Phone records!

[frydaddy]

Has anyone spent any serious time on the phone records? I was just curious if I am the only one interested in discussing them? I recall making a short mention about them on another thread, but no discussion took place. If no one is interested in analyzing them, it's no problem if this thread tanks. But, I do have a couple questions for both sides of the debate, since they may be able to help fill in the blanks.

1. Marlene has on her site some cell tower information, such as addresses that go with the tower numbers. The log used to translate these numbers into addresses is sealed and I have been unable to find any data on them. Anyone have a clue?

2. Cell switches...does anyone know if the Commerce switch is located near Commerce, California? I'm assuming it is, but we know what happens with that!

3. Has anyone used Intellus before? It's supposedly a membership site that allows one to see the names of people with unlisted numbers. This information would be helpful to decipher the phone records, but I don't want to waste money unless I know I can mine the data that I need.

4. I'll be the first to admit, while I'm savvy on technology, I get lost pretty easily on cell stuff because it seems rather abstract in how it works. For example, figuring out Scott's voice mail on the fraud records is akin to solving a Rubik's cube in the dark. Anyone broke that code?

Any thoughts?

[TopGunner]

Great thread FD! Let's discuss the cell records showing ISP near home at 10:12 AM on the morning of the 24th, when he said he left at 9:30 AM, shall we??? :biggrin:

[frydaddy]

Here's a starter...

On Dec 26th, Scott called an attorney named Robert Louis, at 3:03 p.m. It appears Mr. Louis was a disability attorney? Anyone know anything about this? Was he planning to see if Laci's "disappearance" was an acceptable method of acquiring disability pay while he sorted things out? The call lasted 7:49, in case anyone's interested.

Other attorney calls...

George Arata (Tradecorp atty) - Dec 26 - 3:19 p.m. - 4 min 34 sec
Kirk McAllister - 13:44 - 1/2/2003 - 1 min 21 sec
Kirk McAllister - 16:21 - 1/2/2003 - 7 min 1 sec
Kirk McAllister - 16:52 - 1/3/2003 - 2 min 16 sec
Kirk McAllister - 13:15 - 1/4/2003 - no connect
Kirk McAllister - 12:47 - 1/6/2003 - 2 min 56 sec
Kirk McAllister - 9:36 - 1/7/2007 - 3 min 42 sec
Kirk McAllister - 10:39 - 1/7/2007 - no connect
Kirk McAllister - 10:39 - 1/7/2007 - 0 min 55 sec

Brief calls, but IMO, quite a few for an innocent man!

*Disclaimer* - These are simply calls pulled from the fraud reports, only tracks his cell phone use from 11/29/02--->1/7/03. Who knows what one could find using all phones available to Scott in this period!

[frydaddy]

Great thread FD! Let's discuss the cell records showing ISP near home at 10:12 AM on the morning of the 24th, when he said he left at 9:30 AM, shall we??? :biggrin:

That's a start! But wasn't it 10:08?

[Lavindar]

That's a start! But wasn't it 10:08?

It was 10:08 and picked up by the Brighton Cell tower which was closest to the house. It then was picked up by the cell tower at 10&D (I believe that is the correct address) which would be the next logical tower if scott were going from his home to his work address.

One thing I DID notice looking at Scott cell phoen records. It would appear that he never answered his phone because he calls his own number VERY fre quently and the only reason for that would be to pick up messages.

[Lavindar]

WE can start with these:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/peoples_exhibit_203A.pdf

It still appears that he likes himself best cuz that's the most frequent number he seems to call

[One2Snoop]

Here's some info from crimenews2000 regarding the cell towers. I didn't try any of the links so I don't know if they work.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/what/what4.htm#cell

THE CELL TOWERS

Tenth Street and D Street Location of cell tower that Scott Peterson accessed when checking his voice mail at 10:08 a.m. on December 24, 2002, as he was driving; related web site showing this tower as "Cell Tower #2": http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~40a43f43.4b4b5.18e8.7/c=1/isredir=1/

115 Frances Avenue Location of cell tower discussed during preliminary hearing testimony by Steve Jacobson

929 Woodland Avenue Location of cell tower that serviced Tradecorp Warehouse area; related web site showing this tower as "Cell Tower #3": http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~40a43f43.4b4b5.18e8.7/c=1/isredir=1/

1250 Brighton Avenue Location of cell tower that serviced area of Scott and Laci Peterson's home and which he accessed when checking his voice mail at 10:08 a.m. on December 24, 2002; according to Steve Jacobson, has a radius of 1.42 miles; related web site showing this tower as "Cell Tower #1": http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~40a43f43.4b4b5.18e8.7/c=1/isredir=1/

2600 Tenth Street, Berkeley Location of cell tower that serviced area of Berkeley Marina; accessed by Scott Peterson as he made calls between 2:12 and 2:17 p.m. on December 24, 2002, checking his voice mails and leaving messages at his home and on Laci Peterson's voice mail; according to Steve Jacobson, has a radius of 5.3 miles

4959 South Front Road, Livermore Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call at 3:52 p.m. to his home, presumably from the Chevron station at 4904 South Front Road

6390 Grassland Drive, Castro Valley Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call at 2:45 p.m. to San Diego Crating and Packing—presumably to speak with Lee or Jackie Peterson

9500 Stearns Avenue, Oakland Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call to Greg and Kristen Reed at 2:34 p.m.; according to Steve Jacobson, has a radius of 0.9 miles

20103 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call at 2:40 p.m. to San Diego Crating and Packing—presumably to speak with Lee or Jackie Peterson

Keyes Location of cell tower that, according to August 23, 2004, trial testimony, serviced cellular telephone call placed by Scott Peterson from his front yard

Manteca Location of cell tower that, according to August 23, 2004, trial testimony, serviced cellular telephone call placed by Scott Peterson from his front yard

Newman Location of cell tower that, according to August 23, 2004, trial testimony, serviced cellular telephone call placed by Scott Peterson from his front yard

[frydaddy]

WE can start with these:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/peoples_exhibit_203A.pdf

It still appears that he likes himself best cuz that's the most frequent number he seems to call

LOL - I started with those weeks ago. I've purposely ignored the VM calls and any reference to his cell # because frankly, there's little to gain from them. You are dead on though, it's the most repeated number on those reports. There will likely be nothing "smoking gun-ish" on the records, but I can assure you that there's plenty of new info I wasn't aware of in the fraud logs.

There's a few tidbits I'd call "interesting".

Calls to Karen Servas between 12-24 and 1-6 = 5. Suddenly, they were chums.

The call from 1-6-07 to Kirk McAlliset was from the bay on one of the trips he took. Guess he wanted to inform Kirk whether or not to expect a burgling transient dropping by to request his services.

There's more, but I'm a bit tuckered.

[frydaddy]

Here's some info from crimenews2000 regarding the cell towers. I didn't try any of the links so I don't know if they work.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/what/what4.htm#cell

THE CELL TOWERS

Tenth Street and D Street Location of cell tower that Scott Peterson accessed when checking his voice mail at 10:08 a.m. on December 24, 2002, as he was driving; related web site showing this tower as "Cell Tower #2": http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~40a43f43.4b4b5.18e8.7/c=1/isredir=1/

115 Frances Avenue Location of cell tower discussed during preliminary hearing testimony by Steve Jacobson

929 Woodland Avenue Location of cell tower that serviced Tradecorp Warehouse area; related web site showing this tower as "Cell Tower #3": http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~40a43f43.4b4b5.18e8.7/c=1/isredir=1/

1250 Brighton Avenue Location of cell tower that serviced area of Scott and Laci Peterson's home and which he accessed when checking his voice mail at 10:08 a.m. on December 24, 2002; according to Steve Jacobson, has a radius of 1.42 miles; related web site showing this tower as "Cell Tower #1": http://mapsonus.switchboard.com/bin/maps-maponly/usr=~40a43f43.4b4b5.18e8.7/c=1/isredir=1/

2600 Tenth Street, Berkeley Location of cell tower that serviced area of Berkeley Marina; accessed by Scott Peterson as he made calls between 2:12 and 2:17 p.m. on December 24, 2002, checking his voice mails and leaving messages at his home and on Laci Peterson's voice mail; according to Steve Jacobson, has a radius of 5.3 miles

4959 South Front Road, Livermore Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call at 3:52 p.m. to his home, presumably from the Chevron station at 4904 South Front Road

6390 Grassland Drive, Castro Valley Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call at 2:45 p.m. to San Diego Crating and Packing—presumably to speak with Lee or Jackie Peterson

9500 Stearns Avenue, Oakland Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call to Greg and Kristen Reed at 2:34 p.m.; according to Steve Jacobson, has a radius of 0.9 miles

20103 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley Location of cell tower that serviced area that Scott Peterson passed through on his way back from the Berkeley Marina on December 24, 2002, and which he used to make a call at 2:40 p.m. to San Diego Crating and Packing—presumably to speak with Lee or Jackie Peterson

Keyes Location of cell tower that, according to August 23, 2004, trial testimony, serviced cellular telephone call placed by Scott Peterson from his front yard

Manteca Location of cell tower that, according to August 23, 2004, trial testimony, serviced cellular telephone call placed by Scott Peterson from his front yard

Newman Location of cell tower that, according to August 23, 2004, trial testimony, serviced cellular telephone call placed by Scott Peterson from his front yard

Thanks for this Snoopy! I never turn down information that may assist. Unfortunately, the four digit code listed on the fraud records is the key for me. If I only had the two sealed exhibits, I'd have me something! I could tell where Scott was virtually anytime through December and early January. Anyone know where and when he picked up the boat?

Appreciate the info! ;)

[Lavindar]

Thanks for this Snoopy! I never turn down information that may assist. Unfortunately, the four digit code listed on the fraud records is the key for me. If I only had the two sealed exhibits, I'd have me something! I could tell where Scott was virtually anytime through December and early January. Anyone know where and when he picked up the boat?

Appreciate the info! ;)


I am pretty sure it was the 9th that he picked it up. I'll go check testimony for you - Bruce Peterson lives on the east side of Modesto - over by Rumble and Oakdale.

DISTASO: Okay. So you got a call on Saturday, December the 7th, and when, did you set up a meeting for Mr. Peterson to come over and buy your boat?

PETERSON: Yeah. We agreed, well, he wanted to come over and look at the boat first. And he came over Sunday morning, the next day.

DISTASO: Okay. That was on the 8th? Scott picked it up on the 9th. Bruce Peterson lives over by Oakdale and Rumble near Naraghi Lake. That is N of the Peterson resident and a little East

[Cadillakin]

LOL - I started with those weeks ago. I've purposely ignored the VM calls and any reference to his cell # because frankly, there's little to gain from them. You are dead on though, it's the most repeated number on those reports. There will likely be nothing "smoking gun-ish" on the records, but I can assure you that there's plenty of new info I wasn't aware of in the fraud logs.

There's a few tidbits I'd call "interesting".

Calls to Karen Servas between 12-24 and 1-6 = 5. Suddenly, they were chums.

The call from 1-6-07 to Kirk McAlliset was from the bay on one of the trips he took. Guess he wanted to inform Kirk whether or not to expect a burgling transient dropping by to request his services.

There's more, but I'm a bit tuckered.Good post. I've refrained from doing any studying.. it's tedious.. but I'll be interested in your further postings.

[frydaddy]

Last two phone calls on 12-6-02 were to Shawn. IIRC, these two calls were the confrontation about Scott being married and the discussion of Amber being told such.

Of the first five non-voice mail calls on 12-7-02, the first was to an unknown (so far) Nextel in Salinas, the remaining next four calls were to phone numbers contained in the boat ads found on Scott's computer, from a search run that morning. One of those was Bruce Peterson.

Odd that this boat became the first priority Scott dealt with after the exposure of his being married.

[TopGunner]

It was 10:08 and picked up by the Brighton Cell tower which was closest to the house. It then was picked up by the cell tower at 10&D (I believe that is the correct address) which would be the next logical tower if scott were going from his home to his work address.

One thing I DID notice looking at Scott cell phone records. It would appear that he never answered his phone because he calls his own number VERY fre quently and the only reason for that would be to pick up messages.

Opps guys, sorry on the 2 extra minutes I gave him. I was just tryin' to cut him some slack, LOL!!!!!:chicken:

[frydaddy]

I asked previously about the Commerce switch and whether it was actually in Commerce, CA (near LA). I believe it is, based on the pattern of the phone switches on the fraud records. So, a quiz...

Based on the phone switch info on the fraud records for Dec 9 (late) & 10 (early), what can one conclude regarding Mrs. Medina's trial testimony?

[frydaddy]

Opps guys, sorry on the 2 extra minutes I gave him. I was just tryin' to cut him some slack, LOL!!!!!:chicken:

:no: We don't cut murderers slack TG, only the pee-poor witnesses for his defense team!

[Lavindar]

I asked previously about the Commerce switch and whether it was actually in Commerce, CA (near LA). I believe it is, based on the pattern of the phone switches on the fraud records. So, a quiz...

Based on the phone switch info on the fraud records for Dec 9 (late) & 10 (early), what can one conclude regarding Mrs. Medina's trial testimony?


This is a trick question, right?

[Cadillakin]

I asked previously about the Commerce switch and whether it was actually in Commerce, CA (near LA). I believe it is, based on the pattern of the phone switches on the fraud records. So, a quiz...

Based on the phone switch info on the fraud records for Dec 9 (late) & 10 (early), what can one conclude regarding Mrs. Medina's trial testimony?Would somebody explain this to me. I thought Medina's testimony was only significant on the 23rd and 24th...

What does the 9th and 10th have to do with her?

[frydaddy]

This is a trick question, right?

Nope...what did Susan Medina say happened in the morning on Dec 10th? Where was Scott, according to the phone records?

[frydaddy]

Would somebody explain this to me. I thought Medina's testimony was only significant on the 23rd and 24th...

What does the 9th and 10th have to do with her?

It's about her credibility as a witness to anything, mainly the burglary info, for me.

[One2Snoop]

Nope...what did Susan Medina say happened in the morning on Dec 10th? Where was Scott, according to the phone records?

I'm confused. (nothing new LOL ) On the 10th there are phone records indicating where Scott was and Medina said something about it? :confused:

[Lavindar]

It's about her credibility as a witness to anything, mainly the burglary info, for me.

Was that the morning that she had the flat tire and scott helped her?



I win! I win!


HARRIS: December 10th right before 2002 before Laci disappeared, is that what you recall? Let me phrase it a different way. You had a, you ended up having a conversation with Scott Peterson after a day that you had a flat tire; is that true?

MEDINA: On the day that I had the flat tire.

HARRIS: Yeah. Could you tell us a little bit about what happened that day?

MEDINA: It was about 7:40, 7:45 in the morning. I was in my driveway. I noticed my rear, rear passenger tire, the one at the back,

HARRIS: Hm-hmm.

MEDINA: appears to be flat.

HARRIS: Okay. And then what happened after that?

MEDINA: I called my husband to let him know I may have a flat tire.

HARRIS: And did Scott Peterson come out of his house about that time?

MEDINA: He was in his driveway close to his pickup truck.

HARRIS: And what did he do?

MEDINA: He came to my driveway and asked me if I'm okay.

HARRIS: And what did you tell him?

MEDINA: And I told him that I think I have a flat tire.

HARRIS: Did he offer to do something at that point?

MEDINA: Yes, he did.

HARRIS: And what was that?

MEDINA: He offered to take me to a gas station to, so he could put gas, I mean, I'm sorry, he could put air into the tire.

HARRIS: Hm-hmm. And is that what you ended up doing?

MEDINA: No.

HARRIS: What did you end up actually doing?

MEDINA: He ended up giving me a ride to the appointment that I needed to make at 8:00 o'clock that morning.

HARRIS: And this was the first time you'd ever had any kind of a lengthy conversation with Scott?

MEDINA: Correct.

[Cadillakin]

I'm confused. (nothing new LOL ) On the 10th there are phone records indicating where Scott was and Medina said something about it? :confused:Yeah, I think that's when Medina claimed Scott changed her tire... and gave her a ride...

I've got other reasons to question the accuracy of her memory.

[One2Snoop]

Yeah, I think that's when Medina claimed Scott changed her tire... and gave her a ride...

I've got other reasons to question the accuracy of her memory.

I thought that was December 5th? :shrug:

[One2Snoop]

From CrimeNews2000 site....

December 5 Susan Medina notices the right rear tire on her Mercedes is dangerously low. Scott Peterson sees her circling her car and offers her a ride to an appointment. While on the way, he changes a business date by phone so he can go with Laci Peterson to an appointment, assumed by Susan Medina to be a checkup with Laci Peterson's obstetrician. Scott Peterson and Amber Frey speak by phone.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0201.htm

[Cadillakin]

I thought that was December 5th? :shrug:


Pat Harris: Okay. You never had really a lengthy conversation with either Scott or Laci before I believe was December 10th, is that your recollection?
Susan Medina: Yes.
Pat Harris: December 10th right before 2002 before Laci disappeared, is that what you recall? Let me phrase it a different way. You had a, you ended up having a conversation with Scott Peterson after a day that you had a flat tire; is that true?
Susan Medina: On the day that I had the flat tire.

[Lavindar]

[I] figured it out. Scott's cell phone records show him in the Los Angeles vicinity, nowhere near Covena or Modesto that morning when he was allegedly helping Susan Medina. Verrrrrrrrrrry interesting fry --and an EXCELLENT catch.

Unless Scott was driving an F18, he couldn't help her at 8am and be in the vicinity of LA in 2 hours - not even if he flew down.

[Cadillakin]

I don't know.. 5th or 10th.. doesn't really matter to me. Also, the testimony I quoted is a little convoluted and unclear..

[One2Snoop]

[I] figured it out. Scott's cell phone records show him in the Los Angeles vicinity, nowhere near Covena or Modesto that morning when he was allegedly helping Susan Medina. Verrrrrrrrrrry interesting fry --and an EXCELLENT catch.

Could she have been mistaken about the date? Maybe it was the 5th and not the 10th? According to the CN2000 site ( I know its not the bible LOL) it was the same day Laci had a doctor's appt. :shrug:

[Cadillakin]

Could she have been mistaken about the date? Yes............

[Lavindar]

Could she have been mistaken about the date? Maybe it was the 5th and not the 10th? According to the CN2000 site ( I know its not the bible LOL) it was the same day Laci had a doctor's appt. :shrug: It couldn't have been the same day as Laci's doc appt on the 23rd. So are you assuming it was the day of her Nov apptz?

Oh, love this part by Medina:

HARRIS: Does your job require a lot of notetaking?

MEDINA: Yes.

HARRIS: A lot of recordkeeping?

MEDINA: Yes.

So she is an excellent record keeper. She would know what day she had an appt with someone or not.

[Lavindar]

I do NOT believe she got the date wrong. She talks about being a trained record keeper for one thing. Another thing is that the 10th was a Tuesday and surely she would have written down an appointment. Since she basically works out of her home, she would know the days she had to go out for appointments. I think she was lying. I think she was so eager to paint Scott in a good light and I'm sure that colored her judgment in many ways.

[One2Snoop]

It couldn't have been the same day as Laci's doc appt on the 23rd. So are you assuming it was the day of her Nov apptz?

Oh, love this part by Medina:

HARRIS: Does your job require a lot of notetaking?

MEDINA: Yes.

HARRIS: A lot of recordkeeping?

MEDINA: Yes.

So she is an excellent record keeper. She would know what day she had an appt with someone or not.

I don't know. I was just trying to figure out which date is correct. I was going by what was posted below by CN2000 - so this info must be wrong? It also says Susan assumed it was a doctor's appt - sorry I didn't make that clear. My bad. :o

So Scott was in LA on the 10th?


December 5 Susan Medina notices the right rear tire on her Mercedes is dangerously low. Scott Peterson sees her circling her car and offers her a ride to an appointment. While on the way, he changes a business date by phone so he can go with Laci Peterson to an appointment, assumed by Susan Medina to be a checkup with Laci Peterson's obstetrician. Scott Peterson and Amber Frey speak by phone.

[Lavindar]

On the 5th he doesn't make a phone call until 10:30 and it's to his voice mail. Laci was seen in November and on the 23rd of Dec by her medical records. So I think you can toss out the 5th as the day Scott helped Susan with her flat tire.

[frydaddy]

[I] figured it out. Scott's cell phone records show him in the Los Angeles vicinity, nowhere near Covena or Modesto that morning when he was allegedly helping Susan Medina. Verrrrrrrrrrry interesting fry --and an EXCELLENT catch.

Unless Scott was driving an F18, he couldn't help her at 8am and be in the vicinity of LA in 2 hours - not even if he flew down.

Like I said, nothing earth shattering in the records, at this point anyway. If one had the Cell Tower Location charts that are sealed, as well as the means to find out who owns the unlisted numbers on Scott's phone log, perhaps we could get even more CE that corroborates Scott's guilt.

Truth is though, after reviewing them, I am even more convinced that he's guilty, just by the pattern of his phone use.

[frydaddy]

On the 5th he doesn't make a phone call until 10:30 and it's to his voice mail. Laci was seen in November and on the 23rd of Dec by her medical records. So I think you can toss out the 5th as the day Scott helped Susan with her flat tire.

Actually, keep in mind that the fraud records are in Eastern time, so his first call to voice mail was 7:30 a.m. His significant calls that morning between 7:50 and 9:30...

559-859-0157 Rob 7:50 12/5/2002
559-859-0157 Rob 7:52 12/5/2002
Incoming n/a 7:54 12/5/2002
Incoming n/a 7:58 12/5/2002
559-859-0157 Rob 7:59 12/5/2002
Incoming n/a 8:04 12/5/2002
559-281-8324 Amber 9:32 12/5/2002
559-281-8324 Amber 9:32 12/5/2002

ETA - What's with the code on this board, my list doesn't look like I posted it!

[Lavindar]

Like I said, nothing earth shattering in the records, at this point anyway. If one had the Cell Tower Location charts that are sealed, as well as the means to find out who owns the unlisted numbers on Scott's phone log, perhaps we could get even more CE that corroborates Scott's guilt.

Truth is though, after reviewing them, I am even more convinced that he's guilty, just by the pattern of his phone use.


Just an aside here, but Bart Corbin was unable to stay off his cell phone also, and his cell phone records convicted him.

[frydaddy]

I don't know. I was just trying to figure out which date is correct. I was going by what was posted below by CN2000 - so this info must be wrong? It also says Susan assumed it was a doctor's appt - sorry I didn't make that clear. My bad. :o

So Scott was in LA on the 10th?


December 5 Susan Medina notices the right rear tire on her Mercedes is dangerously low. Scott Peterson sees her circling her car and offers her a ride to an appointment. While on the way, he changes a business date by phone so he can go with Laci Peterson to an appointment, assumed by Susan Medina to be a checkup with Laci Peterson's obstetrician. Scott Peterson and Amber Frey speak by phone.

Could have been another day, that is possible. Point is, she was wrong in testimony. Makes me wonder if she was accurate about details of the burglary AND whether advocates will add her to the tar Brocchini and Kemple list?

[Lavindar]

Actually, keep in mind that the fraud records are in Eastern time, so his first call to voice mail was 7:30 a.m. His significant calls that morning between 7:50 and 9:30...

559-859-0157 Rob 7:50 12/5/2002
559-859-0157 Rob 7:52 12/5/2002
Incoming n/a 7:54 12/5/2002
Incoming n/a 7:58 12/5/2002
559-859-0157 Rob 7:59 12/5/2002
Incoming n/a 8:04 12/5/2002
559-281-8324 Amber 9:32 12/5/2002
559-281-8324 Amber 9:32 12/5/2002

ETA - What's with the code on this board, my list doesn't look like I posted it!

Refresh my memory. Who is Rob?

[TopGunner]

Could have been another day, that is possible. Point is, she was wrong in testimony. Makes me wonder if she was accurate about details of the burglary AND whether advocates will add her to the tar Brocchini and Kemple list?

WHOA!

FD, as always, excellent catch, YOU ROCK!!! :patriot:

[Cadillakin]

Refresh my memory. Who is Rob?Scott's employee

[I'mSun]

Could have been another day, that is possible. Point is, she was wrong in testimony. Makes me wonder if she was accurate about details of the burglary AND whether advocates will add her to the tar Brocchini and Kemple list?Your detective skills are awesome, frydaddy! :beer:

[Lavindar]

Scott's employee


Suh, I'd forgotten about Weaver. I was thinking of Olsen. Still I fail to see how a call to his employee would sound like his changing an appt with Laci's Ob/Gyn.

And Medina made a huge issue about record keeping (along with her cross examination by Pat Harris) - how she was trained to keep good records, etc. Made her sound like a documentation wizard or something. Certainly not like someone who would mix up dates like that. She also said that she told her husband about the flat - why not make him help her. Why chose a neighbor that you hardly know to take you to an appointment, rather than your own husband? More fishy stories

[Cadillakin]

For myself, I never believed Medina's testimony about seeing the vehicles in front of the Peterson home. I posted on this subject many times at WS.

It was an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT TO ME.. as I believed that there was good evidence that Scott was out and about on the night of the 23rd. There was one really very credible man (interviewed on TV - if you saw him, you would have believed him) who saw Scott early in the AM (about 7am or just before) Also, there was a trucker who was rumored to have seen Scott and followed him in the night.. and identified the exact type of boat Scott was pulling (Gamefisher). In addition, the burglars were rumored to be in that area of the Peterson home and may have been casing the neighborhood for the burglary they would do the very next night.. They may have seen Scott leave the house. One of the burglars WAS CONFIRMED on the witness list for the prosecutors.

Regarding Medina's sighting.. it's inconceivable to me that one would actually be conscious of the neighbors cars in the middle of the night, (4:59am) without something happening that drew ones attention to them. Further, though she claimed there were two vehicles in the Peterson driveway at 5am, she could not or would not identify one of them as Scott's truck. How can one see and be conscious of something, and not be able to identify it as either a truck or car? She also couldn't say if it was parked nose-in or nose-out.

Read the transcripts with Medina. Scott's attorney really pressed Medina hard to say she saw his truck in the driveway at 5am. 3 times he asked her to say "SCOTT'S TRUCK." But Medina would not concede.. She just said, "two vehicles". IMO, at that point in the trial, the defense didn't really know where the prosecutors were going to go.. how they were going to place Scott at the site.. which route they were going to take in the prosecution, so Atty Harris (Geragos assistant) was working diligently to get Scott an alibi for that early morning.. thus negating somewhat the eyewitness testimony of the man who reportedly saw Scott around 6am and making two trips seem unlikely. Distaso, IMO, eventually decided to forgo the confusion of explaining the two trips and just went with Scotts parking ticket and the cell towers placing him in that area. But there is absolutely no question in my mind that Scott's attorney Harris was working hard to get Scott an alibi for 5am on the 24th of Dec, 2002. Read it yourself.

[frydaddy]

Your detective skills are awesome, frydaddy! :beer:


I am humbled by the compliments from you and TG. I appreciate all the good people and their comments, we make a pretty good team! ;)

It's been a goal of mine to sift through these records, to see what nuggets were hiding there. Considering we only have half info and I can only spend a few minutes a day on it, one can only guess at what info could be found by a real investigator with complete data. Might even be able to convict Scott again! LMAO!!!

[frydaddy]

For myself, I never believed Medina's testimony about seeing the vehicles in front of the Peterson home. I posted on this subject many times at WS.

It was an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT TO ME.. as I believed that there was good evidence that Scott was out and about on the night of the 23rd. There was one really very credible man (interviewed on TV - if you saw him, you would have believed him) who saw Scott early in the AM (about 7am or just before) Also, there was a trucker who was rumored to have seen Scott and followed him in the night.. and identified the exact type of boat Scott was pulling (Gamefisher). In addition, the burglars were rumored to be in that area of the Peterson home and may have been casing the neighborhood for the burglary they would do the very next night.. They may have seen Scott leave the house. One of the burglars WAS CONFIRMED on the witness list for the prosecutors.

Regarding Medina's sighting.. it's inconceivable to me that one would actually be conscious of the neighbors cars in the middle of the night, (4:59am) without something happening that drew ones attention to them. Further, though she claimed there were two vehicles in the Peterson driveway at 5am, she could not or would not identify one of them as Scott's truck. How can one see and be conscious of something, and not be able to identify it as either a truck or car? She also couldn't say if it was parked nose-in or nose-out.

Read the transcripts with Medina. Scott's attorney really pressed Medina hard to say she saw his truck in the driveway at 5am. 3 times he asked her to say "SCOTT'S TRUCK." But Medina would not concede.. She just said, "two vehicles". IMO, at that point in the trial, the defense didn't really know where the prosecutors were going to go.. how they were going to place Scott at the site.. which route they were going to take in the prosecution, so Atty Harris (Geragos assistant) was working diligently to get Scott an alibi for that early morning.. thus negating somewhat the eyewitness testimony of the man who reportedly saw Scott around 6am and making two trips seem unlikely. Distaso, IMO, eventually decided to forgo the confusion of explaining the two trips and just went with Scotts parking ticket and the cell towers placing him in that area. But there is absolutely no question in my mind that Scott's attorney Harris was working hard to get Scott an alibi for 5am on the 24th of Dec, 2002. Read it yourself.

I've seen elements of this post in discussion before and I can't disagree with it. Nice work!

[thinkaboutit]

The thought process here is really amazing.

You don't realize it....but this only strengthens the NG argument that a persons memory is fallible. Yet your willing to discount Laci actually having time to go for a walk based on one person's memory of that morning. Karen Servas - a person who contradicted herself more than once about the events of that morning. But...you argue - she had receipts with time stamps. One time stamped receipt from Austins does NOT prove that she made that cell phone call after she came out of Austin's. Where's her Starbuck's receipt? Where is her Bank of America receipt? Where is her car wash receipt? Where is her grocery market receipt? You all think it's possible that Susan Medina would lie for Scott because she thought he was innocent - yet you refuse to consider that Servas' memory of events might change a bit because she was convinced that he was guilty?

But Medina says the 10th - and some of you accuse her of lying - don't consider that she could be mistaken about the day - based on the fact that her job requires her to keep good records?

So were Sharon and Ron lying when they said the last time they saw Laci was on December 15th? Because Sharon said it was the 15th - and Ron testified it was the 15th - but he also testified that it was to watch the final episode of the Sopranos. The final episode of the Sopranos didn't air on the 15th.

DISTASO: And do you remember on the 15th of December of 2002 what you were fishing for, what kind of fish?

GRANTSKI: There's, it's black bass. There's catfish and perch in there, but I was fishing for black bass.

>>>>>>>

DISTASO: Okay. And later that night did you go over to Laci's house for dinner?

GRANTSKI: Yeah. That was the plan. The way it worked was it was the last episode of Sopranos and I was complaining because it comes on on cable at 9:00 o'clock, and Scott and Laci had satellite, and Laci said Well, we get it at 6:00, why don't you come over for dinner and we'll watch the last episode. So that's what we did.



Google "final episode of Sopranos aired on" - and you'll find the date. The date wasn't different from coast to coast - same day everywhere - and it wasn't the 15th.

What part of Susan Medina's testimony regarding the burglary helps Scott?

[TopGunner]

:no: We don't cut murderers slack TG, only the pee-poor witnesses for his defense team!

OK FD, no slack for the murderer, LOL!!!

He told everyone he left the house around 9:30. The pie was on MS around 9:50. Cell records at 10:08. McKenzie found less than 15 minutes later.

Amazing....truly amazing. That window of time is so small, a gnat couldn't fit through it.

The phone records nailed him as much as the bodies washing up right where he put himself. IMO of course! :patriot:

[Cadillakin]

The thought process here is really amazing. You don't realize it....but this only strengthens the NG argument that a persons memory is fallible. Yet your willing to discount Laci actually having time to go for a walk based on one person's memory of that morning. Karen Servas - a person who contradicted herself more than once about the events of that morning. But...you argue - she had receipts with time stamps. One time stamped receipt from Austins does NOT prove that she made that cell phone call after she came out of Austin's. Where's her Starbuck's receipt? Where is her Bank of America receipt? Where is her car wash receipt? Where is her grocery market receipt? You all think it's possible that Susan Medina would lie for Scott because she thought he was innocent - yet you refuse to consider that Servas' memory of events might change a bit because she was convinced that he was guilty?
Sure, that's possible.. and it's also possible that aliens abducted Laci and framed Scott... or that the brown van people did it.. or that it was the Satanists... etc...

It's fine to throw out all these things - that Servas might have been lying, etc.. but a trial and verdict must be based on the facts entered into evidence.. It's not about the meanderings of people like me or yourself posting on bulletin boards. Servas was questioned and re-questioned, examined and cross-examined. The jury heard all the arguments that you are proposing.. that she was undependable, mistaken, etc.. Maybe a couple of the jurors actually believe what you are suggesting. I doubt it, but it's possible. Nevertheless, the trial is over, any doubts the jurors might have had about Servas, Medina, Grantski, or anybody else have been laid to rest. The verdict was rendered. Scott Peterson was found guilty of the murder of his wife and son.

Perhaps what you should do is forward all those - what you think are relevant questions about Servas and Medina to the appeals lawyers. Maybe they can help you advance your ideas that Scott is innocent and everybody else is lying...

But for the rest of us.. We think the police and prosecutors got the right guy... and that the jury verdict was correct and justified. We are pretty sure of that..and most of us are satisfied that justice was served for Laci and Conner.

[enlightenme]

The thought process here is really amazing.

You don't realize it....but this only strengthens the NG argument that a persons memory is fallible. Yet your willing to discount Laci actually having time to go for a walk based on one person's memory of that morning. Karen Servas - a person who contradicted herself more than once about the events of that morning. But...you argue - she had receipts with time stamps. One time stamped receipt from Austins does NOT prove that she made that cell phone call after she came out of Austin's. Where's her Starbuck's receipt? Where is her Bank of America receipt? Where is her car wash receipt? Where is her grocery market receipt? You all think it's possible that Susan Medina would lie for Scott because she thought he was innocent - yet you refuse to consider that Servas' memory of events might change a bit because she was convinced that he was guilty?

But Medina says the 10th - and some of you accuse her of lying - don't consider that she could be mistaken about the day - based on the fact that her job requires her to keep good records?

So were Sharon and Ron lying when they said the last time they saw Laci was on December 15th? Because Sharon said it was the 15th - and Ron testified it was the 15th - but he also testified that it was to watch the final episode of the Sopranos. The final episode of the Sopranos didn't air on the 15th.



Google "final episode of Sopranos aired on" - and you'll find the date. The date wasn't different from coast to coast - same day everywhere - and it wasn't the 15th.

What part of Susan Medina's testimony regarding the burglary helps Scott?

Maybe Karen didn't save ALL of her receipts. The only receipt that matters is the Austin's receipt because that is where she went first. She also did a reinactment of how long it would have taken her to get there.

The jury seemed to find Mrs. Servas a credible witness. So will the next jury, IF there ever is one, which I really, really doubt.

[deputydi]

The thought process here is really amazing.
<snip>

Not really. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse her of "lying". People can and frequently ARE mistaken on details. That, I believe, is only human. For instance, when Scott said he left the house at 9:30 that morning and it was proven he couldn't have left until after 10, I wouldn't have thought much about it. I don't think all the Laci sighters were lying. I do think most of them were mistaken (there is a difference). IMO, that's why they weren't called to testify for the defense. When they were questioned by the defense investigator, it probably quickly became apparent there were too many discrepancies and their claims would be torn apart by the pros on cross.

Karen Servas didn't lie when she got the time slightly wrong (remember, she wasn't off by much), she cared enough about getting it right that she searched for and found a receipt then she verified her time by retracing her steps. She could have still been wrong by 1 or 2 minutes, but is that enough of a difference to call her a liar?

Whether Sharon and Ron saw Laci for the last time on the 15th or the 8th is in no way a material fact. I don't know what date the final episode of The Sopranos was televised that season. I googled it and it said Dec 8. Was it preempted that night and shown the following week? I don't know and it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Being mistaken doesn't make one a liar. It could have been shown on the 8th and that's what he was remembering. That doesn't mean Sharon and Ron DIDN'T visit Laci and Scott again on the 15th.

Believe me --- if Scott had deliberately lied to LE about the affair and that was the only suspicious thing he did, I would be on your side of the fence.

[Miss Bootsie]

So were Sharon and Ron lying when they said the last time they saw Laci was on December 15th? Because Sharon said it was the 15th - and Ron testified it was the 15th - but he also testified that it was to watch the final episode of the Sopranos. The final episode of the Sopranos didn't air on the 15th.
Would you care to elaborate on why Sharon and Ron would lie about the date they last saw Laci?



Google "final episode of Sopranos aired on" - and you'll find the date. The date wasn't different from coast to coast - same day everywhere - and it wasn't the 15th.



If I recall correctly, the last 2002 episode of the Sopranos aired on Sunday,Dec. 08.
Ron referenced Dec. 15th., which was also on Sunday, as being the date they watched the final episode of the Sopranos.
December 08th and 15th both fell on Sunday.
What does this tell you?

[Cadillakin]

Believe me --- if Scott had deliberately lied to LE about the affair and that was the only suspicious thing he did, I would be on your side of the fence.Right.. but the affair is irrelevant to many of his guilty actions. For instance; If I knew nothing else about the investigation, only that Scott was renting cars and sneaking around the burial site, BEFORE IT WAS KNOWN TO BE THE BURIAL SITE, I would realize his guilt..

There are some things innocent people simply DO NOT DO, and that is one of them.

[deputydi]

Right.. but the affair is irrelevant to many of his guilty actions. For instance; If I knew nothing else about the investigation, only that Scott was renting cars and sneaking around the burial site, BEFORE IT WAS KNOWN TO BE THE BURIAL SITE, I would realize his guilt..

There are some things innocent people simply DO NOT DO, and that is one of them.
Exactly! That is my point. Maybe an innocent man wouldn't want his in laws and his own family to know he had been having an affair, so it's believable that he would lie to cover it up. Maybe it's even believable that he would lie to the girlfriend because he was worried about her becoming "a woman scorned" and making the affair public. If that was the ONLY lapse of judgment he had, it wouldn't have meant a whole lot to me (except that it proved what a total sleaze he was as a husband). It was the other stuff that started adding up that just didn't sit right and made the affair more important and made the rest of his actions look more suspicious. Then the bodies came ashore and . . . .

[frydaddy]

The thought process here is really amazing.

You don't realize it....but this only strengthens the NG argument that a persons memory is fallible. Yet your willing to discount Laci actually having time to go for a walk based on one person's memory of that morning. Karen Servas - a person who contradicted herself more than once about the events of that morning. But...you argue - she had receipts with time stamps. One time stamped receipt from Austins does NOT prove that she made that cell phone call after she came out of Austin's. Where's her Starbuck's receipt? Where is her Bank of America receipt? Where is her car wash receipt? Where is her grocery market receipt? You all think it's possible that Susan Medina would lie for Scott because she thought he was innocent - yet you refuse to consider that Servas' memory of events might change a bit because she was convinced that he was guilty?

But Medina says the 10th - and some of you accuse her of lying - don't consider that she could be mistaken about the day - based on the fact that her job requires her to keep good records?

So were Sharon and Ron lying when they said the last time they saw Laci was on December 15th? Because Sharon said it was the 15th - and Ron testified it was the 15th - but he also testified that it was to watch the final episode of the Sopranos. The final episode of the Sopranos didn't air on the 15th.



Google "final episode of Sopranos aired on" - and you'll find the date. The date wasn't different from coast to coast - same day everywhere - and it wasn't the 15th.

What part of Susan Medina's testimony regarding the burglary helps Scott?

Out of Susan Medina, Karen Servas, Ron Grantski, Sharon Rocha, a hundred uncalled witnesses who thought they saw Laci, and Scott, who has been been proven the biggest liar? Who had the most to gain by lying? Which one do you have the most undying support and affection for? I agree, truly amazing thought processes here! :rolleyes:

[Lavindar]

I've seen elements of this post in discussion before and I can't disagree with it. Nice work!



I find it fascinating that Susan Medina from her house could see two vehicles in the Peterson driveway in the dark. Her house was NOT across the street from the Peterson house, but across the street from Karen Servas's house. Medina was one house south of the Peterson's and their driveway was on the NORTH side of their residence.

[thinkaboutit]

Out of Susan Medina, Karen Servas, Ron Grantski, Sharon Rocha, a hundred uncalled witnesses who thought they saw Laci, and Scott, who has been been proven the biggest liar? Who had the most to gain by lying? Which one do you have the most undying support and affection for? I agree, truly amazing thought processes here! :rolleyes:


What do Scott's lies have to do with you and others on this board suggesting Susan Medina was lying?

For the record - I never said Karen Servas lied.

And read back at all the G posts after mine. They support my point - which was... according to the G's....Susan Medina gets it wrong and you think she's lying to help Scott. Scott gets it wrong and he's lying. Karen Servas gets it wrong and she's mistaken. Ron and Sharon get it wrong and their mistaken. See a pattern here?

The human memory is fallible. I think they all may have been mistaken.

[thinkaboutit]

Sure, that's possible.. and it's also possible that aliens abducted Laci and framed Scott... or that the brown van people did it.. or that it was the Satanists... etc...

It's fine to throw out all these things - that Servas might have been lying, etc.. but a trial and verdict must be based on the facts entered into evidence.. It's not about the meanderings of people like me or yourself posting on bulletin boards. Servas was questioned and re-questioned, examined and cross-examined. The jury heard all the arguments that you are proposing.. that she was undependable, mistaken, etc.. Maybe a couple of the jurors actually believe what you are suggesting. I doubt it, but it's possible. Nevertheless, the trial is over, any doubts the jurors might have had about Servas, Medina, Grantski, or anybody else have been laid to rest. The verdict was rendered. Scott Peterson was found guilty of the murder of his wife and son.

Perhaps what you should do is forward all those - what you think are relevant questions about Servas and Medina to the appeals lawyers. Maybe they can help you advance your ideas that Scott is innocent and everybody else is lying...

But for the rest of us.. We think the police and prosecutors got the right guy... and that the jury verdict was correct and justified. We are pretty sure of that..and most of us are satisfied that justice was served for Laci and Conner.

So Karen Servas being mistaken is as possible as aliens abducting Laci? :confused: :shrug:

So it's okay for the G's to discuss that Susan Medina could have been lying for Scott - but when I come to her defense - and point out the hypocrisy of saying Susan Medina lied but Karen Servas was mistaken - you tell me that there is no point in discussing any of this because the verdict is done - it's over. Excuse me....then why are we all here?? Including you?

[TopGunner]

I find it fascinating that Susan Medina from her house could see two vehicles in the Peterson driveway in the dark. Her house was NOT across the street from the Peterson house, but across the street from Karen Servas's house. Medina was one house south of the Peterson's and their driveway was on the NORTH side of their residence.

Lavindar, we are very fortunate that you (and a few others) know the area so well. I wonder why Medina would say she saw two vehicles in the driveway when she couldn't even SEE the driveway? :shrug: Then again, this explains why she refused to identify ISP truck.:D

[Cadillakin]

So Karen Servas being mistaken is as possible as aliens abducting Laci? :confused: :shrug:

So it's okay for the G's to discuss that Susan Medina could have been lying for Scott - but when I come to her defense - and point out the hypocrisy of saying Susan Medina lied but Karen Servas was mistaken - you tell me that there is no point in discussing any of this because the verdict is done - it's over. Excuse me....then why are we all here?? Including you?I never suggested that Servas was lying, only that Geragos theories (the brown van, Satanists, Donnie, the homeless, and others...) about what might have happened to Laci were ridiculous. Servas loved Scott and Laci, and said so.. so the suggestion that she might somehow taint her testimony to help with a conviction is nonsense. Nor, do I think she would lie to circumvent justice, or to somehow help Scott. Medina, insofar as the cars were concerned, I think was mistaken. So, don't be quoting my posts, and suggesting that I said she or Servas lied to somehow help or hinder the prosecution of Scott. You are just twisting the truth.. I said I thought Medina was trying to be helpful and injected herself a little too much.

I used to come to these boards before the verdicts because I feared that the purposeful lies and utter nonsense told by those that supported Scott might have some effect. I feared that a jury of 12 might be susceptible to the same lies and nonsense the NG's and Geragos was bandying about. Thank God.. they weren't. They were reasonable and saw easily the obvious guilt of Scott Peterson. Now I come here to chat with my friends, and to make fun of some of the NG positions... to refute the poor logic and grasp of the facts that the NG's embrace. I no longer worry that the jury or the public will be fooled. That part is over. I'm here to gather socially with others whom I like and respect.

[Miss Bootsie]

What do Scott's lies have to do with you and others on this board suggesting Susan Medina was lying?

For the record - I never said Karen Servas lied.

And read back at all the G posts after mine. They support my point - which was... according to the G's....Susan Medina gets it wrong and you think she's lying to help Scott. Scott gets it wrong and he's lying. Karen Servas gets it wrong and she's mistaken. Ron and Sharon get it wrong and their mistaken. See a pattern here?

The human memory is fallible. I think they all may have been mistaken.

Karen Servas provided an explanation and proof of why she was mistaken.

You have failed to provide proof Sharon and Ron were mistaken.
Please provide proof there was not a re-run of the "Sopranos season finale/2002" on Dec. 15th?

[adnoid]

Please provide proof there was not a re-run of the "Sopranos season finale/2002" on Dec. 15th?

Or that they recorded it and watched it later. TIVO anyone?

[deputydi]

What do Scott's lies have to do with you and others on this board suggesting Susan Medina was lying?

For the record - I never said Karen Servas lied.

And read back at all the G posts after mine. They support my point - which was... according to the G's....Susan Medina gets it wrong and you think she's lying to help Scott. Scott gets it wrong and he's lying. Karen Servas gets it wrong and she's mistaken. Ron and Sharon get it wrong and their mistaken. See a pattern here?

The human memory is fallible. I think they all may have been mistaken.
I don't see a pattern -- what I DO see are posters who recognize the difference between a lie and a mistake. You and the other NGs have jumped all over Karen Servas for adjusting her time. Maybe not you, but others have called her a liar and her testimony unreliable because she cared enough about the truth to do whatever it took to get the time correct. She was wrong the first time -- do I think she lied??? Absolutely NOT. She made a mistake which she quickly corrected.

Scott, on the other hand, claimed to have left the house at 9:30. We know he could not have. We know his description of Laci the last time he saw her was wrong and probably deliberately misleading. He claimed Laci knew about his affair and was okay with it. Does anyone here who has been 8 mths pregnant believe that? He claimed Laci knew about the "secret" boat. We'll never know for sure, but no one testified that "jabber jaws" spoke of it or saw her in it. He claimed to be in Paris on New Years Eve, and we know for certain that wasn't true. There are scores of other examples, but I ask you -- were these "mistakes" or "lies"? Do we see a pattern here?

[frydaddy]

What do Scott's lies have to do with you and others on this board suggesting Susan Medina was lying?

For the record - I never said Karen Servas lied.

And read back at all the G posts after mine. They support my point - which was... according to the G's....Susan Medina gets it wrong and you think she's lying to help Scott. Scott gets it wrong and he's lying. Karen Servas gets it wrong and she's mistaken. Ron and Sharon get it wrong and their mistaken. See a pattern here?

The human memory is fallible. I think they all may have been mistaken.

First, show me where I said Medina lied. I pointed out a FACT, that her date for the flat tire/appointment was wrong. I then stated that she is an unreliable witness. My reasons for stating the fact that she was unreliable is due to the wrong info on the flat tire issue, along with my opinions that the sighting of the vehicles in the early morning was bogus, and the burglary details seemed hinky. Not once did I state she lied about anything. Though, I do wonder about the $50K cash story.

Second, show me where I said Medina was doing anything to help Scott. IF any of her testimony helped Scott or was designed to, which it obviously didn't help court, it could be that it was Geragos who manipulated her into potentially helpful testimony for Scott.

You're too busy trying to win an unwinnable debate here. The only reason Medina's testimony or participation in this whole event is relevant is due to the burglary. Since she is unreliable as a witness, it further proves the burglary is moot rubbish.

We know as fact that Medina was wrong. We know for a fact that Scott lied often. That Karen or Ron were wrong is opinion, no matter how much you desire it to be otherwise. That you support one who was proven wrong as fact and one who has been proven to be a serial liar, then bash two people you need to be wrong using only your innuendo and speculation, proves that you have no credibility here.

Mistakes or lies, it makes no difference. It's about what is opinion or fact. Medina's error and Scott's numerous lies are fact, Karen and Ron's accuracy are matters of opinion. Get it?

[enlightenme]

What do Scott's lies have to do with you and others on this board suggesting Susan Medina was lying?

For the record - I never said Karen Servas lied.

And read back at all the G posts after mine. They support my point - which was... according to the G's....Susan Medina gets it wrong and you think she's lying to help Scott. Scott gets it wrong and he's lying. Karen Servas gets it wrong and she's mistaken. Ron and Sharon get it wrong and their mistaken. See a pattern here?

The human memory is fallible. I think they all may have been mistaken.

Did Scott just "get it wrong" when he told 3 people he was hundreds of miles away when he was actually at or near the Berkeley marina? Did he get it wrong when he said his hair, mustache, goatee, and eyebrows changed color in a pool? Did he get it wrong when he told a search center volunteer that he was in grief counseling, up in the hills with no phones, for 4 days?

There's no way to spin, twist, excuse, or paint these in any way but out and out LIES. None of which had to do with his "unfortunate" affair with Amber.

[Lavindar]

I don't see a pattern -- what I DO see are posters who recognize the difference between a lie and a mistake. You and the other NGs have jumped all over Karen Servas for adjusting her time. Maybe not you, but others have called her a liar and her testimony unreliable because she cared enough about the truth to do whatever it took to get the time correct. She was wrong the first time -- do I think she lied??? Absolutely NOT. She made a mistake which she quickly corrected.

Scott, on the other hand, claimed to have left the house at 9:30. We know he could not have. We know his description of Laci the last time he saw her was wrong and probably deliberately misleading. He claimed Laci knew about his affair and was okay with it. Does anyone here who has been 8 mths pregnant believe that? He claimed Laci knew about the "secret" boat. We'll never know for sure, but no one testified that "jabber jaws" spoke of it or saw her in it. He claimed to be in Paris on New Years Eve, and we know for certain that wasn't true. There are scores of other examples, but I ask you -- were these "mistakes" or "lies"? Do we see a pattern here?

Karen Servas get villified for trying to do the right thing and be accurate. All these people saying that she was wrong because the Austin's receipt time was wrong. Well, that would make her cell phone records and B of A's ATM receipt time wrong also. She is one of the few people who has concrete items to back up her testimony and her amended time. Concrete items that SHE could not alter. Had her original estimated time been backed up, that would make every single sitness who allegedly saw Laci walking Mack WRONG. As it was, her amended time narrowed the window of opportunity for any burglar to have abducted Laci. Scott saw Martha Stewart at 9:48. Then then had to go outside, start his truck, back out of the driveway and be gone from Covena before Karen went outside, got in her vehicle, backed out of her driveway, saw Mackenzie, pulled over to the curb, took Mackenzie to the front gate which was locked, walk around the house and put Mackenzie in the yard by 10:18, close the gate, walk back to her car parked on the street, get in, start it and be out of sight of the house in time for Laci to have exited the house, seen the burglars (that no one else saw), get into an altercation with them and be taken away (presumedly on Todd's bicycle). Do not forget that the mailman was on that street for about 20 minutes and noticed NOTHING out of the ordinary. I believe Amie Krigbaum also went outside to let her dog out and she noticed NOTHING out of the ordinary. In fact she said it was quiet that morning, no sounds of any struggle or screams for help.

[TopGunner]

First, show me where I said Medina lied. I pointed out a FACT, that her date for the flat tire/appointment was wrong. I then stated that she is an unreliable witness. My reasons for stating the fact that she was unreliable is due to the wrong info on the flat tire issue, along with my opinions that the sighting of the vehicles in the early morning was bogus, and the burglary details seemed hinky. Not once did I state she lied about anything. Though, I do wonder about the $50K cash story.

Second, show me where I said Medina was doing anything to help Scott. IF any of her testimony helped Scott or was designed to, which it obviously didn't help court, it could be that it was Geragos who manipulated her into potentially helpful testimony for Scott.

You're too busy trying to win an unwinnable debate here. The only reason Medina's testimony or participation in this whole event is relevant is due to the burglary. Since she is unreliable as a witness, it further proves the burglary is moot rubbish.

We know as fact that Medina was wrong. We know for a fact that Scott lied often. That Karen or Ron were wrong is opinion, no matter how much you desire it to be otherwise. That you support one who was proven wrong as fact and one who has been proven to be a serial liar, then bash two people you need to be wrong using only your innuendo and speculation, proves that you have no credibility here.

Mistakes or lies, it makes no difference. It's about what is opinion or fact. Medina's error and Scott's numerous lies are fact, Karen and Ron's accuracy are matters of opinion. Get it?

Thank FD for saying what I know everyone was thinking (especially ME)! :beer:

[deputydi]

Karen Servas get villified for trying to do the right thing and be accurate. All these people saying that she was wrong because the Austin's receipt time was wrong. Well, that would make her cell phone records and B of A's ATM receipt time wrong also. She is one of the few people who has concrete items to back up her testimony and her amended time. Concrete items that SHE could not alter. Had her original estimated time been backed up, that would make every single sitness who allegedly saw Laci walking Mack WRONG. As it was, her amended time narrowed the window of opportunity for any burglar to have abducted Laci. Scott saw Martha Stewart at 9:48. Then then had to go outside, start his truck, back out of the driveway and be gone from Covena before Karen went outside, got in her vehicle, backed out of her driveway, saw Mackenzie, pulled over to the curb, took Mackenzie to the front gate which was locked, walk around the house and put Mackenzie in the yard by 10:18, close the gate, walk back to her car parked on the street, get in, start it and be out of sight of the house in time for Laci to have exited the house, seen the burglars (that no one else saw), get into an altercation with them and be taken away (presumedly on Todd's bicycle). Do not forget that the mailman was on that street for about 20 minutes and noticed NOTHING out of the ordinary. I believe Amie Krigbaum also went outside to let her dog out and she noticed NOTHING out of the ordinary. In fact she said it was quiet that morning, no sounds of any struggle or screams for help.
Your timeline is right on point and makes the kidnapping theory extremely unlikely. I will add, however, you forgot one important thing in your timeline.

You have to allow time for the kidnappers to have taken Laci back into the house to change her clothes. If she was cooperative, it might have only taken 2 or 3 minutes, if she was struggling with them it would have taken much longer. No wonder the NGs are so desperate to discredit KS.

[Cadillakin]

No wonder the NGs are so desperate to discredit KS.Yeah.. Even dumbass Scott recognized the critical importance of Karen in establishing a timeline and window of opportunity for others to accost and kill Laci. He invited Servas over for dinner RIGHT AWAY... probably to see how well established and FIRM the timeline was. As Frydaddy points out, Scott also called her five times, shortly thereafter.. as if they were good buddies.. Or maybe Scott just wanted to **** her... After all, Laci had been dead a couple days when the calls began.. that's more than enough grieving time for Scott..

The NG's had to go after Servas.. That timeline damn near shuts and closes in their faces.. It is literally only ten minutes for Laci to dress and prepare to go out.. to finish in the kitchen, to get the dog, and to be accosted and kidnapped, and then for the dog to amble on back to the house... One of the more adament NG's recognized the difficulty of working within those strict time constraints, so, out of nowhere, she insisted that Laci was inside the house with the murderer when Karen found the dog in the street. HA.. Where the hell did that come from? Unfortunately for her, there was no evidence that any strangers entered the Peterson house that day, nor did any struggle occur after Scott cleaned up and left..

So, the legs fell off that story pretty fast.

[Cadillakin]

Scott saw Martha Stewart at 9:48. I'll never prove this and it's probably not worthy of a posting.. But I doubt that Scott was watching Martha Stewart at all on Dec 24th.

The prosecutors and police believed that Scott was forwarding events from the 23rd to the 24th to attain some realism in his stories to the police. Thus, Laci doing this and that in the kitchen was not true at all on the 24th, but true of events that occurred on the 23rd. She was already dead on the morning of the 24th. Unfortunately for Distaso, he asserted their forwarding theory in his opening.. that there was no meringue on the 24th, that Scott invented it and forwarded it from real events on the 23rd.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE TRUTH.. Im sure many of you dont know or have forgotten, that there was mention of meringue on the 23rd on Martha Stewart.. but Distaso erred in asserting there was nothing about meringue on the 24th. Nobody on the prosecution side had actually checked the tapes of Martha that played on the 24th, assuming that Scott was again lying and forwarding the events from the previous day. Unfortunately for the police and prosecutors, Geragos guys DID CHECK it.. and when they found the meringue discussion on the 24h, they made Distaso eat his words.. and really made him look sloppy. That was a very low point for him and the case against Scott.. He looked like a hick.. and not until the end when he wrapped it up so eloquently, did people give him much credit.

Under those circumstances, it would have been counterproductive for Distaso to say "Hey, Scott got lucky.. that meringue was mentioned on both days". Rather than do that, he took responsibility for the error and in doing so, by accepting Geragos version of the facts.. he was able to fix Scott in the house at 9:48am on the 24th. It began as a really big victory for Geragos, but when all was said and done.. we all knew Scott was in the house in the late morning... so what looked like a victory, lost much of it's impact. . Especially so, when the phone calls came out, placing him near his home at 10:08am.

[deputydi]

<snip>The prosecutors and police believed that Scott was forwarding events from the 23rd to the 24th to attain some realism in his stories to the police. Thus, Laci doing this and that in the kitchen was not true at all on the 24th, but true of events that occurred on the 23rd. She was already dead on the morning of the 24th. Unfortunately for Distaso, he asserted their forwarding theory in his opening.. that there was no meringue on the 24th, that Scott invented it and forwarded it from real events on the 23rd.
<snip>
This is what I've always believed -- even down to what Laci was wearing the morning of the 23rd. Didn't Marguerite Nava testify that Laci was wearing black pants and a white shirt? There was a long segment about cooking with meringue on the show THAT morning. The next morning (the 24th), there was one brief comment about meringue that would have been easy to miss. As it turned out it doesn't matter at all whether he did or didn't watch the show. Scott's cell phone told the truth about when he left the house and set the stage for the starting point of this important timeline.

[Lavindar]

I'll never prove this and it's probably not worthy of a posting.. But I doubt that Scott was watching Martha Stewart at all on Dec 24th.

The prosecutors and police believed that Scott was forwarding events from the 23rd to the 24th to attain some realism in his stories to the police. Thus, Laci doing this and that in the kitchen was not true at all on the 24th, but true of events that occurred on the 23rd. She was already dead on the morning of the 24th. Unfortunately for Distaso, he asserted their forwarding theory in his opening.. that there was no meringue on the 24th, that Scott invented it and forwarded it from real events on the 23rd.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE TRUTH.. Im sure many of you dont know or have forgotten, that there was mention of meringue on the 23rd on Martha Stewart.. but Distaso erred in asserting there was nothing about meringue on the 24th. Nobody on the prosecution side had actually checked the tapes of Martha that played on the 24th, assuming that Scott was again lying and forwarding the events from the previous day. Unfortunately for the police and prosecutors, Geragos guys DID CHECK it.. and when they found the meringue discussion on the 24h, they made Distaso eat his words.. and really made him look sloppy. That was a very low point for him and the case against Scott.. He looked like a hick.. and not until the end when he wrapped it up so eloquently, did people give him much credit.

Under those circumstances, it would have been counterproductive for Distaso to say "Hey, Scott got lucky.. that meringue was mentioned on both days". Rather than do that, he took responsibility for the error and in doing so, by accepting Geragos version of the facts.. he was able to fix Scott in the house at 9:48am on the 24th. It began as a really big victory for Geragos, but when all was said and done.. we all knew Scott was in the house in the late morning... so what looked like a victory, lost much of it's impact. . Especially so, when the phone calls came out, placing him near his home at 10:08am.


I believe it is in the testimony that meringue is mentioned on Mart ha Stewart 8 times on the 23rd, yet only mentioned in ipassing one time on the 24th making that theory even more plausible.

[deputydi]

I believe it is in the testimony that meringue is mentioned on Mart ha Stewart 8 times on the 23rd, yet only mentioned in ipassing one time on the 24th making that theory even more plausible.
Absolutely! And, they found time to thoroughly review the tape to find this ONE mention of meringue but couldn't be bothered to check out Deanna Renfro's pawned watch. Give me a break. I will never believe that watch wasn't checked out. That could have been more important than the Martha show -- in fact, that little tidbit backfired big time on Scott. Finding out that the watch Deanna Renfro pawned was identical to Laci's would have been a big coup. I firmly believe MG checked it out and discovered that it wasn't even similar to the one Laci inherited from her grandmother.

[frydaddy]

Here's a starter...

On Dec 26th, Scott called an attorney named Robert Louis, at 3:03 p.m. It appears Mr. Louis was a disability attorney? Anyone know anything about this? Was he planning to see if Laci's "disappearance" was an acceptable method of acquiring disability pay while he sorted things out? The call lasted 7:49, in case anyone's interested.

Other attorney calls...

George Arata (Tradecorp atty) - Dec 26 - 3:19 p.m. - 4 min 34 sec
Kirk McAllister - 8:55 - 12/30/2002 - no connect
Kirk McAllister - 8:56 - 12/30/2002 - 0 min 23 sec
Kirk McAllister - 9:03 - 12/30/2002 - 1 min 26 sec
Kirk McAllister - 10:36 - 1/2/2003 - 0 min 30 sec
Kirk McAllister - 13:44 - 1/2/2003 - 1 min 21 sec
Kirk McAllister - 16:21 - 1/2/2003 - 7 min 1 sec
Kirk McAllister - 16:52 - 1/3/2003 - 2 min 16 sec
Kirk McAllister - 13:15 - 1/4/2003 - no connect
Kirk McAllister - 19:58 - 1/4/2003 - 0 min 22 sec
Kirk McAllister - 9:08 - 1/5/2003 - 0 min 16 sec
Kirk McAllister - 12:47 - 1/6/2003 - 2 min 56 sec
Kirk McAllister - 9:34 - 1/6/2003 - 0 min 15 sec
Kirk McAllister - 9:36 - 1/7/2007 - 3 min 42 sec
Kirk McAllister - 10:39 - 1/7/2007 - no connect
Kirk McAllister - 10:39 - 1/7/2007 - 0 min 55 sec

Brief calls, but IMO, quite a few for an innocent man!

*Disclaimer* - These are simply calls pulled from the fraud reports, only tracks his cell phone use from 11/29/02--->1/7/03. Who knows what one could find using all phones available to Scott in this period!

Amended this post with new information bolded above due to finding additional number to Kirk's office. So, Scott called Kirk even more often than I first thought and the timeline from the first call is now before the vigil.

[Lavindar]

Your detective skills are awesome, frydaddy! :beer:
Fry, go look at Prosecution exhibit 32. It's a picture of the Peterson house as seen from the Medina house. Tell me how she knew there weree two vehicles in that driveway in the dark at 5am on the 24th. You can't even tell if there are any vehicles in the driveway in the daylight, let alone the night.

[frydaddy]

Fry, go look at Prosecution exhibit 32. It's a picture of the Peterson house as seen from the Medina house. Tell me how she knew there weree two vehicles in that driveway in the dark at 5am on the 24th. You can't even tell if there are any vehicles in the driveway in the daylight, let alone the night.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Medina could NOT have seen the driveway, in the dark, through early morning eyes, well enough to clearly see two vehicles. And truthfully, I'd question why at that particular moment, she would even look over there in the wee hours in the first place.

[accordn2me]

I have no doubt that Mrs. Medina could NOT have seen the driveway, in the dark, through early morning eyes, well enough to clearly see two vehicles. And truthfully, I'd question why at that particular moment, she would even look over there in the wee hours in the first place.There's some theory about memory....like....if you are asked to recall something.....your mind will "fill-in" where there are blank spaces....or something to that effect....I CRS (can't remember anything)!

So, if someone was expecting, or hoping for her to remember something which in reality was not in her memory, her mind could have "filled it in." She wasn't lying about it per say....you know what I mean? :confused:

[frydaddy]

There's some theory about memory....like....if you are asked to recall something.....your mind will "fill-in" where there are blank spaces....or something to that effect....I CRS (can't remember anything)!

So, if someone was expecting, or hoping for her to remember something which in reality was not in her memory, her mind could have "filled it in." She wasn't lying about it per say....you know what I mean? :confused:

Actually, I think I do understand. There's also the chance that Mrs. Medina was a people pleaser and told each examiner what they wanted to hear. I can only analyze what appears normal and logical. Her testimony regarding the vehicles failed the smell test for me.

[deputydi]

Fry, go look at Prosecution exhibit 32. It's a picture of the Peterson house as seen from the Medina house. Tell me how she knew there weree two vehicles in that driveway in the dark at 5am on the 24th. You can't even tell if there are any vehicles in the driveway in the daylight, let alone the night.

I agree she couldn't have seen the vehicles from that vantage point at 5 am, but does it really disprove the 2 trip theory? I don't think so. If Scott killed Laci around 10 the night of the 23rd, he could have made the trip to dispose of her body and been home by 3 or 4. There would have been very little traffic to slow him down.

[Lavindar]

I agree she couldn't have seen the vehicles from that vantage point at 5 am, but does it really disprove the 2 trip theory? I don't think so. If Scott killed Laci around 10 the night of the 23rd, he could have made the trip to dispose of her body and been home by 3 or 4. There would have been very little traffic to slow him down.


I think it helps PROVE the two trip theory or at least the possibility of it.

[frydaddy]

I think it helps PROVE the two trip theory or at least the possibility of it.

In order to prove anything regarding a two trip theory, I'd need something that likely doesn't exist. No phone records, no internet usage, nada. I do wonder what size gas tank his F-150 had and what kind of gas mileage it got. If he drove 360+ miles, he'd likely have had to get gas. Although, paying cash and prolly 1000 gas stations would make proving it tough. Don't have an opinion on whether the Livermore stop was related to this issue.

[deputydi]

In order to prove anything regarding a two trip theory, I'd need something that likely doesn't exist. No phone records, no internet usage, nada. I do wonder what size gas tank his F-150 had and what kind of gas mileage it got. If he drove 360+ miles, he'd likely have had to get gas. Although, paying cash and prolly 1000 gas stations would make proving it tough. Don't have an opinion on whether the Livermore stop was related to this issue.
I don't think there are many people he would be calling at 2 or 3 in the morning. LOL. The only hope for proof would be if some gas station attendant could remember him paying for gas in the wee hours of the morning. Since that didn't happen, we can only speculate. In my mind the two trips is the only theory that makes sense. :shrug:

[Lavindar]

I have a question that maybe someone can answer. Did Lee actually go to the police department and get Scott? Does anyone know what time that happened. Phone records show he didn't call his dad until 8:17pm and the call lasted 19 seconds. He called a different number (I am assuming his mother's at 9p for 9 secm his dad again at 9:59a Chrsitmas Day for 11 seconds an dhis dad again at 12:52pn Christmas day for another short call. I am trying to figure out what time they arrived in Modesto. Mapquest says it's a 4 hr 11 minute drive, but the only time I have driven from La Jolla to MOdesto, it was an 8 hour drive. Los Angeles can be horrible ANY time of the day or night and I'm sure it's bad the night before a major holiday.

[Cadillakin]

I have a question that maybe someone can answer. Did Lee actually go to the police department and get Scott? Does anyone know what time that happened. Phone records show he didn't call his dad until 8:17pm and the call lasted 19 seconds. He called a different number (I am assuming his mother's at 9p for 9 secm his dad again at 9:59a Chrsitmas Day for 11 seconds an dhis dad again at 12:52pn Christmas day for another short call. I am trying to figure out what time they arrived in Modesto. Mapquest says it's a 4 hr 11 minute drive, but the only time I have driven from La Jolla to MOdesto, it was an 8 hour drive. Los Angeles can be horrible ANY time of the day or night and I'm sure it's bad the night before a major holiday.Mapquest is on drugs if they are suggesting we can drive over 400 miles in 4 hours.. In a rocketship, maybe.

[frydaddy]

I have a question that maybe someone can answer. Did Lee actually go to the police department and get Scott? Does anyone know what time that happened. Phone records show he didn't call his dad until 8:17pm and the call lasted 19 seconds. He called a different number (I am assuming his mother's at 9p for 9 secm his dad again at 9:59a Chrsitmas Day for 11 seconds an dhis dad again at 12:52pn Christmas day for another short call. I am trying to figure out what time they arrived in Modesto. Mapquest says it's a 4 hr 11 minute drive, but the only time I have driven from La Jolla to MOdesto, it was an 8 hour drive. Los Angeles can be horrible ANY time of the day or night and I'm sure it's bad the night before a major holiday.

1508 Santa Sabina Court, Solana Beach, CA to 600 10th Street, Modesto, CA is 412 miles and Mapquest estimates 6.5 hours.

I show calls to Chief's cell phone at 8:17pm on the 24th, 9:59am on the 25th, and 12:52pm on the 25th. There are also two calls on the 25th to the Peterson home phone at 8:52am. There's a call at 9pm to a San Diego # that I cannot confirm who's number it is. If memory serves me correctly, the Peterson's arrived in Modesto, allegedly, at 4:30pm at the MPD on Christmas Day. Thus, sans traffic, they'd have had to have left from home by 10am Christmas Day. With traffic, call it by 9am.

Ann Bird said the house appeared a mess with what looked to be dinner dishes on the table. Not sure what to make of all this. Sorry for redundant info in this post, by the way!

[Lavindar]

1508 Santa Sabina Court, Solana Beach, CA to 600 10th Street, Modesto, CA is 412 miles and Mapquest estimates 6.5 hours.

I show calls to Chief's cell phone at 8:17pm on the 24th, 9:59am on the 25th, and 12:52pm on the 25th. There are also two calls on the 25th to the Peterson home phone at 8:52am. There's a call at 9pm to a San Diego # that I cannot confirm who's number it is. If memory serves me correctly, the Peterson's arrived in Modesto, allegedly, at 4:30pm at the MPD on Christmas Day. Thus, sans traffic, they'd have had to have left from home by 10am Christmas Day. With traffic, call it by 9am.


I thought their traditional Christmas dinner was served about 4:30pm but I could be very wrong on that. It's a long drive from San Diego area to Modesto. There's no way other than to go through LA either. I know what Modesto to Bay Area traffic is like on Christmas Eve/Christmas Day and I can only assume that LA is a LOT worse.


Ann Bird said the house appeared a mess with what looked to be dinner dishes on the table. Not sure what to make of all this. Sorry for redundant info in this post, by the way!

I know how to check the dinner time. Scott called Karen Servas to invite her at least once, maybe twice. Those calls should be on there. Didn't his parents claim to have gone to Mass on Christmas Eve. I remember Jackie saying something to that effect and that on her way home she was so grateful for her happy, well-adjusted family (I am paraphrasing the last).

[Lavindar]

I am still looking but I did find this:

385) Rick Distaso: And we've heard testimony, it's fair to say that people were kind of in and out of the house, there was people around in the neighborhood searching, that kind of thing?
386) Karen Servas: Yes.
387) Rick Distaso: And were you, did you go over there sometime in the evening?
388) Karen Servas: I went over at about 5:00 o'clock.
389) Rick Distaso: And what was your purpose in going over there?
390) Karen Servas: I wanted to see the 5:00 o'clock news out of Sacramento to see if they had a report about her being missing.
391) Rick Distaso: And did you, since the jury doesn't know you, do you not have a television or how was it that you couldn't watch the TV at your own house?
392) Karen Servas: Well, I have Direct TV satellite and I didn't subscribe to the local channels.
393) Rick Distaso: And you knew that Laci and Scott had those channels?
394) Karen Servas: Yes, I did know that.
395) Rick Distaso: So when you went over there, who was there at the house?
396) Karen Servas: Scott was there, Lee and Jackie, they had just arrived, and I believe Renee Tomlinson and her husband.
397) Rick Distaso: And Jackie and Lee are who?
398) Karen Servas: Scott's parents.


Oh, and Scott called her about 8:30 on Christmas eve. That might help identify her phone number.


407) Rick Distaso: And then where did you go?
408) Karen Servas: I went home.
409) Rick Distaso: And did you receive a call at some point to go back to the house?
410) Karen Servas: Yes, approximately ten minutes later.
411) Rick Distaso: While you were there did, were you asked to stay for a Christmas dinner?
412) Karen Servas: I was asked to stay, yeah. They were going to have turkey for dinner and I was asked to stay to eat.
413) Rick Distaso: That was the first time you were there, around 5:00 o'clock?
414) Karen Servas: It would have been probably 5:15, 5:20ish.
415) Rick Distaso: Okay. And what did you tell them?
416) Karen Servas: I said, no, I'm a vegetarian. I have packing I need to do. I'm leaving for New Mexico the next day so I think I'll just go home.
417) Rick Distaso: And then you received a call at, at ten minutes later and who called you?
418) Karen Servas: Scott did.
419) Rick Distaso: And what did he say?
420) Karen Servas: He said, well, I found some cheese tortellini, would you, to paraphrase, you know, would you reconsider, would you come over.
421) Rick Distaso: Okay.
422) Karen Servas: And I said okay.
423) Rick Distaso: So you went over, and who was over at the house at that time?
424) Karen Servas: Scott, Lee and Jackie.


I want to know how they prepared a traditional dinner in an hour. Takes me all day

[Lavindar]

Details on when Scott called Karen on Christmas eve:

74) Karen Servas: No.
75) Mark Geragos: Okay. The way, when you first got a call from Scott, that was on the 20, on the 24th. That was at approximately 8:00 o'clock?
76) Karen Servas: Well, since I have my phone records in front of me now,
77) Mark Geragos: Sure.
78) Karen Servas: the incoming call to Ripon was at 8:48 p.m. so it's right here. Call No. 114.
79) Mark Geragos: Okay. Call No. 114, 8:48, and it says you were at Ripon?
80) Karen Servas: Right. It says it's an incoming call.
81) Mark Geragos: Hm-hmm. And the incoming call was from, can you tell?
82) Karen Servas: Well, it doesn't say the numbers on Verizon bills. It just says that there's an incoming call. That is my phone number. But that's when he called me. I only got one call when I was up at the Christmas party, and that call was from him.

[adnoid]

...I want to know how they prepared a traditional dinner in an hour. Takes me all day

I reckon a Peterson traditional dinner just requires procurement of ice if the liquor cabinet's not empty.

[Lavindar]

I reckon a Peterson traditional dinner just requires procurement of ice if the liquor cabinet's not empty.
Well, we know they were having meat of some kind, because Karen turned them down because she was a vegetarian. Meat usually requires some cooking time. Even buying a pre-cooked meal from a grocery requires advance notification and still requires heating of the meat.

[adnoid]

...still requires heating of the meat.

Almost something Scott knows how to do.

[frydaddy]

I know how to check the dinner time. Scott called Karen Servas to invite her at least once, maybe twice. Those calls should be on there. Didn't his parents claim to have gone to Mass on Christmas Eve. I remember Jackie saying something to that effect and that on her way home she was so grateful for her happy, well-adjusted family (I am paraphrasing the last).

What is confusing is the night of the 24th in Solana Beach. Scott made two calls that night, that we know of, to San Diego. The calls were 9 and 19 seconds each. The first call that we know of via cell records of any length was to Jackie at 8:52, it was a 2+ minute call. So, assuming Scott left voice messages to call him back ASAP on the 24th, is it reasonable to assume they called him on the land line during the night to get the story from Scott? Or, was the call to Jackie at 8:52am on the 25th the first they heard of Laci being missing?

The confusion is why dinner dishes on the table, if that was in fact what Ann saw. Wouldn't it be breakfast that was interrupted? Or, have we discovered where Scott got his slob from, leaving dinner dishes on the table while they attended church?