogan: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.
Birgit Fladager: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?
Craig Grogan: That was my understanding from her, yes.

[attorneywan2be]

If the truth would have helped Scott the defense could have caused them to testify truthfully. End of discussion.


That's funny..it's not the end of discussion..!!

Of course the defense could have compelled them to testify if it was ok with judge Delucchi...however, how do you suggest they could have caused them to testify TRUTHFULLY??

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*

Birgit Fladager: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
Craig Grogan: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
Judge Delucchi: What were the results?
Craig Grogan: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.

*Snipped*



What does the testimony tell you?

It is clear, jewelry that contains diamonds are referenced as such on pawn tickets.
I hope you don't think a pawn shop would make a mere G reference on a ticket if someone pawned a 2-carat diamond ring or a 6-carat diamond tennis bracelet.

[TopGunner]

Actually the extent of the investigation regarding the pawned Croton watch was addressed at the trial...the MPD didn't even attempt to physically examine the watch..they just read the description on the form..they didn't even talk to the pawn shop owner...the pawn shop might not have put down all the details...the exact details of the item is to protect the owner of the item who is pawning it...the MPD didn't even investigate Deanna Renfro who pawned the Croton watch...I think this is outrageous...! IMO, they were interested only in things that pointed to Scott.. I also believe that Laci could have been saved had the MPD done their job..:flamemad:

Birgit Fladager: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
Craig Grogan: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
Judge Delucchi: What were the results?
Craig Grogan: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.
Birgit Fladager: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?
Craig Grogan: That was my understanding from her, yes.


Hi AW2B ~ so funny how we can read the exact same thing and have totally opposite opinions on it. I believe this testimony shows that they DID, in fact, check the watch out to their satisfaction. Were they supposed to spend 2 days on the stand talking about something non-related to Laci's murder?

I am certain they also knew by that time that ISP murdered her. The evidence was (and is) overwhelming, so I wouldn't expect them to waste time chasing a dead lead, and that's exactly what this was.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B ~ so funny how we can read the exact same thing and have totally opposite opinions on it. I believe this testimony shows that they DID, in fact, check the watch out to their satisfaction. Were they supposed to spend 2 days on the stand talking about something non-related to Laci's murder?



Hi TopGunner...I think you are misinterpreting the testimony...he clearly testified that he got the info from a CSO who read a receipt for a pawned Croton watch ...based on the info reflected on the receipt he considered the pawned watch to be inconsistent with Laci's missing watch...

PLease read the testimony again..


Birgit Fladager: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
Craig Grogan: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
Judge Delucchi: What were the results?
Craig Grogan: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.
Birgit Fladager: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?
Craig Grogan: That was my understanding from her, yes

[attorneywan2be]

What does the testimony tell you?

It is clear, jewelry that contains diamonds are referenced as such on pawn tickets.
I hope you don't think a pawn shop would make a mere G reference on a ticket if someone pawned a 2-carat diamond ring or a 6-carat diamond tennis bracelet.

Of course not...however, IMO, a pawn shop who would lend $20 for a 14 kt gold Croton watch might do exactly that..they don't really care if all the details are listed..it would be up to the owner who is pawning the item to demand it...

[adnoid]

That's funny..

I'm glad one of my posts was able to make you laugh..! I'm trying to even out the scales and I've got a long way to go - every little bit helps..!

...Of course the defense could have compelled them to testify if it was ok with judge Delucchi...however, how do you suggest they could have caused them to testify TRUTHFULLY??

Well, you do have a point - JO2's "testi-phoney" about the money Scott had is a good example of how a witness can take the oath and the testi-lie..! But that's how the system works - if the witness is untruthful on the stand they open themselves to charges of perjury, as well as suffering a cross examination that could point out their duplicity - something lawyers do every day for the benefit of their clients..!

But it's absolutely pointless to draw any sort of conclusion from the lack of testimony from a witness never called OTHER THAN the conclusion that if the witness was known and not called then neither side felt the testimony would help their case..! That's the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION and it is, indeed, the end of that story..!

[TopGunner]

I'm glad one of my posts was able to make you laugh..! I'm trying to even out the scales and I've got a long way to go - every little bit helps..!



Well, you do have a point - JO2's "testi-phoney" about the money Scott had is a good example of how a witness can take the oath and the testi-lie..! But that's how the system works - if the witness is untruthful on the stand they open themselves to charges of perjury, as well as suffering a cross examination that could point out their duplicity - something lawyers do every day for the benefit of their clients..!

But it's absolutely pointless to draw any sort of conclusion from the lack of testimony from a witness never called OTHER THAN the conclusion that if the witness was known and not called then neither side felt the testimony would help their case..! That's the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION and it is, indeed, the end of that story..!


As always Adnoid :beer: !!!

[deputydi]

Of course not...however, IMO, a pawn shop who would lend $20 for a 14 kt gold Croton watch might do exactly that..they don't really care if all the details are listed..it would be up to the owner who is pawning the item to demand it...
There are loads of Croton watches on the internet that are 14k gold and have "gems" that retail for $100-$150. I can absolutely believe that $20 could have been offered by a pawn shop for one of these -- ESPECIALLY since the watch was not in perfect condition.

[TopGunner]

Hi TopGunner...I think you are misinterpreting the testimony...he clearly testified that he got the info from a CSO who read a receipt for a pawned Croton watch ...based on the info reflected on the receipt he considered the pawned watch to be inconsistent with Laci's missing watch...

PLease read the testimony again..


Birgit Fladager: On March 6th did you do additional follow-up investigation relating to the jewelry?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: And can you tell us what that was that you did.
Craig Grogan: Well, I spoke with a CSO, Community Service Officer, that worked in our pawn detail and I provided with her with the information about the Croton watch and asked if she could run that through her system to see if anyone had pawned a watch like that, and I think I got some results at that point.
Judge Delucchi: What were the results?
Craig Grogan: She told me that she did find one, one pawned, one pawn receipt for a Croton watch, but that the receipt didn't make any mention of diamonds in it and it said the watch was scratched, and it didn't appear consistent with what we were looking for.
Birgit Fladager: And for purposes of pawn shop receipts with valuable jewels, like diamonds, need be noted?
Craig Grogan: That was my understanding from her, yes

No, no, no AW2B, it is YOU who's misinterpreting the testimony. The word ADDITIONAL in the very first sentence wraps it up! :patriot:

[attorneywan2be]

But it's absolutely pointless to draw any sort of conclusion from the lack of testimony from a witness never called OTHER THAN the conclusion that if the witness was known and not called then neither side felt the testimony would help their case..! That's the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION and it is, indeed, the end of that story..!

Nope...I disagree...it is not the ONLY logical conclusion..and certainly it is not the end of that story...

There could be different reasons for not calling a witness to the stand..

1-That witness is hostile to the party that would be helped the most by the info that witness could provide..however, they realize that it would be impossible to get that witness to cooperate and tell the truth...and they figure that there is a possibility the witness could cause more damage to their case by lying..

2-Defense/prosecution made a mistake by not calling a witness that could provide information that would help their case...

3-The witness didn't have info that would help their case..

ETC..ETC...

[TopGunner]

Nope...I disagree...it is not the ONLY logical conclusion..and certainly it is not the end of that story...

There could be different reasons for not calling a witness to the stand..

1-That witness is hostile to the party that would be helped the most by the info that witness could provide..however, they realize that it would be impossible to get that witness to cooperate and tell the truth...and they figure that there is a possibility the witness could cause more damage to their case by lying..

2-Defense/prosecution made a mistake by not calling a witness that could provide information that would help their case...

3-The witness didn't have info that would help their case..

ETC..ETC...

AW2B, if Renfro stole Laci's watch, after stealing Laci and hiding her in a tub for 4 months, do you really believe the defense would have let that slide? Is there any reason AT ALL the pawn shop owner would be hostile? He did nothing wrong, and again Geregos would have had him on the stand in a heart beat. He literally needed anything he could get his hands on to help his client. There really IS a reason he let it go, and it wasn't because of a "mistake".

#3 I agree with. The witnesses didn't have info that would help their case because it wasn't Laci's watch, and nothing suggests that it was.

[attorneywan2be]

No, no, no AW2B, it is YOU who's misinterpreting the testimony. The word ADDITIONAL in the very first sentence wraps it up! :patriot:

:no: :no: :no: TopGunner...you are misinterpreting the testimony...people can read it for themselves and can decide...

I guess you are not familiar with his testimony...he was testifying about interviewing family members including Scott asking them about Laci's jewelry..showing them pictures of Laci's jewelry that was retrieved from the house during a search warrant to determine if any was missing...he also talked about his investigation of the jewelry listed on Ebay...then Fladager asked him if he did anything additional...he replied that he did : he asked a CSO..she told him that she found a receipt for a pawned Croton watch but that the receipt didn't mention diamonds and that the receipt mentioned that the watch was scratched...he testified that he considered this info to be inconsistent with Laci's missing watch....that was the additional investigation he did...

[Lavindar]

Here's an interesting aside on gemstones. Quartz is a gemstone and didn't the pawn shop list quartz in the description. Most likely that is the gemstone that was present on the watch that Renfro pawned, NOT 44 diamonds in the bezel.

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, if Renfro stole Laci's watch, after stealing Laci and hiding her in a tub for 4 months, do you really believe the defense would have let that slide? Is there any reason AT ALL the pawn shop owner would be hostile? He did nothing wrong, and again Geregos would have had him on the stand in a heart beat. He literally needed anything he could get his hands on to help his client. There really IS a reason he let it go, and it wasn't because of a "mistake".

#3 I agree with. The witnesses didn't have info that would help their case because it wasn't Laci's watch, and nothing suggests that it was.

Where did I say that I believe Deanna Renfro was involved in Laci's abduction? if she was she would not have pawned the watch..however, I think she found out that the watch was Laci's AFTER pawning it...so she claimed it back immediately or someone else (involved in the abduction) got the pawn ticket from her and claimed it so he can get rid of it.....

[cookiewench]

Distaso should have called Amy to testify that this was NOT Laci's watch, and cleared up yet another of Geragos's red herrings.

A diamond-encrusted watch is not going to pawn for $20.

Laci would never have worn the watch, as not only was it not working, it was not a watch that she wanted.

The only other option, if that HAD been her watch, would have been that someone broke into the house and stole it.

Not only was there no sign of a break-in - but why would someone break into a house, steal only one watch, and leave all the other jewelry behind?

[Miss Bootsie]

Here's an interesting aside on gemstones. Quartz is a gemstone and didn't the pawn shop list quartz in the description. Most likely that is the gemstone that was present on the watch that Renfro pawned, NOT 44 diamonds in the bezel.

Pawn brokers are required to give a complete description of the item being pawned.
The G on the pawn ticket indicates to me there was one gem of insignificant value.

[TopGunner]

:no: :no: :no: TopGunner...you are misinterpreting the testimony...people can read it for themselves and can decide...

I guess you are not familiar with his testimony...he was testifying about interviewing family members including Scott asking them about Laci's jewelry..showing them pictures of Laci's jewelry that was retrieved from the house during a search warrant to determine if any was missing...he also talked about his investigation of the jewelry listed on Ebay...then Fladager asked him if he did anything additional...he replied that he did : he asked a CSO..she told him that she found a receipt for a pawned Croton watch but that the receipt didn't mention diamonds and that the receipt mentioned that the watch was scratched...he testified that he considered this info to be inconsistent with Laci's missing watch....that was the additional investigation he did...

Hi AW2B,

Do not :no: wave your finger at :no: me while debating with :no: me !!! :no: :tongue:

OK, YOU are correct here. Do not faint, admitting I'm wrong is not beneath me. :punch:

However !!! Why would they chase a DEAD lead? The watch did not fit the description !!! :biggrin:

[Warrior]

Instead of ASSUMING LE did a sloppy and not very thorough job of investigating you probably need to accept the fact that there are many aspects of this case that we'll never know. If it didn't come out at trial, we don't know how thoroughly they did or did not investigate certain aspects. They haven't shared their complete notes or reports with us. :rolleyes:

DD you are quite correct in your last sentence, in fact I would go further than that and say it is unlikely that anyone will ever know exactly what was or was not investigated considering that Det. Brocchini was admonished more than once about destroying the notes he took for this case (IIRC right up to the time that the actual trial was going on), and eventually ordered by the judge to STOP destroying these notes. Considering that Det. Brocchini saw fit to ignore the initial request to stop destroying his notes, we have no reason to believe he actually ever adhered to the judge's order. :no:

Of course, anything contained in the destroyed notes is now gone forever.... Perhaps you or someone else here who has contact with MPD could explain why Det. Brocchini found it necessary to destroy his notes DURING an ON-GOING INVESTIGATION? To me, this makes it seem as though there was something in those notes which either didn't agree with his theory of the case, or something which would indicate that perhaps Scott was not guilty. AFAIK he was incorrect in doing so and actually as these notes were WORK PRODUCT they did not in fact belong to him, but rather to the MPD and therefore should have remained property of the MPD. Similar, again AFAIK, to scientific discoveries or inventions by any employee - they belong to the employer.

Disclaimer: I am not a legal-beagle, so the above is MY OPINION.

As regards the watch/diamonds/gems:
- I believe it would be fair to say that the pawn shop owner was contacted relatively late in the course of the investigation. I base this assumption (don't shoot) on the fact that many of the alleged eye-witnesses were only contacted shortly before the trial began or when the trial was underway. If so little attention was paid to someone who may have SEEN Laci, why would the police waste valuable time and resources tracking down a watch which MIGHT have been Laci's? (The sad truth here folks, is that leopards don't change their spots. If eye-witnesses or potential eye-witnesses were only contacted late in the investigation, then it is safe IMO to assume that a tenuously connected pawn-shop owner would have been contacted EVEN later. The same assumption has often been made about Scott and his lies, i.e. if he lied about this, then why would he not have lied about that? Make sense?) I do find it curious however that he was so reluctant to talk about this deal and referred everyone to the MPD - with nothing to hide methinks he would merely have said as much, MOO of course!
- Also, the 'bezel' that is referred to can either be the ring which surrounds the watch dial (or face), or a type of setting. A bezel setting is where the metal encloses and surrounds the gem in question - as opposed to claw settings, where 'claws' hold the gem in place.
- Finally, while most pawn shop owners generally are able to tell what the real deal is as regards gems set into jewellery (comes with time and experience I suppose), most people pawning jewellery do not bring in the valuation certificate which would verify that the stones are in fact diamonds and specify the quality of these diamonds (Carat, Cut, Color, Clarity). Furthermore unless the pawn shop owner/handler was an accredited diamond certifier (unlikely as gemologists/certifiers are more highly paid than pawn shop owners), he/she would NOT STATE that the stones in question were indeed diamonds - this would leave them open to huge lawsuits when/if the stones proved to be only cubic zirconia or cut glass or anything other than diamonds. Therefore the word gems is used rather loosely in this context and the stones could be diamonds, but could just as easily be cut glass. Considering that the watch is a Croton, it is unlikely that Croton (which has a very good reputation for quality [link to their history & website: http://www.crotonwatch.com/about_croton.aspx - than 'click' on "History") would substitute cut glass/cubic zirconias for diamonds.

Of course, none of this means anything without the watch to examine and it seems that the MPD missed the boat by not seizing the watch for closer examination, but I suppose that it just wasn't in THEIR best interest to do so.

[TopGunner]

DD you are quite correct in your last sentence, in fact I would go further than that and say it is unlikely that anyone will ever know exactly what was or was not investigated considering that Det. Brocchini was admonished more than once about destroying the notes he took for this case (IIRC right up to the time that the actual trial was going on), and eventually ordered by the judge to STOP destroying these notes. Considering that Det. Brocchini saw fit to ignore the initial request to stop destroying his notes, we have no reason to believe he actually ever adhered to the judge's order. :no:

Of course, anything contained in the destroyed notes is now gone forever.... Perhaps you or someone else here who has contact with MPD could explain why Det. Brocchini found it necessary to destroy his notes DURING an ON-GOING INVESTIGATION? To me, this makes it seem as though there was something in those notes which either didn't agree with his theory of the case, or something which would indicate that perhaps Scott was not guilty. AFAIK he was incorrect in doing so and actually as these notes were WORK PRODUCT they did not in fact belong to him, but rather to the MPD and therefore should have remained property of the MPD. Similar, again AFAIK, to scientific discoveries or inventions by any employee - they belong to the employer.

Disclaimer: I am not a legal-beagle, so the above is MY OPINION.

As regards the watch/diamonds/gems:
- I believe it would be fair to say that the pawn shop owner was contacted relatively late in the course of the investigation. I base this assumption (don't shoot) on the fact that many of the alleged eye-witnesses were only contacted shortly before the trial began or when the trial was underway. If so little attention was paid to someone who may have SEEN Laci, why would the police waste valuable time and resources tracking down a watch which MIGHT have been Laci's? (The sad truth here folks, is that leopards don't change their spots. If eye-witnesses or potential eye-witnesses were only contacted late in the investigation, then it is safe IMO to assume that a tenuously connected pawn-shop owner would have been contacted EVEN later. The same assumption has often been made about Scott and his lies, i.e. if he lied about this, then why would he not have lied about that? Make sense?) I do find it curious however that he was so reluctant to talk about this deal and referred everyone to the MPD - with nothing to hide methinks he would merely have said as much, MOO of course!
- Also, the 'bezel' that is referred to can either be the ring which surrounds the watch dial (or face), or a type of setting. A bezel setting is where the metal encloses and surrounds the gem in question - as opposed to claw settings, where 'claws' hold the gem in place.
- Finally, while most pawn shop owners generally are able to tell what the real deal is as regards gems set into jewellery (comes with time and experience I suppose), most people pawning jewellery do not bring in the valuation certificate which would verify that the stones are in fact diamonds and specify the quality of these diamonds (Carat, Cut, Color, Clarity). Furthermore unless the pawn shop owner/handler was an accredited diamond certifier (unlikely as gemologists/certifiers are more highly paid than pawn shop owners), he/she would NOT STATE that the stones in question were indeed diamonds - this would leave them open to huge lawsuits when/if the stones proved to be only cubic zirconia or cut glass or anything other than diamonds. Therefore the word gems is used rather loosely in this context and the stones could be diamonds, but could just as easily be cut glass. Considering that the watch is a Croton, it is unlikely that Croton (which has a very good reputation for quality [link to their history & website: http://www.crotonwatch.com/about_croton.aspx - than 'click' on "History") would substitute cut glass/cubic zirconias for diamonds.

Of course, none of this means anything without the watch to examine and it seems that the MPD missed the boat by not seizing the watch for closer examination, but I suppose that it just wasn't in THEIR best interest to do so.


You have a link for the statements about Brocchini?

[Warrior]

If the truth would have helped Scott the defense could have caused them to testify truthfully. End of discussion.


Don't you think this is a little naive and idealistic? No-one can FORCE anyone to tell the truth or for that matter to lie. Det. Brocchini swore to tell the truth, but didn't and in fact was caught out in some of his lies. One would think as an enforcer of the law, he would have been taken to task for his lies, but it seems that as an enforcer of the law - or rather this enforcer of the law - who has been caught out before and not been punished for lying under oath (at least this would indicate that justice is even-handed) remains ABOVE the law. But apparently justice is not even-handed as he has never to my certain knowledge even been addresses by his superiors or the courts for his lying under oath. If an upholder/enforcer of the law can't/doesn't tell the truth, what chance is there that a person with a criminal record and self-interest and self-preservation at stake will? :shrug: Slim to none IMO (and I think that most of you will agree with me on this one.)

Let's at least try to live in the REAL world and not the world as we would like it to be. Remember that your or my standards are by no means a reflection of the standards of the general population, and are most unlikely to be the same standards as those of the criminals out there!

PS: A lot of untruths were cloaked in the words "I don't remember" and "I don't recall", the way I remember it! Two witnesses who spring to mind and definitely fell into this category were Det. Brocchini and Ms. Frey!

PPS: You saying 'end of discussion' doesn't REALLY mean we can't discuss it more, does it?? :(

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped*

Furthermore unless the pawn shop owner/handler was an accredited diamond certifier (unlikely as gemologists/certifiers are more highly paid than pawn shop owners), he/she would NOT STATE that the stones in question were indeed diamonds - this would leave them open to huge lawsuits when/if the stones proved to be only cubic zirconia or cut glass or anything other than diamonds. Therefore the word gems is used rather loosely in this context and the stones could be diamonds, but could just as easily be cut glass.

*Snipped*


You are kidding....right?:eek:

[Warrior]

Here's an interesting aside on gemstones. Quartz is a gemstone and didn't the pawn shop list quartz in the description. Most likely that is the gemstone that was present on the watch that Renfro pawned, NOT 44 diamonds in the bezel.

Read about the type of quartz you are referring to. link:
http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/quartz/answer/answer.html

There's been a revolution on your wrist.

The wristwatch was completely reinvented with all-new electronic components scarcely thirty years ago. For centuries before then, watches had been mechanical--composed of intricate moving parts powered by an unwinding spring. When battery-driven quartz wristwatches first hit the market, it seemed unlikely that the new-fangled gadgets would sell. But electronic watches won over the buying public.


Today, mechanical watches make up only approximately 13% of the world watch market. What happened?

The components for the quartz watch emerged from independent streams of invention that stretched over nearly a century. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries scientists identified new materials like liquid crystals and discovered unknown properties such as piezoelectricity. During the Cold war, researchers in defense and aerospace technologies laid the basis for miniaturizing electronic circuitry. In the 1960s, enterprising manufacturers applied the new research to the first electronic consumer products--tvs, calculators, hearing aids, and watches.
___________________
This refers to the mechanism INSIDE the watch. Most watches are quartz movement type unless the watch is either VERY VERY OLD (pre-1970) or VERY VERY EXPENSIVE (and that would be more than $750.00)

Of course, if you believe the stones set in the watch were quartz, then the type of quartz they might have been would be "rock crystal" and you can read about that here:
http://www.gemstone.org/gem-by-gem/english/quartz.html


These type of stones are neither valuable enough nor hard enough to set into watch bezels, IMO but if you look long and hard :read: you will no doubt find one somewhere. It takes the exception to prove the rule, as they say!

[TopGunner]

Don't you think this is a little naive and idealistic? No-one can FORCE anyone to tell the truth or for that matter to lie. Det. Brocchini swore to tell the truth, but didn't and in fact was caught out in some of his lies. One would think as an enforcer of the law, he would have been taken to task for his lies, but it seems that as an enforcer of the law - or rather this enforcer of the law - who has been caught out before and not been punished for lying under oath (at least this would indicate that justice is even-handed) remains ABOVE the law. But apparently justice is not even-handed as he has never to my certain knowledge even been addresses by his superiors or the courts for his lying under oath. If an upholder/enforcer of the law can't/doesn't tell the truth, what chance is there that a person with a criminal record and self-interest and self-preservation at stake will? :shrug: Slim to none IMO (and I think that most of you will agree with me on this one.)

Let's at least try to live in the REAL world and not the world as we would like it to be. Remember that your or my standards are by no means a reflection of the standards of the general population, and are most unlikely to be the same standards as those of the criminals out there!

PS: A lot of untruths were cloaked in the words "I don't remember" and "I don't recall", the way I remember it! Two witnesses who spring to mind and definitely fell into this category were Det. Brocchini and Ms. Frey!

PPS: You saying 'end of discussion' doesn't REALLY mean we can't discuss it more, does it?? :(

Oh, GMAB. Think about it <pause>, the only one who LIED over and over and over again was the KILLER!

Brochinni didn't lie about anything. He made a MISTAKE about the pie, OBVIOUSLY, as the time certainly favored the prosecution, NO? :tongue:

Taking the information out of his report, while notifying the defense that he did just that ADDING that it remained in the report of the cop that was THERE is not, in the least, deleting information.

Talk about putting a spin on things!

[TopGunner]

You are kidding....right?:eek:

LOL Boots! :seeya:

[Warrior]

You have a link for the statements about Brocchini?


Which ones? That he lied under oath? That he has lied under oath before? That he destroyed his notes? That the Judge first reprimanded him then order him to cease and desist? All of the above?

Let me know and I can find them for you, I believe. (But beliefs are funny things you know!! :) )

[deputydi]

<snip>
Of course, anything contained in the destroyed notes is now gone forever.... Perhaps you or someone else here who has contact with MPD could explain why Det. Brocchini found it necessary to destroy his notes DURING an ON-GOING INVESTIGATION? To me, this makes it seem as though there was something in those notes which either didn't agree with his theory of the case, or something which would indicate that perhaps Scott was not guilty. AFAIK he was incorrect in doing so and actually as these notes were WORK PRODUCT they did not in fact belong to him, but rather to the MPD and therefore should have remained property of the MPD. Similar, again AFAIK, to scientific discoveries or inventions by any employee - they belong to the employer.
<snip>
You are so wrong. These notes are used to compile their official report. Once the report is filed the notes CAN BE destroyed (and usually are). Can you even imagine the paper nightmare that would exist in every police dept in the US if they were required to retain every note on every investigation? FYI, read this:
Proposition 115 Does Not Require Preservation of Police Officer’s Raw Investigative Notes, C.A. Rules

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Police officers need not preserve their rough investigative notes after using them to prepare written reports, provided that they act in good faith and pursuant to agency policy, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.
In an opinion authored Friday, the same day she was nominated to the California Supreme Court, Justice Carol Corrigan said there is no requirement, either under the U.S. Constitution or the reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115, that police preserve every piece of evidence that could possibly become relevant to a subsequent prosecution.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2005/cole121305.htm

Do you believe me now? These investigators did nothing wrong and there was nothing suspicious in their actions. It is common practice.

I'll answer your second point in a little while. Gotta go stir the pot. :)

[TopGunner]

Which ones? That he lied under oath? That he has lied under oath before? That he destroyed his notes? That the Judge first reprimanded him then order him to cease and desist? All of the above?

Let me know and I can find them for you, I believe. (But beliefs are funny things you know!! :) )

Yes, please provide the links, THANKS!:biggrin:

[Warrior]

You are kidding....right?:eek:

Not a chance - go down to your local pawn shop and check it out for yourself - or call and ask them how they specify unsubstantiated gems in rings, etc. But before going to the trouble, think a little on what you seem to find difficult to believe and it may make more sense, especially nowdays with fake diamonds being so prolific. A diamond certifier is highly trained to distinguish not only the difference between fake 'diamonds' but also those diamonds known as 'conflict diamonds'. All real and legal diamonds these days are laser inscribed with serial numbers/identity numbers/markers to certify that they were not obtained through illegal means or obtained as payment for illegal arms deals (as an aside many diamonds originating from Africa are indeed conflict diamonds obtained from the Sudan, DRC, etc). In addition, each diamond has it's own unique spectra which is created when laser light is shone through it - almost like a human fingerprint. Nowadays, this spectra is recorded as part of your certification certificate, so that in the event of it being stolen it serves of proof that this was your diamond - of course, if the diamonds are cut into smaller stones, this will not help you reclaim your property. This is a very interesting field

Some websites for you to read if you are interested:

http://www.diamondhouse.be/Certify.htm
http://www.diamondknowledge.com/certificates.php

I happen to know an ex-diamond cutter but unfortunately when I called now to get more websites (my google search was not very successful) I got his voicemail. If you like I can get more info for you - let me know.

[Lavindar]

Oh, GMAB. Think about it <pause>, the only one who LIED over and over and over again was the KILLER!

Brochinni didn't lie about anything. He made a MISTAKE about the pie, OBVIOUSLY, as the time certainly favored the prosecution, NO? :tongue:

Taking the information out of his report, while notifying the defense that he did just that ADDING that it remained in the report of the cop that was THERE is not, in the least, deleting information.

Talk about putting a spin on things!

Allow me to add something to your post. Geragos KNEW that Brocchini excised the portion of hsi report in regards to O'Donnel BECAUSE Geragos HAD BROCCHINI'S NOTES IN THE DISCOVERY. How else could he know? They were NOT destroyed - they were turned over to the defense.

[Lavindar]

Not a chance - go down to your local pawn shop and check it out for yourself - or call and ask them how they specify unsubstantiated gems in rings, etc. But before going to the trouble, think a little on what you seem to find difficult to believe and it may make more sense, especially nowdays with fake diamonds being so prolific. A diamond certifier is highly trained to distinguish not only the difference between fake 'diamonds' but also those diamonds known as 'conflict diamonds'. All real and legal diamonds these days are laser inscribed with serial numbers/identity numbers/markers to certify that they were not obtained through illegal means or obtained as payment for illegal arms deals (as an aside many diamonds originating from Africa are indeed conflict diamonds obtained from the Sudan, DRC, etc). In addition, each diamond has it's own unique spectra which is created when laser light is shone through it - almost like a human fingerprint. Nowadays, this spectra is recorded as part of your certification certificate, so that in the event of it being stolen it serves of proof that this was your diamond - of course, if the diamonds are cut into smaller stones, this will not help you reclaim your property. This is a very interesting field

Some websites for you to read if you are interested:

http://www.diamondhouse.be/Certify.htm
http://www.diamondknowledge.com/certificates.php

I happen to know an ex-diamond cutter but unfortunately when I called now to get more websites (my google search was not very successful) I got his voicemail. If you like I can get more info for you - let me know.


Don't bother. I called the pawn shop and they said IF there were diamonds (like 44 per Scott) on the watch bezel, they would have said DIAMOND bezel on the pawn ticket. OF course, they can tell a diamond from another gemstone - they take jewelry in all the time. I guess I can take my rhinestone ring in and get lots of money for it, then can't I. Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid.

Feel free to call them and check with them again.

[Lavindar]

You are so wrong. These notes are used to compile their official report. Once the report is filed the notes CAN BE destroyed (and usually are). Can you even imagine the paper nightmare that would exist in every police dept in the US if they were required to retain every note on every investigation? FYI, read this:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2005/cole121305.htm

Do you believe me now? These investigators did nothing wrong and there was nothing suspicious in their actions. It is common practice.

I'll answer your second point in a little while. Gotta go stir the pot. :)


This is NOT proof that Brocchini destroyed his notes. Nice try, but we want proof that he did destroy them.

[adnoid]

...Let me know and I can find them for you, I believe...

I've heard this statement many times on this board from this same poster and nothing is ever produced. I don't need blind anti-LE bias in my life. PLONK!

[One2Snoop]

Not to throw a wrench into all your research Warrior but I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Just how big were these diamonds on Laci's watch? If its anything like the ones on mine I suspect they are fairly small.

I agree with Lavindar and the pawn shop owner on this one - "they would have said DIAMOND bezel on the pawn ticket."

Just my 2 cents.

[Warrior]

Don't bother. I called the pawn shop and they said IF there were diamonds (like 44 per Scott) on the watch bezel, they would have said DIAMOND bezel on the pawn ticket. OF course, they can tell a diamond from another gemstone - they take jewelry in all the time. I guess I can take my rhinestone ring in and get lots of money for it, then can't I. Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid.

Feel free to call them and check with them again.


Somehow I don't believe you. The reason they DON'T specify that the stones are DIAMONDS is for this exact reason (your words, not mine) I guess I can take my rhinestone ring in and get lots of money for it, ... . Again, as you say "Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid."

I can agree that I don't agree with you - it doesn't make me a lesser person and just as you believe what you state, I know what I know. :shrug:

PS: I'm not a pawnbroker, but I am also not a stupid person.

[deputydi]

Don't bother. I called the pawn shop and they said IF there were diamonds (like 44 per Scott) on the watch bezel, they would have said DIAMOND bezel on the pawn ticket. OF course, they can tell a diamond from another gemstone - they take jewelry in all the time. I guess I can take my rhinestone ring in and get lots of money for it, then can't I. Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid.

Feel free to call them and check with them again.
Exactly! My brother is part owner of a pawn shop in Miami and I tried to call him before I answered Warrior's post. Unfortunately, I couldn't reach him so I left a message and also sent him an email. I have NO DOUBT he will say exactly what you just said. And, you said it so well.

I love your sentence "Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid." Of course they can identify diamonds and would be negligent if that word didn't appear on the claim ticket. I have a beautiful dinner ring that has one large stone surrounded by several smaller stones (all fake of course, but it sure looks real). Maybe Warrior will give me the name of the store where he got his information and I can pawn this $25 ring for $100 or more. Cool.

[Warrior]

I've heard this statement many times on this board from this same poster and nothing is ever produced. I don't need blind anti-LE bias in my life. PLONK!

Adnoid, I believe you will find you have heard it ONCE before and I agree I did not produce the required proof. However you assume this is because I cannot, the truth of the matter is that I have very little time to spend here (work, work, work) rather than that the proof doesn't exist. Just want to set the record straight. I believe there is an ignore button here - please feel free to press it!

PS: How many is many - at the time of you posting this I believe I had made 9 posts here, so....

[deputydi]

Somehow I don't believe you. The reason they DON'T specify that the stones are DIAMONDS is for this exact reason (your words, not mine) I guess I can take my rhinestone ring in and get lots of money for it, ... . Again, as you say "Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid."

I can agree that I don't agree with you - it doesn't make me a lesser person and just as you believe what you state, I know what I know. :shrug:

PS: I'm not a pawnbroker, but I am also not a stupid person.
You got it backwards, Warrior. Pawn shops don't always attract the most upstanding citizens. They put detailed descriptions on the claim receipt TO PROTECT THEMSELVES from fraud. If I take my dinner ring to a pawn shop and insist the diamonds are real and insist that is put on my receipt, what do you suppose happens when I pick it up and discover the "diamonds" aren't real? I've got the signed receipt saying they are so someone must have substituted the real diamonds for fake ones while it was in their shop. Boy do I smell a lawsuit. I'm waiting for my brother to get back to me, but I can't believe there is no one in his store who is trained in identifying precious stones from semi-precious stones. If I'm wrong, I'll certainly admit it.

[deputydi]

This is NOT proof that Brocchini destroyed his notes. Nice try, but we want proof that he did destroy them.
I never said Brocchini DID, in fact, destroy his notes. I just said it was not illegal, unethical or suspicious for him to have done it. It is Warrior who claimed Brocchini did something wrong by destroying them.

[TopGunner]

Exactly! My brother is part owner of a pawn shop in Miami and I tried to call him before I answered Warrior's post. Unfortunately, I couldn't reach him so I left a message and also sent him an email. I have NO DOUBT he will say exactly what you just said. And, you said it so well.

I love your sentence "Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid." Of course they can identify diamonds and would be negligent if that word didn't appear on the claim ticket. I have a beautiful dinner ring that has one large stone surrounded by several smaller stones (all fake of course, but it sure looks real). Maybe Warrior will give me the name of the store where he got his information and I can pawn this $25 ring for $100 or more. Cool.


Hey DD, you wouldn't BELIEVE what I got out of a Cracker Jack box....Hawaii here I come!!!! LOL! :beer:

I just googled the heck out of pawn shops, identifying jewelry, etc. They all say the same thing: Pawn shop owners have the proper equipment to identify the rocks they take in. In fact, they are highly trained to do just that.:biggrin:

[enlightenme]

Which ones? That he lied under oath? That he has lied under oath before? That he destroyed his notes? That the Judge first reprimanded him then order him to cease and desist? All of the above?

Let me know and I can find them for you, I believe. (But beliefs are funny things you know!! :) )

Are you speaking of when he TOLD THE TRUTH under oath before when he wasn't supposed to bring up prior bad acts in the HIG trial?

Not quite the same thing as lying, now is it?

[TopGunner]

Somehow I don't believe you. The reason they DON'T specify that the stones are DIAMONDS is for this exact reason (your words, not mine) I guess I can take my rhinestone ring in and get lots of money for it, ... . Again, as you say "Pawnbrokers are not in the business by being stupid."

I can agree that I don't agree with you - it doesn't make me a lesser person and just as you believe what you state, I know what I know. :shrug:

PS: I'm not a pawnbroker, but I am also not a stupid person.

This makes no sense. Maybe I shoulda been a pawnbroker...:punch:

[TopGunner]

Adnoid, I believe you will find you have heard it ONCE before and I agree I did not produce the required proof. However you assume this is because I cannot, the truth of the matter is that I have very little time to spend here (work, work, work) rather than that the proof doesn't exist. Just want to set the record straight. I believe there is an ignore button here - please feel free to press it!

PS: How many is many - at the time of you posting this I believe I had made 9 posts here, so....

Well, I've been waiting for my link for quite some time now. You're still here posting, obviously not at work work work, so like, can I have it?:D

[Cadillakin]

Do you believe me now? These investigators did nothing wrong and there was nothing suspicious in their actions. It is common practice.

Crystal clear, but unfortunately, futile. Proof like that you have given means nothing to those who don't value the truth. But thank you for the posting..

[Cadillakin]

Well, I've been waiting for my link for quite some time now. You're still here posting, obviously not at work work work, so like, can I have it?:DDon't hold your breath, sugar...

[TopGunner]

Don't hold your breath, sugar...


How'd you know I was blue? :eek:

[Miss Bootsie]

Not a chance - go down to your local pawn shop and check it out for yourself - or call and ask them how they specify unsubstantiated gems in rings, etc. But before going to the trouble, think a little on what you seem to find difficult to believe and it may make more sense, especially nowdays with fake diamonds being so prolific. A diamond certifier is highly trained to distinguish not only the difference between fake 'diamonds' but also those diamonds known as 'conflict diamonds'. All real and legal diamonds these days are laser inscribed with serial numbers/identity numbers/markers to certify that they were not obtained through illegal means or obtained as payment for illegal arms deals (as an aside many diamonds originating from Africa are indeed conflict diamonds obtained from the Sudan, DRC, etc). In addition, each diamond has it's own unique spectra which is created when laser light is shone through it - almost like a human fingerprint. Nowadays, this spectra is recorded as part of your certification certificate, so that in the event of it being stolen it serves of proof that this was your diamond - of course, if the diamonds are cut into smaller stones, this will not help you reclaim your property. This is a very interesting field

Some websites for you to read if you are interested:

http://www.diamondhouse.be/Certify.htm
http://www.diamondknowledge.com/certificates.php

I happen to know an ex-diamond cutter but unfortunately when I called now to get more websites (my google search was not very successful) I got his voicemail. If you like I can get more info for you - let me know.


What are we discussing here? A pawn shop in Modesto or Tiffany and Co. in New York City?

Most pawn brokers have quite a bit of expertise in jewelry.
After all, most are in the business of buying and selling jewelry, are they not?
Ever heard of a jewelry scope?

I believe you're confused. Most pawn brokers have no problem at all recognizing diamonds. It is the quality of the diamonds they usually refrain from commenting on.

[Miss Bootsie]

Hey DD, you wouldn't BELIEVE what I got out of a Cracker Jack box....Hawaii here I come!!!! LOL! :beer:

*Snipped*



You're too funny TG. :biggrin: :seeya:

[Miss Bootsie]

Not a chance - go down to your local pawn shop and check it out for yourself - or call and ask them how they specify unsubstantiated gems in rings, etc. But before going to the trouble, think a little on what you seem to find difficult to believe and it may make more sense, especially nowdays with fake diamonds being so prolific. A diamond certifier is highly trained to distinguish not only the difference between fake 'diamonds' but also those diamonds known as 'conflict diamonds'. All real and legal diamonds these days are laser inscribed with serial numbers/identity numbers/markers to certify that they were not obtained through illegal means or obtained as payment for illegal arms deals (as an aside many diamonds originating from Africa are indeed conflict diamonds obtained from the Sudan, DRC, etc). In addition, each diamond has it's own unique spectra which is created when laser light is shone through it - almost like a human fingerprint. Nowadays, this spectra is recorded as part of your certification certificate, so that in the event of it being stolen it serves of proof that this was your diamond - of course, if the diamonds are cut into smaller stones, this will not help you reclaim your property. This is a very interesting field

Some websites for you to read if you are interested:

http://www.diamondhouse.be/Certify.htm
http://www.diamondknowledge.com/certificates.php

I happen to know an ex-diamond cutter but unfortunately when I called now to get more websites (my google search was not very successful) I got his voicemail. If you like I can get more info for you - let me know.

You have offered info. to me before, but for some reason you failed to produce.


There are several non-destructive tests. One, based on optical properties, measures the indices of refraction (a function of the speed of light in the mineral). These are entirely different for quartz and diamond. The other test is a measure of the surface conductivity of the mineral. This test is done by using a small battery-powered electronic instrument with a probe that touches the stone and indicates yes or no if the stone is a diamond. Many pawn shops have this instrument to help them determine what the stones are in gold settings.

[PsychNurse;~)]

IMO, the scratches on the watch occurred in the struggle as Laci was being abducted..!

i guess the 41 diamonds fell out at the same time?

:no:

pawn shops have very strict guidelines they have to follow when accepting items for pawn and writing the pawn tickets.

any jewels on the item would have to be noted on the ticket and the quality and value of the item determine what it's worth when pawned. you're usually looking at 10% to 20% of the items value.

all pawn tickets are copied and copies of every pawned item are given to law enforcement who does cross checks with items stolen in burglaries, etc.

and what reason do you have for believing this ms. renfro is related to the burglars? you do realize there are quite a few renfroes living in stanislaus county, don't you?

~~cyn~~

[PsychNurse;~)]

I did not know that the majority of Croton watches are stainless steel. Interesting! The plot thickens........:cool:

So, the pawnshop indicates that the watch was 14K gold with gems?

If this is correct, a 14K gold Croton watch, with gems, was pawned at a pawnshop, in Modesto, CA, by someone with a known criminal record soon after the disappearance of Laci Peterson, who owned a gold croton watch with gems.

Is there any info on when the watch was pawned and when was it claimed?


the pawn ticket said nothing about any gems.

~~cyn~~

[PsychNurse;~)]

I agree that there is some reason why neither side refuted or confirmed. Possibly something legal/wasn't allowed to be presented,etc? Don't think it would have been difficult for either side to subpeona the pawn shop owner or even Dianna Renfro, but, they didn't.

there was nothing for the prosecution to refute~~geragos' smoke and mirrors act was never anything evidentiary.

~~cyn~~

[PsychNurse;~)]

-I don't recall anyone testifying that Laci never wore the Croton watch..
-Who said the battery was dead?
-As I mentioned before..I called "The Pawn Shop"...according to them: "withG" means with gems which include diamonds..

then they are in gross violation of the laws that dictate how they write up pawn tickets. i have now reported this alleged violation and will have "the pawn shop" checked for the validity of their required reportings.

thanks for the heads up on this!

~~cyn~~

[Mysteri]

How is it that the NG's latched onto this as some kind of exonerating evidence or evidence of nefarious activities?

Did Scott tell somebody that the watch was missing? Or stolen by the kidnapper/burglars? After he had been trying to sell it and failed? (no sale on Ebay)

The brown van people, the Renfro's, pawned a crappy scratched croton watch for 20 bucks, while Scott was trying to get $750 for his/Laci's on Ebay.. Somebody suggests it's the same watch? Based on what evidence? I noticed when reading from the past that one of the NG's considered the Croton Watch the most important "exonerating evidence." Huh? How does it all tie together?

Link to ebay Croton watch sale... Use the zoom that your browser provides to enlarge the text, if needed.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg

Exonerating ? You must mean incriminating.

Mark Geragos is the one who claimed that the 'scrappy' croton watch ( good description there ! ) was Laci's and that the Renfros must have killed her because HE presented a Pawn Ticket for th bedragled watch as PROOF that they were involved with Laci !!

No one thought that bogus evidence was anything other than a red herring, outside of SLP's cheerleaders.


imo

[Mysteri]

Here's the pawn ticket:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/renfropawnslip.html

[One2Snoop]

I don't remember, was Deanna Renfro ever asked where she got the watch from?

[PsychNurse;~)]

Of course not...however, IMO, a pawn shop who would lend $20 for a 14 kt gold Croton watch might do exactly that..they don't really care if all the details are listed..it would be up to the owner who is pawning the item to demand it...

that is patently untrue aw2b.

the documentation of items brought in for pawn is regulated quite tightly in the state of california.

~~cyn~~

[Miss Bootsie]

that is patently untrue aw2b.

the documentation of items brought in for pawn is regulated quite tightly in the state of california.

~~cyn~~

You're right PN.
An accurate description of the item has to be provided for LE and also for insurance purposes to protect the pawn broker and the owner of the pawned item.

[deputydi]

that is patently untrue aw2b.

the documentation of items brought in for pawn is regulated quite tightly in the state of california.

~~cyn~~
Hi cyn -- good to see you here but not often enough. :)

You are so right -- and, not only in CA. Most states regulate Pawn Shops very tightly.

I've asked this question several times, but haven't seen an answer. On Scott's ebay listing it says "Gem(blue) set on stem". I don't know what that means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't refer to the 44 diamond bezel as that is described separately. Does anyone know???

[Lavindar]

Hi cyn -- good to see you here but not often enough. :)

You are so right -- and, not only in CA. Most states regulate Pawn Shops very tightly.

I've asked this question several times, but haven't seen an answer. On Scott's ebay listing it says "Gem(blue) set on stem". I don't know what that means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't refer to the 44 diamond bezel as that is described separately. Does anyone know???


I have no clue what he is referring to, but I did just think of another reason that pawn brokers need to be very specific ihn their desciptions. It protects the customer, it protects the pawnbroker, and, should a pawn broker be robbed, it allows him to accurately gauge the worth of the things on his insurance report.

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B,

Do not :no: wave your finger at :no: me while debating with :no: me !!! :no: :tongue:

OK, YOU are correct here. Do not faint, admitting I'm wrong is not beneath me. :punch:

However !!! Why would they chase a DEAD lead? The watch did not fit the description !!! :biggrin:

I'm glad it's over....LOL

As to your question: why would they chase a DEAD lead? if I'm not mistaken the MPD was investigating a murder case by then...so they had a pregnant woman that was missing and possibly murdered ..her gold Croton watch was never accounted for...they found a receipt that indicated that a gold Croton watch was pawned few days after Laci's disappearance...and based on what a pawn shop employee wrote on a receipt they decided it is a dead lead??!!

This is outrageous...I hope you would agree!

[attorneywan2be]

that is patently untrue aw2b.

the documentation of items brought in for pawn is regulated quite tightly in the state of california.

~~cyn~~


A big so what?!

Does this mean that all pawn shops in California are abiding by the regulations without exception?

Does this mean that all pawn receipts are accurate as to the exact details of the pawned items?

Does this mean that all employees/owners at pawn shops in California are infallible?

I think not...!

[deputydi]

<snip>
As to your question: why would they chase a DEAD lead? if I'm not mistaken the MPD was investigating a murder case by then...so they had a pregnant woman that was missing and possibly murdered ..her gold Croton watch was never accounted for...they found a receipt that indicated that a gold Croton watch was pawned few days after Laci's disappearance...and based on what a pawn shop employee wrote on a receipt they decided it is a dead lead??!!

This is outrageous...I hope you would agree!
I don't agree that it is "outrageous" but maybe they should have looked into it a little deeper. The fact is, they probably didn't. The other fact is, MG had every opportunity to investigate it also and either he didn't or he did and found out that the two watches aren't even close to looking alike. I believe he did and chose not to present any real evidence (like the watch) because he knew he'd get laughed out of court. Thus, the receipt he waved in front of the jury instead.

[deputydi]

A big so what?!

Does this mean that all pawn shops in California are abiding by the regulations without exception?

Does this mean that all pawn receipts are accurate as to the exact details of the pawned items?

Does this mean that all employees/owners at pawn shops in California are infallible?

I think not...!
Are you deliberately ignoring me? :shrug:

If this watch was so doggonned important to Scott's DEFENSE, why didn't MG pursue it? Don't you think it's possible that HE DID and it turned out to be nothing? Why else would he have made such a deal about it and produce nothing but a vague receipt?

[Miss Bootsie]

A big so what?!

Does this mean that all pawn shops in California are abiding by the regulations without exception?

Does this mean that all pawn receipts are accurate as to the exact details of the pawned items?

Does this mean that all employees/owners at pawn shops in California are infallible?

I think not...!

It means the odds are slim that a Pawn broker or employee would ignore 44 diamonds on a piece of jewelry.

[accordn2me]

Hi cyn -- good to see you here but not often enough. :)

You are so right -- and, not only in CA. Most states regulate Pawn Shops very tightly.

I've asked this question several times, but haven't seen an answer. On Scott's ebay listing it says "Gem(blue) set on stem". I don't know what that means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't refer to the 44 diamond bezel as that is described separately. Does anyone know???hi di :seeya: I don't know but I'll take a stab at it....the stem....the little thingy you set the time with, had a blue gemstone set in it, maybe. :shrug:

[deputydi]

hi di :seeya: I don't know but I'll take a stab at it....the stem....the little thingy you set the time with, had a blue gemstone set in it, maybe. :shrug:
That's kind of what I thought too. I've never seen one, but that doesn't mean anything. Thanks for taking a shot at it -- I was just curious.

[attorneywan2be]

It means the odds are slim that a Pawn broker or employee would ignore 44 diamonds on a piece of jewelry.

Would you please post the TS about the watch having 44 diamonds?

Also...do we know the carat weight of those diamonds?

[attorneywan2be]

Are you deliberately ignoring me? :shrug:

If this watch was so doggonned important to Scott's DEFENSE, why didn't MG pursue it? Don't you think it's possible that HE DID and it turned out to be nothing? Why else would he have made such a deal about it and produce nothing but a vague receipt?

What gave you that idea? I have responded to your posts...maybe not all of them...but I don't post as often as I did before anyway...

As far as I know, MG got the pawn ticket from the MPD and didn't do his own investigation...

[TopGunner]

What gave you that idea? I have responded to your posts...maybe not all of them...but I don't post as often as I did before anyway...

As far as I know, MG got the pawn ticket from the MPD and didn't do his own investigation...


Aw2B...why do you believe this watch is such a big deal? Why do you discount the LE and the defense, the statements made by Laci's friends that she didn't like the watch, it wasn't her style...the ability of the pawn shop owner to write out the receipt correctly as he's required by law to do, along with the video tape showing that the watch didn't even work? This is the predicted theme that runs through the NG theories - it's always everybody else, a whole big GROUP of unrelated people that dropped the ball, never the convicted killer.

What if the cops KNEW it wasn't Laci's watch because they already KNEW they had her killer?

What I believe, for sure, is that everyone wanted Laci's murderer, not Scott, and there is a big difference. You want to believe it was the greatest conspiracy in the world, you ignore virtually EVERYTHING that points to him, and chew on teeny tiny points that in the big picture mean nothing at all.

To me, as I've said before, Laci's watch could have met so many different fates....ISP could have planted it himself as someone else suggested, and Renfo simply FOUND it. However, the description does not AT ALL fit Laci's watch and there's never been any testimony proving otherwise.

Even if was Laci's watch, it doesn't remotely begin to discount all the evidence against ISP. Not even close, so it literally is a MOOT POINT.:patriot:

Hope you're feeling much better. :rose:

[deputydi]

What gave you that idea? I have responded to your posts...maybe not all of them...but I don't post as often as I did before anyway...

As far as I know, MG got the pawn ticket from the MPD and didn't do his own investigation...
Thanks for responding. I was beginning to feel a little slighted. :(

You don't know that Geragos didn't do his own investigation into the watch. To be fair, I don't know that he did. The point (and the big question) is why do you think he didn't? If this watch was such a crucial piece of evidence, the defense investigators would have pursued it. The defense had hired their own investigator and, if this single piece of evidence was enough to exonerate Scott or put the suspicion on someone else, don't you think they would have jumped all over it? It's ridiculous to say it wasn't their responsibility -- their client was facing a death sentence.

I believe MG knew without a doubt it wasn't Laci's watch.

[TopGunner]

It appears Geregos did have people checking into the watch:


PAWN SHOP VISIT — At The Pawn Shop in Modesto, Bernstein allegedly wore a badge that read “New York Fugitive Task Force” and said he was working on a national sting operation. He was interested in a Croton watch that was similar to one that Laci Peterson tried to sell on eBay, an online auction site. The store owner called police because inquiries about the Peterson case made him nervous.

Radford said Bernstein’s plea of no contest was for impersonating a police officer at The Pawn Shop.

The deputy district attorney said both sides agreed to focus on that count when they negotiated the deal.

“It didn’t really matter which count it was,” Radford said. “The outcome would have been the same.”

Bee staff writer Susan Herendeen



And then there's Amy's testimony supporting what Laci's girlfriends said about Laci not being interested in the watch:

DISTASO: And is that watch one that you or Laci were interested in wearing?

ROCHA: No.

DISTASO: And why was that?

ROCHA: Well, I wasn't interested in it. I didn't think it was my style, and I don't think she felt it was her style, either.

DISTASO: Okay. Can you tell us why that was? Did you want to look at it to see?

ROCHA: Well, some of the things were a little gaudy, so I think maybe that's why. I don't know.

DISTASO: Okay. Were some of the jewelry, was some of the jewelry that you received from your grandmother a little too ostentatious, I guess, for your tastes?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: And did Laci feel the same way?

ROCHA: Yes.



ROCHA: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, do you remember that there was a Croton watch, C-R-O-T-O-N? Kind of a ladies' dress watch, goldish style with a small face in a circle of diamonds?

ROCHA: Yeah. There were a couple of gold watches.

GERAGOS: And that, and is it a fair statement that neither of you were really enthused about hanging on to those watches?

ROCHA: Yeah. There was one that we weren't interested in.

[Miss Bootsie]

Would you please post the TS about the watch having 44 diamonds?

Link to the E-bay listing for the croton watch. Its very obvious the face of the watch was embellished heavily with diamonds. The jewelry Laci inherited was appraised, so I am quite sure the appraiser confirmed the authenticity of the diamonds around the face of the watch.

Link to the E-bay listing for the Croton watch.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg

Testimony in regards to the Croton watch.
FLADAGER: On Friday, January 31st, do you meet with someone named Maria Rocha?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of that meeting did she mention an item of jewelry that you had not heard about before?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That was the Croton watch, which she was just describing as a gold watch with diamonds around the face. She didn't know the name brand, but she did say there was one additional watch that wasn't in the jewelry box.

FLADAGER: And was that part of the inheritance?



FLADAGER: As part of your follow-up on jewelry on this particular day did you watch a videotape that we talked about previously that was recovered after the burglary by Kim McGregor?

GROGAN: Yes, I did.

FLADAGER: And what is it that you discovered when you watched that video?

GROGAN: Well, I watched it and it contains several, several different small clips in it throughout the video, including things like traffic patterns that appear in the neighborhood close by to where they reside. There's some driving in vehicles on Encina Avenue. There are some images of the defendant's truck with the flatbed trailer attached to it, some job site footage, it appears, and some, there's some other, like a, there appears to be a fishing trip that's videotaped. Additionally, there's, there's several photographs, there's several small segments at the end that show items that appear to be on E-Bay and appeared that the photos for E-Bay matched the videotape.

FLADAGER: And one of these items is the Croton watch?

GROGAN: Yes, one of the items is, yes.

FLADAGER: With diamonds around the face?

GROGAN: Yes.


Also...do we know the carat weight of those diamonds?

um, what does the carat weight of the diamonds have to do with anything?

[Cadillakin]

um, what does the carat weight of the diamonds have to do with anything?I'm giving 9-2 that there will be no answer.. and I'm making the line 3-5 that if there is an answer, it will make no sense..

[PsychNurse;~)]

A big so what?!

Does this mean that all pawn shops in California are abiding by the regulations without exception?

Does this mean that all pawn receipts are accurate as to the exact details of the pawned items?

Does this mean that all employees/owners at pawn shops in California are infallible?

I think not...!

i'm not sure that it really matters that you think not.

pawn shops bring in big $$, and few owners are going to risk losing that $$ out of laziness or disdain for the laws/statutes that govern them.

law enforcement receives copies of all pawn slips for a reason~~and end up following up on a fair percentage of those. because of this continued interaction with law enforcement agencies, pawn shops know their paperwork is always going to be looked at.

of course, poor isp. just another coincidence, right, that THE croton watch was pawned at a shop that keeps slipshod records?

puhleeeeze.

~~cyn~~

[Riviera]

Being rude, snarky and baiting will not help Scott Peterson's case, nor will it help yours. Please refrain from personal attacks. Back on topic please
---->The Croton Watch

Thank you
R

[Miss Bootsie]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/opps-1.gif Just noticed I made an error in post #208.



Originally Posted by attorneywan2be
Would you please post the TS about the watch having 44 diamonds?

ERROR:
Its very obvious the face of the watch was embellished heavily with diamonds. The jewelry Laci inherited was appraised, so I am quite sure the appraiser confirmed the authenticity of the diamonds around the face of the watch.



Corrected:
Originally Posted by attorneywan2be
Would you please post the TS about the watch having 44 diamonds?

Its very obvious the face of the watch was embellished heavily with diamonds. The jewelry Laci inherited was appraised, so I am quite sure the appraiser confirmed the authenticity of the diamonds around the face of the watch.

Link to the E-bay listing for the Croton watch.
http://i9.tinypic.com/6h3vihv.jpg

[PsychNurse;~)]

anyone else notice the item location on the auction? sacramento.

what is it about isp and sacramento?

[deputydi]

anyone else notice the item location on the auction? sacramento.

what is it about isp and sacramento?

Good catch. I've looked at that listing dozens of times and never noticed the location.

Since there has been so much discussion about the diamonds --I've been curious as to why the broker was thorough enough to write 14k gold on the receipt (as opposed to goldtone, 12k, 18k, gold filled, or just simply GOLD) and not record the diamond bezel. Surely the diamonds would make the item more valuable than, say, Austrian crystals.

[enlightenme]

I notice that Renfro and Scott are the same age. I wonder if Scott knew her (perhaps from bar hopping) and that's how she got the watch? :cool:

[PsychNurse;~)]

I notice that Renfro and Scott are the same age. I wonder if Scott knew her (perhaps from bar hopping) and that's how she got the watch? :cool:

imo there is no way in hades that the croton described on that pawn ticket is the watch that was left to laci.

~~cyn~~

[deputydi]

I notice that Renfro and Scott are the same age. I wonder if Scott knew her (perhaps from bar hopping) and that's how she got the watch? :cool:
Actually, I still don't believe the Renfro watch was Laci's but . . .

Considering what we know about the HB, anything's possible.

[enlightenme]

Oh, I don't think it's Laci's watch either. I was just being facetious. Also pointing out that IF it WAS Laci's watch it doesn't necessarily clear Scott of anything.

;)

[PsychNurse;~)]

Oh, I don't think it's Laci's watch either. I was just being facetious. Also pointing out that IF it WAS Laci's watch it doesn't necessarily clear Scott of anything.

;)

:seeya:

just wanted to say hi to you and deputydi!

~~cyn~~

[attorneywan2be]

um, what does the carat weight of the diamonds have to do with anything?


Thanks for the info..I have not seen the ebay listing before..

Well, what is your point about the watch having 44 diamonds?

Determining the value of a jewelry item is not based on the number of diamonds but rather on the carat weight of the diamonds..color..clarity..etc...the Ebay listing made no mention of the carat weight..

[deputydi]

Oh, I don't think it's Laci's watch either. I was just being facetious. <snip>
;)

I knew that and I meant to put a smiley face or a wink after my comment to show you I knew it. I forgot. My response was also facetious -- too bad voice inflections don't come across better on message boards. ;) I believe this is why a lot of comments are taken wrong and some people get offended.

[deputydi]

Thanks for the info..I have not seen the ebay listing before..

Well, what is your point about the watch having 44 diamonds?

Determining the value of a jewelry item is not based on the number of diamonds but rather on the carat weight of the diamonds..color..clarity..etc...the Ebay listing made no mention of the carat weight..
I don't mean to speak for Miss Bootsie (she is more than capable of speaking for herself) but I'd like to give my own opinion on this.

A watch with a 44 diamond bezel is going to be a lot more valuable than one with no diamonds or a few on the face. The pawn ticket does not mention a single diamond. If Laci's watch were presented to a pawn broker, at the VERY LEAST the description would mention a diamond bezel. It would not necessarily mention the carat weight of the diamonds nor the number of diamonds but it would most definitely mention the DIAMOND BEZEL.

[deputydi]

:seeya:

just wanted to say hi to you and deputydi!

~~cyn~~

:seeya: back atcha, cyn. I've gotta ask -- are you still a non smoker? If the answer is yes, I both admire and envy you. I can't tell you how many times I've tried unsuccessfully to quit.

[TopGunner]

Thanks for the info..I have not seen the ebay listing before..

Well, what is your point about the watch having 44 diamonds?

Determining the value of a jewelry item is not based on the number of diamonds but rather on the carat weight of the diamonds..color..clarity..etc...the Ebay listing made no mention of the carat weight..


Aw2B :no: Do you really believe, and expect us to believe that a pawn shop would completely IGNORE 44 diamonds? You honestly think they'd make NO MENTION what-so-ever of the most valuable part of the watch? That goes against everything I've read about pawn shops and jewelry identification. It goes against common sense!

[Miss Bootsie]

Aw2B :no: Do you really believe, and expect us to believe that a pawn shop would completely IGNORE 44 diamonds? You honestly think they'd make NO MENTION what-so-ever of the most valuable part of the watch? That goes against everything I've read about pawn shops and jewelry identification. It goes against common sense!

Yes, It does TG. If a Pawn shop failed to reference 44 diamonds on a watch and LE discovered the watch was stolen, the owner of the shop would be in deep trouble.

Also, one can understand the liability for a Pawn broker that has set a precedent by routinely referencing jewelry with a mulitude of diamonds with a G on the Pawn ticket.

[Lavindar]

anyone else notice the item location on the auction? sacramento.

what is it about isp and sacramento?

I think he used Sacramento as it's the largest city near Modesto. It is also interesting that it was Sacramento where he told Amber he lived.

[enlightenme]

I think he used Sacramento as it's the largest city near Modesto. It is also interesting that it was Sacramento where he told Amber he lived.



Also interesting that Lee automatically guessed Scott was seeing someone in Sacramento when he was first told about the affair with Amber.

Hmmmm. :seeya:

[Cadillakin]

Also interesting that Lee automatically guessed Scott was seeing someone in Sacramento when he was first told about the affair with Amber.

Hmmmm. :seeya:No doubt Scott had other affairs. Any man who would have an affair as a newlywed, and then have another affair when his wife was pregnant with his first child, surely would be having affairs in the intervening years.

[PsychNurse;~)]

:seeya: back atcha, cyn. I've gotta ask -- are you still a non smoker? If the answer is yes, I both admire and envy you. I can't tell you how many times I've tried unsuccessfully to quit.

still doing ok. had an 'oops' moment two weeks ago and had one while out with some friends, but that's it.

according to quitmeter.com as of right now i've NOT smoked for 8 weeks, 6 days, 11 hours, 22 minutes, and 14 seconds.

i've NOT smoked 2,498 cigarettes and i've saved $562.05.

:eek:

when you're ready to quit talk to your doc about chantix. it worked for me when nothing else did.

:seeya:

and i'll be part of your support system, ok?

~~cyn~~

[Lavindar]

No doubt Scott had other affairs. Any man who would have an affair as a newlywed, and then have another affair when his wife was pregnant with his first child, surely would be having affairs in the intervening years.
You are forgetting Katy Hansen, also when he was a newlywed. I imagine there are several women throughout CA who are not coming forward from sheer embarrassment.

[One2Snoop]

I don't remember, was Deanna Renfro ever asked where she got the watch from?

I guess my question didn't deserve an answer??? :confused:

I'll ask again, anyone know if DR was questioned about the pawned Croton watch? If that happened what was the outcome of these questions?
Link would be appreciated to any testimony or answers off the record for the above, if there is any.

:patriot:

[I'mSun]

I guess my question didn't deserve an answer??? :confused:

I'll ask again, anyone know if DR was questioned about the pawned Croton watch? If that happened what was the outcome of these questions?
Link would be appreciated to any testimony for the above, if there is any.

:patriot:Hiya Snoop! Of course your question deserves an answer. I sure hope you get one :D
Seriously, I really don't know. But, If I did know and I had a link, I'd be happy to post it for you!

[One2Snoop]

Hiya Snoop! Of course your question deserves an answer.
I sure hope you get one :D Seriously, I really don't know. But, If I did know and I had a link, I'd be happy to post it for you!

LOL, I just changed some of the wording in my post and I know you'd be more than happy to answer my questions if you knew them.
Thanks for trying to help. :rose:

[TopGunner]

LOL, I just changed some of the wording in my post and I know you'd be more than happy to answer my questions if you knew them.
Thanks for trying to help. :rose:

Hiya Snoops - I'm not ignoring your question, I just don't have an answer. I've read a few things about Renfro over the years, but don't recall what exactly it was. We'll have to do some investigating for you, unless someone else here remembers. :shrug: :)

[Invrdv8]

You are forgetting Katy Hansen, also when he was a newlywed. I imagine there are several women throughout CA who are not coming forward from sheer embarrassment.
ITA Janet Isle and Katy Hansen are the only two we know about. Since his work took him away from home a lot I'll bet he had numerous one night stands!

[adnoid]

...I imagine there are several women throughout CA who are not coming forward from sheer embarrassment.

Can you blame them..? I mean, would YOU tell anyone..?

[deputydi]

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):
Sorry for the delay in reply, but I just saw this note yesterday when I returned from work. I'll try to answer your question here but it may be more than you really want to know, so just sift out the "wheat from the shaft" so to speak & glean whatever you need to know about it.

In Florida (at least) pawnshops are very tightly regulated and are required to follow a strict list of details on any items being purchased, or pledged as collateral on a loan regardless of whether it is a watch, a computer, or gold chains or rings. All pawnshops in the state of Florida are required by law to use the same software which is compatible with a central FDLE "stolen property" database which routinely checks for and stolen items which are received by the shop. Now to try and answer your question;

Generally, a pawnshop will first record the make, model, and serial number of the watch (these three things are required by law and are strictly enforced). Next we will record whether the watch casing and/or band is made of gold, and if so, what karat the gold is and its approximate weight (such as 14k/23.6 dwt.), or if not gold, record the casing/band material as (generally) "stn stl" or "sil(ver)", or lea(ther).
Now to the heart of your question. I am not familiar with the term/acronym "WithG", but I would doubt that it implies ("with gems), as "with gems" would imply an added value to the item, as the term "gem" is pretty much synonymous with "precious stones" whether they are diamonds, rubys, sapphires, opals, etc, etc, etc., and for this reason, most pawnshops will not use the term "gem" or "precious stone" nor add any dollar allowance in their description of an average item being pawned because in most cases it is extremely difficult or impossible for even an experienced pawnshop specialist to distinguish between a natural stone and one that is man made. The one exception to this is with diamonds, which brings me to your final question. 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.

Identifying real diamonds vs takes takes years of experience, and yes, I'm pretty seasoned at it, but it has taken me 12 years of viewing thousands and thousands of stones ranging in size from 10 points up to 3 and 4 ct to get to this point, and even now I am sometimes forced to go back and use the diamond tester in the back to verify my opinion. Just FYI, most fake diamonds are fairly easy to spot. If they are CZ's (cubic zirconia) they are usually too clear and perfect to be real. (You'll never find vvs or vs stones in a watch, just isn't done unless it's an expensive Rolex w/ as $12,000 bezel). The newest fake on the market is the moissanite stone which is very close to a diamond, but you will rarely find them is stones less than 1/2 carat & up, never in watches.

In summary, I don't know whether your friend was buying or selling in a pawnshop, but if they were buying a used watch and the clerk told them that the diamonds were real, make him put it in writing. If your friend was selling the watch to a pawnshop, they would likely only pay about $100.00 per carat for any real diamonds that he could verify. Remember the earrings that I gave you? I believe that they had a total weight of about 3/4 carat or a little less, & I bought them for around &100.00. They would normally retail for between $400 and $700 down here.

Hope this helps.
Take care & keep in touch Sis,

[TopGunner]

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):


Aww DD, your brother sounds like a great guy (mine is too). His response was very thorough and easy to understand and yet you're right, now there are more questions.

Just ask him how, on a receipt, HE would identify a watch such as Laci's. How exactly would he write it up, and what would he most likely give for it. I realize it won't necessarily mean that that's what happened w/Renfro's watch, but it'd be interesting to know his take on it.

[Wearing A Halo]

Can you blame them..? I mean, would YOU tell anyone..?

One who wasn't embarrassed was Victor Cordeiro.:eek:

[deputydi]

Aww DD, your brother sounds like a great guy (mine is too). His response was very thorough and easy to understand and yet you're right, now there are more questions.

Just ask him how, on a receipt, HE would identify a watch such as Laci's. How exactly would he write it up, and what would he most likely give for it. I realize it won't necessarily mean that that's what happened w/Renfro's watch, but it'd be interesting to know his take on it.

Thanks :) , he is a pretty great guy. He's 3 yrs younger than me and was an obnoxious pest when we were teenagers. Aren't all little brothers? :rolleyes:

I just sent him another email in which I told him why I'm asking all these questions :o and I did ask about the identification and the loan value. Let's see how long it takes for him to answer me this time.

[Invrdv8]

One who wasn't embarrassed was Victor Cordeiro.:eek:
It got him just what he wanted too. His name mentioned in a trash paper and in a highly publicized case. Do you really believe Scott took him to his own home and if so, where was Laci? I find that part of his "story" very hard to believe. :no: JMO

[Cadillakin]

One who wasn't embarrassed was Victor Cordeiro.:eek:And for sure, I'd bet the big money that Scott was humping that girl that burglarized his house... Her name escapes me and I don't feel like searching for it..

She even threatened to tell....:shrug:

[Cadillakin]

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):And that IS the difference between the groups.. the NG's would never print anything that was unfavorable to their hero or their version of events on a public bulletin board.. The guilties just want the truth..

[Wearing A Halo]

It got him just what he wanted too. His name mentioned in a trash paper and in a highly publicized case. Do you really believe Scott took him to his own home and if so, where was Laci? I find that part of his "story" very hard to believe. :no: JMO

Invrdv8, did you not see the :eek: at the end of my post. :biggrin:

[deputydi]

And that IS the difference between the groups.. the NG's would never print anything that was unfavorable to their hero or their version of events on a public bulletin board.. The guilties just want the truth..
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?

[Wearing A Halo]

Thank you Deputydi for posting your brother's email response. I have searched and have come up empty to any reference to "WITHG" as "WITH GEMS." The only one to actually refer to this "wording" is Jane Hamilton who just happend to right editorials/essays for PWC and SII. I want to know where she got her source; according to her, "the pawn slip (Defense Exhibit N) describes the watch as a gold Croton watch “with G" (with gems.)"

Notice that Jane Hamilton states the pawn slip has lowercase "with" then a space then capital G. JH misleads everyone with this erroneous info. The pawn receipt clearly has all caps "WITHG." and no space. Go figure!

[caphill]

A big so what?!

Does this mean that all pawn shops in California are abiding by the regulations without exception?

Does this mean that all pawn receipts are accurate as to the exact details of the pawned items?

Does this mean that all employees/owners at pawn shops in California are infallible?

I think not...!


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

[Invrdv8]

Invrdv8, did you not see the :eek: at the end of my post. :biggrin:
Does the :eek: mean I can't throw in my two cents and ask a question?:confused:

[adnoid]

And that IS the difference between the groups.. the NG's would never print anything that was unfavorable to their hero or their version of events on a public bulletin board.. The guilties just want the truth..

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.

[deputydi]

Thank you Deputydi for posting your brother's email response. I have searched and have come up empty to any reference to "WITHG" as "WITH GEMS." The only one to actually refer to this "wording" is Jane Hamilton who just happend to right editorials/essays for PWC and SII. I want to know where she got her source; according to her, "the pawn slip (Defense Exhibit N) describes the watch as a gold Croton watch “with G" (with gems.)"

Notice that Jane Hamilton states the pawn slip has lowercase "with" then a space then capital G. JH misleads everyone with this erroneous info. The pawn receipt clearly has all caps "WITHG." and no space. Go figure!
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: