Just Call Me John Walsh

[Cadillakin]

I was unaware when I originally posted that the principal of this story, Ron Ward, would be linked to at least 3 other murders. He is now considered a serial killer. My intent when originally posting was not so much to take any credit, but rather to share my story with the other crime aficionados and to give Det. Al Brocchini, of the Modesto police, credit for his dedication to catching the bad guys, and for going out of his way to thank me for helping him. He took some unjustified bad press in the Peterson case.

About 5 years ago, there was a murder of a homeless girl near Yosemite Blvd in Modesto. Her name was Shela Polly. She had recently checked into the homeless mission and sought employment one Saturday morning at a local employment agency for which I worked. Later on that day she was found slain, hidden under branches and cover near a creek bed, less than a mile from Laci Peterson's residence.

Though I was off that day, I was told Det. Brocchini soon came to investigate. After questioning the relevant persons, he took a copy of the day roster from my place of employment, which is essentially a list of all the men and women who came and signed up for work. Later on, perhaps in a day or two he was back and his focus was clearly on a man named Ron Ward, who was seen speaking with the victim inside the agency, and later walking down the street with her. He told us that this same man (who used a few different names, most variations on Ron Ward) was wanted in Montana for murder, accused of killing and robbing a man over a small debt. But Ward was a drifter, with a record in about six states, mostly for petty crime.. and he had checked out of his hotel the day Shela Polly was slain. That was that. Or so it seemed.. Brocchini assumed Ward was on the move again and wouldn't be seen locally... but alerted the necessary agencies to keep a lookout for him.

About 3 days later, I was driving southbound on 9th street towards 99 south, and guess who I saw walking towards me? It was the suspect, Ron Ward, and his common-law wife, Hattie Baker. I immediately got on the phone with the police and left an urgent message for Brocchini to call me. Thereupon, I began following Ron and Hattie in my car.. making a u-turn to get behind them, and staying back about a hundred yards. My cell rang and it was Det. Brocchini and I told him I had Ron Ward in my sight. The couple had cut through a residential area and I was still behind them, moving up behind parked cars in the street, watching their progress. Brocchini asked for directions to the location. The couple moved to an area where I couldn't follow, up and over the 7th street railroad tracks.. The street dead-ended for car traffic and I felt a bit panicky to keep them in my sights.. All the while, I gave Brocchini a play-by-play about the goings-on. I drove fast to the location I had guessed Ron and Hattie would be after crossing the tracks and me taking the roundabout way..and there they were, just moseying down the street. I parked my car pointing away from them.. not directly in their "walking path." Ron and Hattie definitely knew me.. and I didnt want them to see me... Brocchini made his way to my location. I saw him come up under the 7th street Bridge. I told him what my car looked like.. We acknowledged each other with a nod. We were about a hundred yards apart, and Ron and Hattie were moving towards us. He asked me if I was SURE the suspect some 100 yards away was the right guy. I assured him I knew Ronnie Ward well. And as Hattie and Ron moved 30 yards behind me, Brocchini was in contact with the posse.. and boy did they come in force.. No lights, no sirens, but as I looked north, I saw police cars coming over the rise to the 7th St bridge. One after the other.. maybe a dozen cars in tandem.. and as they approached Ron and Hattie who were walking towards them, the lead car veered across both lanes and stopped.. and the other cars followed suit, The officers leapt out of their cars and took positions, all with guns ready and aimed at the suspect.. I saw the suspects fall to the ground. Then I could see no more. It was over. Ron Ward and his girl, Hattie, were arrested. When I got back to the office, the girls on-duty, Rachel and Jonetta, began humming a James Bond tune.... I laughed.. we all laughed at that.

I was impressed that Brocchini called me the next day. He called to thank me and also to apologize for what the papers and the press officer had stated. In the news, the press officer when asked how the suspect was found said, "we sometimes get calls from people in the street, homeless people, and we follow that.. they might say, you can find this guy here, and that is what happened in this case." The newspapers printed that erroneous version of events. Brocchini stated to me he hadn't talked to the press officer and perhaps that's how the officer understood the events.. I felt a little bit slighted, not that I didn't receive credit, but being referred to in the article as a homeless person who tipped the police. In fact, my co-workers made a few jokes about it.. But Brocchini made it clear by the call, he knew who helped him and he appreciated it.

Hattie, Ron's girl, turned on him and gave information that led to the recovery of the murder weapon in Montana, and Ron Ward was extradited to that state. As for his guilt in the local matter of the murdered girl, I'm not sure how it was resolved.. I had Ron in my car many times. In fact, he had good carpentry skills and I had gotten up and hour early for an entire week so as to take him to an important clients job site, assuring he wouldn't miss his 6am start time. One little detail I remember ever so clearly was a conversation Ron and I had. He told me that when he didn't get the daily work, it didn't bother him too much.. because he was alright to sleep in the street or outside, but the look upon his mates face when he failed to get a days pay was pure disdain for their circumstances. One of the workers who was listening said Shela Polly said she was saving for an apartment.. and for a desperate man who didn't get work that day, who would have to face his girl again that night without a roof to cover them, it might have been enough motivation for Ward to rob and kill her, thinking she might have some money on her person. I don't know if he did it.

Since I orignally posted this, Ron Ward has been linked to Shela Polly by his DNA. Here is his story printed about a month ago..

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/07/29/news/mtregional/news04.txt

[One2Snoop]

Cool story. Thanks for sharing Cadillakin. :beer:

[adnoid]

...Det. Al Brocchini, of the Modesto police, credit for his dedication to catching the bad guys, and for going out of his way to thank me for helping him. He took some unjustified bad press in the Peterson case. ...

Not from anyone that matters, though.

[deputydi]

That is really quite a story!!! :patriot:

[Lavindar]

That is really quite a story!!! :patriot:

It truly is and it upsets me when people call him a liar because Geragos asked him the questions he should have asked someone else. Even the Peterson family refers to him as the lead detective, which anyone that knows this case, KNOWS is not true. Brocchini took most of the heat from Geragos and unjustly so. He is a good detective and dedicated to his work. It's nice to hear a good story about him. Thanks, Cadi

[Cadillakin]

You know, Brocchini called me at my new job.. the one I moved to after the Peterson trial.. He was interested in securing an estimate for work on his home. I told him who I was.. and how we had interacted before.. and I thanked him for his work in our community.. for watching out for us...

He responded kindly.. and just for the briefest of moments, while we had that moment of rapport, I almost blurted out.. "Do you believe OR KNOW Scott Peterson killed and buried Laci in the night, that he took two trips to the Bay".....

But I couldn't say it.. It was too awkward.. I didn't want to put him on the spot..

[onthefence]

that is really quite a.... story. :D

[TopGunner]

that is really quite a.... story. :D

I was just about to say the same thing OTF, only in a different way.

Cadi, that story was awesome, and many thanks for taking the time to share it with us. :)

[enlightenme]

It truly is and it upsets me when people call him a liar because Geragos asked him the questions he should have asked someone else. Even the Peterson family refers to him as the lead detective, which anyone that knows this case, KNOWS is not true. Brocchini took most of the heat from Geragos and unjustly so. He is a good detective and dedicated to his work. It's nice to hear a good story about him. Thanks, Cadi

If I ever have a loved one go missing, I would love to have Brocchini or someone just like him on the case. He teared up during Sharon's victim impact statement. He's a dedicated LE officer and a decent man.

:patriot:

[TopGunner]

If I ever have a loved one go missing, I would love to have Brocchini or someone just like him on the case. He teared up during Sharon's victim impact statement. He's a dedicated LE officer and a decent man.

:patriot:

ITA EM, they put their professionalism and their heart & soul into the case. They'd be my first, second, third and ONLY choice if I ever found myself in similar circumstances. I wouldn't hire Geragos to walk my dog(s). They wouldn't like him anyway.....:biggrin:

[onthefence]

ITA EM, they put their professionalism and their heart & soul into the case. They'd be my first, second, third and ONLY choice if I ever found myself in similar circumstances. I wouldn't hire Geragos to walk my dog(s). They wouldn't like him anyway.....:biggrin:

There are many that share your sentiments regarding Geragos.

[TopGunner]

There are many that share your sentiments regarding Geragos.

Not to hijack this thread, but anyone have any guess as to why the P's hired Geregos? One minute he's on National Television saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing was just devastating to the defense, and the next thing ya know, he IS the defense. Why in the world would the P's hire him, when there are a multitude of excellent defense attny's out there. IIRC, Geregos had zero experience with murder cases also.

I will add, IMO, that regardless of who the P's hired, the outcome would have been the same, I see no way it could have been different, but I'd like to understand why they scraped the bottom of the barrel.

[Lavindar]

Not to hijack this thread, but anyone have any guess as to why the P's hired Geregos? One minute he's on National Television saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing was just devastating to the defense, and the next thing ya know, he IS the defense. Why in the world would the P's hire him, when there are a multitude of excellent defense attny's out there. IIRC, Geregos had zero experience with murder cases also.

I will add, IMO, that regardless of who the P's hired, the outcome would have been the same, I see no way it could have been different, but I'd like to understand why they scraped the bottom of the barrel.


IMO they wanted a high-profile attorney. They didn't care if he was any good - just that he was high-profile - and that he'd kick those hick prosecutors from that little town on their butts. How sad. I would never want my live hinging on the words of a media-prone atty. They are in it for the media hype, not for the defendant. If you don't believe me, look at his performance in the Cam Brown trial. He took a hike after promising never to desert his client.

[onthefence]

Not to hijack this thread, but anyone have any guess as to why the P's hired Geregos? One minute he's on National Television saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing was just devastating to the defense, and the next thing ya know, he IS the defense. Why in the world would the P's hire him, when there are a multitude of excellent defense attny's out there. IIRC, Geregos had zero experience with murder cases also.

I will add, IMO, that regardless of who the P's hired, the outcome would have been the same, I see no way it could have been different, but I'd like to understand why they scraped the bottom of the barrel.

Where the bodies turned up is the one and only thing that points to Scott and to Scott only. There are tons of other people that had access to the bay, but that Scott had a receipt that put him there on the day Laci disappeared and that she was found in the same general area is a pretty big coinkydink. What ARE the odds? Is it possible that someone held her captive and then dumped both bodies? Maybe. Possible, yes, Likely, no. As I said in a previous post, this is the reason on the Guilty side that keeps me on the fence. The list of assumptions that I borrowed/posted and were deleted for some reason-albeit a handful were weak, (but most were as strong as the assumptions made by G's about various things) sum up much of the NG side that keeps me on the fence. don't believe the boat was a secret.

The P's were thrust into a crushing media feeding frenzy that most people have never seen the likes of and like the most of us, would have NO CLUE, really, about whom to hire. Certainly were not in the best state of mind to make good decisions and hindsight is always 20/20.
They needed someone with media savvy. However, if Scott had followed the advice of his first lawyer, the regular guy lawyer from cow town (P's characterization)Modesto & stayed off the phone and no D.Sawyer interview, he might have stood a snowballs chance in h#ll and Geragos might have been able to pull off a hung jury. They should have hired someone with a good success rate in capital murder cases.

[TopGunner]

Where the bodies turned up is the one and only thing that points to Scott and to Scott only. There are tons of other people that had access to the bay, but that Scott had a receipt that put him there on the day Laci disappeared and that she was found in the same general area is a pretty big coinkydink. What ARE the odds? Is it possible that someone held her captive and then dumped both bodies? Maybe. Possible, yes, Likely, no. As I said in a previous post, this is the reason on the Guilty side that keeps me on the fence. The list of assumptions that I borrowed/posted and were deleted for some reason-albeit a handful were weak, (but most were as strong as the assumptions made by G's about various things) sum up much of the NG side that keeps me on the fence. don't believe the boat was a secret.

The P's were thrust into a crushing media feeding frenzy that most people have never seen the likes of and like the most of us, would have NO CLUE, really, about whom to hire. Certainly were not in the best state of mind to make good decisions and hindsight is always 20/20.
They needed someone with media savvy. However, if Scott had followed the advice of his first lawyer, the regular guy lawyer from cow town (P's characterization)Modesto & stayed off the phone and no D.Sawyer interview, he might have stood a snowballs chance in h#ll and Geragos might have been able to pull off a hung jury. They should have hired someone with a good success rate in capital murder cases.



I beg to differ OTF. The CHANCES of some hick burglars stealing Laci (as she confronted them, along with McKenzie) in the 10 minute window of time available, and they took her home to change her cloths. Held her captive in a tub somewhere for 4 months, while delivering Conner in the most amazing of ways, i.e., no vaginal birth or cesarean birth - LEAVING NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, and then planting the bodies NOT where ISP was fishing, but 2 days apart, and 2 miles away. Now, IMO, if ANYBODY buys into that theory, framing a fertilizer sales rep, then they're just not the least bit interested in facts and reality. Only in *winning*, which speaks for itself.

The P's managed to pull of quite a bit while "grieving" for Laci. Now suddenly they didn't have their wits about them to choose a lawyer? Okie dokie. Doesn't matter, there never would have been a hung trial. He'd be right where he is regardless of who defended him and who sat on that jury. Right where he deserves to be.

[Invrdv8]

Not to hijack this thread, but anyone have any guess as to why the P's hired Geregos? One minute he's on National Television saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing was just devastating to the defense, and the next thing ya know, he IS the defense. Why in the world would the P's hire him, when there are a multitude of excellent defense attny's out there. IIRC, Geregos had zero experience with murder cases also.

I will add, IMO, that regardless of who the P's hired, the outcome would have been the same, I see no way it could have been different, but I'd like to understand why they scraped the bottom of the barrel.

That's a question I've been asking from the git-go. WHY would any parent hire an attorney to defend their son when he's pretty much said Scott's goose was already cooked? Then I asked myself what the Peterson's could have said to Geragos that made him take the case and claim he'd prove Scott "stone cold innocent". I've come to the conclusion that the answer to the latter question is simple ie; "ONE MILLION DOLLARS and there's more where that came from." What did Geragos have to lose? He wouldn't have to pay the money back if he lost the case. To be honest I don't believe we can get the answers to why the Petersons hired Geragos from anybody except the Petersons. JMO

[Invrdv8]

Where the bodies turned up is the one and only thing that points to Scott and to Scott only. There are tons of other people that had access to the bay, but that Scott had a receipt that put him there on the day Laci disappeared and that she was found in the same general area is a pretty big coinkydink. What ARE the odds? Is it possible that someone held her captive and then dumped both bodies? Maybe. Possible, yes, Likely, no. As I said in a previous post, this is the reason on the Guilty side that keeps me on the fence. The list of assumptions that I borrowed/posted and were deleted for some reason-albeit a handful were weak, (but most were as strong as the assumptions made by G's about various things) sum up much of the NG side that keeps me on the fence. don't believe the boat was a secret.

The P's were thrust into a crushing media feeding frenzy that most people have never seen the likes of and like the most of us, would have NO CLUE, really, about whom to hire. Certainly were not in the best state of mind to make good decisions and hindsight is always 20/20.
They needed someone with media savvy. However, if Scott had followed the advice of his first lawyer, the regular guy lawyer from cow town (P's characterization)Modesto & stayed off the phone and no D.Sawyer interview, he might have stood a snowballs chance in h#ll and Geragos might have been able to pull off a hung jury. They should have hired someone with a good success rate in capital murder cases.

The Peterson's may not have known who was the best attorney to hire to defend Scott but, what parent in their right mind would hire an attorney who had already said things were looking really bad for Scott? The only "media savvy" Geragos had/has was how to play the media to his favor. The sunglasses, the cell phone stuck on his ear, the strut and the ridiculous comments didn't benefit Scott in the least!

[adnoid]

ITA EM, they put their professionalism and their heart & soul into the case. They'd be my first, second, third and ONLY choice if I ever found myself in similar circumstances... wouldn't hire Geragos to walk my dog(s). They wouldn't like him anyway...

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn..! From my point of view, when the guilty hire Geragos they get convicted - I consider this fact a positive point in the pursuit of justice..!

[deputydi]

That's a question I've been asking from the git-go. WHY would any parent hire an attorney to defend their son when he's pretty much said Scott's goose was already cooked? Then I asked myself what the Peterson's could have said to Geragos that made him take the case and claim he'd prove Scott "stone cold innocent". I've come to the conclusion that the answer to the latter question is simple ie; "ONE MILLION DOLLARS and there's more where that came from." What did Geragos have to lose? He wouldn't have to pay the money back if he lost the case. To be honest I don't believe we can get the answers to why the Petersons hired Geragos from anybody except the Petersons. JMO
That's another one of those things we're never going to know or understand. I could never figure out why the Ps hired Geragos either. I've always wondered what they said to him that "turned him around". Must have been a doozy. Or, as you said, MONEY TALKS.

High profile attorneys are a dime a dozen in CA and almost all are better equipped and more experienced at trying murder cases. Why Geragos??????

[Cadillakin]

That's another one of those things we're never going to know or understand. I could never figure out why the Ps hired Geragos either. I've always wondered what they said to him that "turned him around". Must have been a doozy. Or, as you said, MONEY TALKS.

High profile attorneys are a dime a dozen in CA and almost all are better equipped and more experienced at trying murder cases. Why Geragos??????The guy they had in Modesto, Kirk McAllister, has an absolutely sterling reputation .. Two separate people who know about these things told me he was the best in Modesto, by far. And if you saw him questioning the officers in the prelim, he was outstanding and very intimidating...

It's a good thing the elder Petersons are no smarter than their son..

[I'mSun]

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn..! From my point of view, when the guilty hire Geragos they get convicted - I consider this fact a positive point in the pursuit of justice..!In the pursuit of...um, tipping scales? :biggrin:

[Invrdv8]

The guy they had in Modesto, Kirk McAllister, has an absolutely sterling reputation .. Two separate people who know about these things told me he was the best in Modesto, by far. And if you saw him questioning the officers in the prelim, he was outstanding and very intimidating...

It's a good thing the elder Petersons are no smarter than their son..
Your last comment is a little confusing. Are you saying if the Peterson's had retained McAllister to defend Scott the trial may have had a different outcome?:eek:

[onthefence]

The Peterson's may not have known who was the best attorney to hire to defend Scott but, what parent in their right mind would hire an attorney who had already said things were looking really bad for Scott? The only "media savvy" Geragos had/has was how to play the media to his favor. The sunglasses, the cell phone stuck on his ear, the strut and the ridiculous comments didn't benefit Scott in the least!

Who knows. Geragos obviously had faith, albeit misguided, that he would do a good job-dont' think he would have taken the case otherwise-and risked his reputation, which imo, was tarnished and hasn't recovered from (based on the # of Tv appearance pre-Peterson, vs. post Peterson). Thought I read somewhere that McAllister wouldn't represent Scott after he continued talking on the phone, to the media and giving interviews (against KM's advice-which imo, was the best legal advice SP received through the entire thing).

So, with McCallister (sp?) gone, P's were overwhelmed and MG must have talked a good game, seemed a port in the storm, told them what they wanted to hear.

[Invrdv8]

Who knows. Geragos obviously had faith, albeit misguided, that he would do a good job-dont' think he would have taken the case otherwise-and risked his reputation, which imo, was tarnished and hasn't recovered from (based on the # of Tv appearance pre-Peterson, vs. post Peterson). Thought I read somewhere that McAllister wouldn't represent Scott after he continued talking on the phone, to the media and giving interviews (against KM's advice-which imo, was the best legal advice SP received through the entire thing).

So, with McCallister (sp?) gone, P's were overwhelmed and MG must have talked a good game, seemed a port in the storm, told them what they wanted to hear.

Wasn't it the other way around? Didn't the Peterson's go to Geragos and convince him that Scott was innocent? I would think that what Geragos was saying on national TV would have sent them in the opposite direction. I think you're right though about McAllister. I think he was very upset that Scott wouldn't keep his mouth shut.

[Cadillakin]

Your last comment is a little confusing. Are you saying if the Peterson's had retained McAllister to defend Scott the trial may have had a different outcome?:eek:Yes, that's what I'm saying.

[Cadillakin]

Wasn't it the other way around? Didn't the Peterson's go to Geragos and convince him that Scott was innocent?Ah c'mon, there ain't a chance in China that Geragos actually believed Scott was innocent.

[cookiewench]

That's a question I've been asking from the git-go. WHY would any parent hire an attorney to defend their son when he's pretty much said Scott's goose was already cooked?

To shut him up.

What better PR for Scott than to have the attorney who'd been saying he's a sociopath to now be claiming he's "stone cold innocent"?

[onthefence]

Wasn't it the other way around? Didn't the Peterson's go to Geragos and convince him that Scott was innocent? I would think that what Geragos was saying on national TV would have sent them in the opposite direction. I think you're right though about McAllister. I think he was very upset that Scott wouldn't keep his mouth shut.

not sure who went to whom, but, think you might be right that they went to him. Did they really convince Geragos that he was innocent? we will probably never know. geragos was convinced he could help them and/or help himself and that was a grave miscalculation (one of many to come).

do not think the outcome would have been that much different had Scott P hired McCallister for the trial etc because SP didn't listen to his attorney. Scott P's biggest problem was his mouth. If he had followed McCallisters advice and kept off the phone and kept his mouth shut publicly there might have been a snowball's chance in h#ll of a different outcome. Had there been no Amber tapes there could possibly have been a hung jury, imo. Amber tapes were not evidence of much imo, and she was not motive but the tapes were crucial to the prosecution case.

[deputydi]

The guy they had in Modesto, Kirk McAllister, has an absolutely sterling reputation .. Two separate people who know about these things told me he was the best in Modesto, by far. And if you saw him questioning the officers in the prelim, he was outstanding and very intimidating...

It's a good thing the elder Petersons are no smarter than their son..
Time certainly does dim the memory. For some reason I thought Kirk McAllister wouldn't take Scott's case because he wasn't a criminal defense attorney. Do I have him confused with someone else?

[Lavindar]

Time certainly does dim the memory. For some reason I thought Kirk McAllister wouldn't take Scott's case because he wasn't a criminal defense attorney. Do I have him confused with someone else?


I think you have him confused with someone else. Kirk McAllister, as I have heard from someone in the legal field, has a stellar reputation in Modesto. And he IS a criminal defense lawyer.

[onthefence]

The guy they had in Modesto, Kirk McAllister, has an absolutely sterling reputation .. Two separate people who know about these things told me he was the best in Modesto, by far. And if you saw him questioning the officers in the prelim, he was outstanding and very intimidating...

It's a good thing the elder Petersons are no smarter than their son..

Interesting what Kirk Mcaliister (the Modesto attorney with a sterling rep) had to say about the police investigation in an interview with Maria Shriver:
"The police approached this entire case of 'We have our theory, don't confuse me
with the facts,'" said McAllister, a high-priced defense attorney in Modesto.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/mcallister.html

or in another interview: Kirk McAllister (pictured left) said his office has uncovered evidence that will exonerate Peterson -- evidence that will be turned over to his new attorney.McAllister told NBC 11 in San Francisco that the defense's case is "strong." When asked why, he said, "because we investigated it instead of calling press conferences like the police did."

He sounds a lot like Geragos, actually-what was this evidence that both seemed to have that would exonerate him and or prove him stone cold innocent?

[onthefence]

IMO they wanted a high-profile attorney. They didn't care if he was any good - just that he was high-profile - and that he'd kick those hick prosecutors from that little town on their butts. How sad. I would never want my live hinging on the words of a media-prone atty. They are in it for the media hype, not for the defendant. If you don't believe me, look at his performance in the Cam Brown trial. He took a hike after promising never to desert his client.

I disagree that they didn't care whether or not he was any good, that makes no sense. they probably assumed some things that they should not have-like just because he was high profile meant he knew how to try/was experienced in trying high profile capital murder cases.

[accordn2me]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.Well, why? :shrug:

I guess anything is possible. But nothing changes this:

(originally posted by Miss Bootsie) :beer:

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

Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

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

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

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

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

Conner in utero - Dr. Brian Peterson - Expert

Trajectory created for Conner – Dr. Cheng - Expert

Laci – marine environment – Dr. Galloway - Expert

[TopGunner]

Interesting what Kirk Mcaliister (the Modesto attorney with a sterling rep) had to say about the police investigation in an interview with Maria Shriver:
"The police approached this entire case of 'We have our theory, don't confuse me
with the facts,'" said McAllister, a high-priced defense attorney in Modesto.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/mcallister.html

or in another interview: Kirk McAllister (pictured left) said his office has uncovered evidence that will exonerate Peterson -- evidence that will be turned over to his new attorney.McAllister told NBC 11 in San Francisco that the defense's case is "strong." When asked why, he said, "because we investigated it instead of calling press conferences like the police did."

He sounds a lot like Geragos, actually-what was this evidence that both seemed to have that would exonerate him and or prove him stone cold innocent?


I totally agree, and I have to say the 'ol "police botched it" excuse is just that, old. You'd think with the money these guys earn they could be a little bit more creative.

[TopGunner]

I disagree that they didn't care whether or not he was any good, that makes no sense. they probably assumed some things that they should not have-like just because he was high profile meant he knew how to try/was experienced in trying high profile capital murder cases.

You know..........after pondering this for just a little bit, my gut feeling is that the P's hired Geregos to make them look good, to make it look like they could swim with the sharks, hire the big guns, that they rate. I really think it was a combination of appearances (look who we have!!!) because Geregos was well known, and Geregos filling them with a bunch of bs.

Had there been a lawyer equally qualified but unknown, I don't think they would have looked twice, even at half the rate. ($$$)

[TopGunner]

Well, why? :shrug:

I guess anything is possible. But nothing changes this:


I agree with you Acorn, even Perry Mason woulda lost this one. And you know, I actually feel a bit of compassion for the P's believing he's going to get out at some point in time. I'm sure people have filled their heads with a bunch (more) empty promises, but personally, I have no worries that he'll ever see outside the walls of SQ. Would have been better if they had just accepted the truth and moved on with their lives as best they could.

[onthefence]

You know..........after pondering this for just a little bit, my gut feeling is that the P's hired Geregos to make them look good, to make it look like they could swim with the sharks, hire the big guns, that they rate. I really think it was a combination of appearances (look who we have!!!) because Geregos was well known, and Geregos filling them with a bunch of bs.

Had there been a lawyer equally qualified but unknown, I don't think they would have looked twice, even at half the rate. ($$$)

I agree that perception and appearances were very important part of this case and trial.

[Cadillakin]

Interesting what Kirk Mcaliister (the Modesto attorney with a sterling rep) had to say about the police investigation in an interview with Maria Shriver:
"The police approached this entire case of 'We have our theory, don't confuse me
with the facts,'" said McAllister, a high-priced defense attorney in Modesto.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/mcallister.html

or in another interview: Kirk McAllister (pictured left) said his office has uncovered evidence that will exonerate Peterson -- evidence that will be turned over to his new attorney.McAllister told NBC 11 in San Francisco that the defense's case is "strong." When asked why, he said, "because we investigated it instead of calling press conferences like the police did."

He sounds a lot like Geragos, actually-what was this evidence that both seemed to have that would exonerate him and or prove him stone cold innocent?McAllister is NOTHING like Geragos. In the courtroom, he is a pitbull, not a charming, debonair showman. He is all substance... I watched him one day and and all I could think was Whoooaaaaa... This guy is tough.

I have no idea of any exonerating evidence.. Obviously there wasn't any. But in the beginning, there are lots of phony witnesses and people who say they know or saw things they didn't. Alot like the NG's who say they have exonerating evidence, but are sitting on it.. You know the BS floating around. You pasted it some of it the other day in your 100 reasons post.

IMO, McAllister was going to put the police on trial.. He knows many of them, and reportedly is not too friendly with a couple of them. That strategy may not have worked as the MPD were reportedly outstanding on the witness stand, but in any event, he would have done everything much better than Geragos.. I'm sure of that.

[deputydi]

Interesting what Kirk Mcaliister (the Modesto attorney with a sterling rep) had to say about the police investigation in an interview with Maria Shriver:
"The police approached this entire case of 'We have our theory, don't confuse me
with the facts,'" said McAllister, a high-priced defense attorney in Modesto.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/mcallister.html

or in another interview: Kirk McAllister (pictured left) said his office has uncovered evidence that will exonerate Peterson -- evidence that will be turned over to his new attorney.McAllister told NBC 11 in San Francisco that the defense's case is "strong." When asked why, he said, "because we investigated it instead of calling press conferences like the police did."

He sounds a lot like Geragos, actually-what was this evidence that both seemed to have that would exonerate him and or prove him stone cold innocent?
I guess Kirk McAllister is still sitting on this "evidence that will exonerate Peterson". Surely, if he had turned it over to "his new attorney" (MG) Scott would be a free man today. Or, maybe it's in those secret papers that some posters are holding on to. Poor Scott -- all this exonerating evidence and he still sits on death row.

[Wearing A Halo]

NG knows that the Ps contacted three high-profile lawyers before hiring MG. She never said who the three were and neither have the Ps.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/0506grace-peterson.html

MG said, "It's the ultimate challenge for a defense lawyer. And after talking to Jackie and Lee Peterson (Scott's parents), I completely became convinced (that defending him) was something that needed to be done."

As for MG and his reputation, MG said, “I’m not concerned about my career or reputation,” he said in a telephone interview. “I’m concerned about my client.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/03/MN122043.DTL&type=printable

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6716860/from/RL.2/

The Ps have not said why MG, but, "Even with private lawyer, public can still pay for murder defense."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/02/ctv.peterson.case/

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/072904_funds_ctv.html

Then there is always this by MG: "...because it's a death penalty case, I always want to leave open the option for whoever the appellate lawyer is if they want to take a shot at me for ineffective assistance of counsel, I'd be more than happy."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/lkl.01.html

[Lavindar]

McAllister is NOTHING like Geragos. In the courtroom, he is a pitbull, not a charming, debonair showman. He is all substance... I watched him one day and and all I could think was Whoooaaaaa... This guy is tough.

I have no idea of any exonerating evidence.. Obviously there wasn't any. But in the beginning, there are lots of phony witnesses and people who say they know or saw things they didn't. Alot like the NG's who say they have exonerating evidence, but are sitting on it.. You know the BS floating around. You pasted it some of it the other day in your 100 reasons post.

IMO, McAllister was going to put the police on trial.. He knows many of them, and reportedly is not too friendly with a couple of them. That strategy may not have worked as the MPD were reportedly outstanding on the witness stand, but in any event, he would have done everything much better than Geragos.. I'm sure of that.

Given the quality and substance of some of Mr. Geragos's motions, my 5-year-old nephew could write a better motion. They were pathetic at best, and an embarassment to any attorney. You can't get by saying "it's not fair" as a legal argument and that's essentially what he did in most of his motions.

[Lavindar]

NG knows that the Ps contacted three high-profile lawyers before hiring MG. She never said who the three were and neither have the Ps.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/0506grace-peterson.html

MG said, "It's the ultimate challenge for a defense lawyer. And after talking to Jackie and Lee Peterson (Scott's parents), I completely became convinced (that defending him) was something that needed to be done."

As for MG and his reputation, MG said, “I’m not concerned about my career or reputation,” he said in a telephone interview. “I’m concerned about my client.”http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/03/MN122043.DTL&type=printable

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6716860/from/RL.2/

The Ps have not said why MG, but, "Even with private lawyer, public can still pay for murder defense."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/02/ctv.peterson.case/

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/072904_funds_ctv.html

Then there is always this by MG: "...because it's a death penalty case, I always want to leave open the option for whoever the appellate lawyer is if they want to take a shot at me for ineffective assistance of counsel, I'd be more than happy." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/lkl.01.html



The question is really - how many lies can MG say before being caught at it.

He was never concerned for his client - just his own media image.

He only agrees to put himself up for ineffectiveness of counsel, because he knows there's not a snowball's chance in hell that ineffective counsel will fly with an appeals court.

[PsychNurse;~)]

didn't chris pixley state once on ctv (cc's show iirc) that the peterson's had initially contacted him?

~~cyn~~

[JustMyOpinion]

Where the bodies turned up is the one and only thing that points to Scott and to Scott only. There are tons of other people that had access to the bay, but that Scott had a receipt that put him there on the day Laci disappeared and that she was found in the same general area is a pretty big coinkydink. What ARE the odds? Is it possible that someone held her captive and then dumped both bodies? Maybe. Possible, yes, Likely, no. As I said in a previous post, this is the reason on the Guilty side that keeps me on the fence. The list of assumptions that I borrowed/posted and were deleted for some reason-albeit a handful were weak, (but most were as strong as the assumptions made by G's about various things) sum up much of the NG side that keeps me on the fence. don't believe the boat was a secret.

The P's were thrust into a crushing media feeding frenzy that most people have never seen the likes of and like the most of us, would have NO CLUE, really, about whom to hire. Certainly were not in the best state of mind to make good decisions and hindsight is always 20/20.
They needed someone with media savvy. However, if Scott had followed the advice of his first lawyer, the regular guy lawyer from cow town (P's characterization)Modesto & stayed off the phone and no D.Sawyer interview, he might have stood a snowballs chance in h#ll and Geragos might have been able to pull off a hung jury. They should have hired someone with a good success rate in capital murder cases.

I disagree that the state of and location of the bodies was the only thing pointing to Scott, and Scott only. He was the last known person seen with a living, Laci Peterson, nobody else had seen or spoken to her since 8:30 p.m. Dec 23. He told his girlfriend he had lost his wife around the same time he purchased the boat and searched the tides of the Bay on his computer. The shirt Laci was wearing when she was last seen alive had been photographed in the hamper, later found inside a drawer. Her diamond necklace was found on the dresser.
Scott admitted he purchased ready-mix, a concrete anchor was in evidence, he had given shifting accounts for what he had done with the remainder of the concrete. Concrete residue was found in various places ( some in circular imprints photographed at the warehouse showing other anchors had been made). The timeline on of 12/24 ( established by Servas, cell phone triangulation, cellphone records, computer usage) was incriminating as well, it seemed highly improbable that Laci changed her clothes & walked the dog and was kidnapped within the 10 min window right after Scott departed for his warehouse, IMO.
I also disagree that "the Ps were thrust into a crushing media frenzy". The Ps had sought media attention from the outset of Scott reporting Laci missing, and they didn't need a "celebrity lawyer" to represent their interests.
It remains unknown how many lawyers they interviewed ( if any) prior to hiring Geragos, and how much input Scott was allowed into the decision, since they were paying, IMO.
IIRC,It has been reported by Crier that when Scott tried to replace Geragos early in the case, Geragos told him "he'd fry" if he went throught with it.

[onthefence]

I beg to differ OTF. The CHANCES of some hick burglars stealing Laci (as she confronted them, along with McKenzie) in the 10 minute window of time available, and they took her home to change her cloths. Held her captive in a tub somewhere for 4 months, while delivering Conner in the most amazing of ways, i.e., no vaginal birth or cesarean birth - LEAVING NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, and then planting the bodies NOT where ISP was fishing, but 2 days apart, and 2 miles away. Now, IMO, if ANYBODY buys into that theory, framing a fertilizer sales rep, then they're just not the least bit interested in facts and reality. Only in *winning*, which speaks for itself.

The P's managed to pull of quite a bit while "grieving" for Laci. Now suddenly they didn't have their wits about them to choose a lawyer? Okie dokie. Doesn't matter, there never would have been a hung trial. He'd be right where he is regardless of who defended him and who sat on that jury. Right where he deserves to be.

I do not know about the changing clothes, captive theory, etc. It seems far fetched, but that is not how it had to have happened and not what many of the more reasonable NG's seem to believe, based on what I have read. There seem to be many different theories (some a little more whack than others) as to how long (and if) Laci may have been alive past Dec 24th, where she (and if) might have been held. What I find th most puzzling is the condition of Conner vs the condition of Laci. I have not been able to reconcile the two. I am not sold on the "coffin birth" theory. I have not heard a good explanation from either side as to the baby's condition. There are some things about this case one can only assume and speculate on and the condition of the baby is one of those, imo.

I do not think the P's had time to do much true grieving as they were too busy handling the media onslaught and the ordeal of defending themsevles, finding lawyers, etc..Like them or not, they had a full plate. It is easy to sit in judgement and easier to vilify them. It would have been difficult and horrible situation for anyone, no matter what. Imo, even Sharon Rocha had delayed grieving process because of all the media attention, press, etc.. all distractions from reality, in their own way. imo, The hard part and most of the true grieving came after all the cameras went away, books were written, etc and people had to get back to living their everyday lives without Laci.

[JustMyOpinion]

. What I find th most puzzling is the condition of Conner vs the condition of Laci. I have not been able to reconcile the two. I am not sold on the "coffin birth" theory. I have not heard a good explanation from either side as to the baby's condition. There are some things about this case one can only assume and speculate on and the condition of the baby is one of those, imo.

,.

I disagree that anyone must "assume" or "speculate", because the medical examiner was not on a "side", IMO.. he is experienced and gave solid, scientific, clear findings & explanations, there was no attempt to challenge his testimony, no contrary opinion was offered.
What specifically confuses you about the baby's condition?

[onthefence]

I disagree that anyone must "assume" or "speculate", because the medical examiner was not on a "side", IMO.. he is experienced and gave solid, scientific, clear findings & explanations, there was no attempt to challenge his testimony, no contrary opinion was offered.
What specifically confuses you about the baby's condition?

did the ME testify to the possibilities of the baby's condition or say that there was only one way the baby was in the condition he was in? -although gelatinous/soft, and a cut on his shoulder, and twine in a knot around his gelatinous head/neck, the baby was pretty much unscathed considering it was inside the abraded uterus of a basically skeltonized mother (no disrespect to Laci) for at least, 2 + months. I don't understand how the baby could have gone through all that -including the coffin birth theory, and been in the condition he was in. I have been reading up on this part because it is one of the things that bothers me about this case.

[Invrdv8]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
With McAllister defending Scott he may have gotten him off?

[Invrdv8]

Ah c'mon, there ain't a chance in China that Geragos actually believed Scott was innocent.
That wasn't the point. The comment was made that "Geragos went to the Petersons", my point was that "the Petersons went to Geragos". I'm sure Geragos didn't believe Scott was innocent but, he wasn't going to turn down a million $$ either to stand by the comments he had previously made about the case.

[Lavindar]

did the ME testify to the possibilities of the baby's condition or say that there was only one way the baby was in the condition he was in? -although gelatinous/soft, and a cut on his shoulder, and twine in a knot around his gelatinous head/neck, the baby was pretty much unscathed considering it was inside the abraded uterus of a basically skeltonized mother (no disrespect to Laci) for at least, 2 + months. I don't understand how the baby could have gone through all that -including the coffin birth theory, and been in the condition he was in. I have been reading up on this part because it is one of the things that bothers me about this case.

If you read up on the condition of stillborn babies (babies who have died IN THE UTERUS and been born later, you will find that maceration is a very common occurrence in tha scenario. Conner DID die in the womb and was born through an abraded uterus opening. His condition was consistent with that of being dead in a womb. As far as the twine around his neck, it was looped one and a half times and also went under his arm. Measured, the twine was 51 inches long (read Kyo's testimony). The knot was by the left shoulder. As clothes get knotted up in the washer, the storm would have generated higher waves and could have slipped over his COLLAPSED head. The pictures of Conner as descrobed by Dr. Peterson, showing facial distortion due to the plates in the head collapsing. It is not unusual for debris from the ocean to get tangled up with something.

As far as animal feeding not being present, the bodies came ashore in a storm. Most marine animals head for the bottom when there is a storm churning up the surface waters.

[onthefence]

I beg to differ OTF. The CHANCES of some hick burglars stealing Laci (as she confronted them, along with McKenzie) in the 10 minute window of time available, and they took her home to change her cloths. Held her captive in a tub somewhere for 4 months, while delivering Conner in the most amazing of ways, i.e., no vaginal birth or cesarean birth - LEAVING NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, and then planting the bodies NOT where ISP was fishing, but 2 days apart, and 2 miles away. Now, IMO, if ANYBODY buys into that theory, framing a fertilizer sales rep, then they're just not the least bit interested in facts and reality. Only in *winning*, which speaks for itself.

The P's managed to pull of quite a bit while "grieving" for Laci. Now suddenly they didn't have their wits about them to choose a lawyer? Okie dokie. Doesn't matter, there never would have been a hung trial. He'd be right where he is regardless of who defended him and who sat on that jury. Right where he deserves to be.

Thought I posted a reply to this, but can't find it so...........

you say above that there was no evidence left ANYWHERE. Well they didn't look everywhere, so maybe there was evidence SOMEwhere, but they weren't looking in the right places for it and that is why they did not find anything anywhere. They did not find evidence of murder or foul play ANYWHERE in the Peterson home, the warehouse, the boat or their autos, does this mean that the murder did not occur in any of these places? or that a dead body was not transported in the truck or the boat? and if it didn't occur in any of these places and she wasn't transported in the truck or the boat because there was no evidence of it ANYWHERE, then WHERE/HOW? :confused:

[TopGunner]

Thought I posted a reply to this, but can't find it so...........

you say above that there was no evidence left ANYWHERE. Well they didn't look everywhere, so maybe there was evidence SOMEwhere, but they weren't looking in the right places for it and that is why they did not find anything anywhere. They did not find evidence of murder or foul play ANYWHERE in the Peterson home, the warehouse, the boat or their autos, does this mean that the murder did not occur in any of these places? or that a dead body was not transported in the truck or the boat? and if it didn't occur in any of these places and she wasn't transported in the truck or the boat because there was no evidence of it ANYWHERE, then WHERE/HOW? :confused:


And how is it, OTF, that you know they didn't look anywhere? How do you know what went on in the investigation? You got a link?

[onthefence]

If you read up on the condition of stillborn babies (babies who have died IN THE UTERUS and been born later, you will find that maceration is a very common occurrence in tha scenario. Conner DID die in the womb and was born through an abraded uterus opening. His condition was consistent with that of being dead in a womb. As far as the twine around his neck, it was looped one and a half times and also went under his arm. Measured, the twine was 51 inches long (read Kyo's testimony). The knot was by the left shoulder. As clothes get knotted up in the washer, the storm would have generated higher waves and could have slipped over his COLLAPSED head. The pictures of Conner as descrobed by Dr. Peterson, showing facial distortion due to the plates in the head collapsing. It is not unusual for debris from the ocean to get tangled up with something.

As far as animal feeding not being present, the bodies came ashore in a storm. Most marine animals head for the bottom when there is a storm churning up the surface waters.

Will have to read up more on this. But the circumstances and conditions around a stillborn birth and those of this baby seem quite different, so, I am not sure it is apples to apples or even apples to oranges. This baby was in the womb of a skeltonized mother whose uterus was abraded and exposed to the elements for who knows how long, and then allegededly was released from an abraded uterus opeining into a storm for some period of time and on the shore for some period of time basically intact. It really seems as incredible to me as some of the other theories floated.

I agree that it is not unusal for debris in the ocean to get tangled up with something, but, the baby was not like clothes in a washer his body was much more fragile than a towel or sheet, etc. all this storming and churning and slipping over the head of string and knots, yet the baby is basically intact after being in the ocean for at least a few hours in a storm in the ocean? It just seems really unlikely to me. to get tangled up and not leave marks on the neck or bodyAnd the string slipping over his collapsed head-seems almost miraculous. that a storm could put a string around his conveniently collapsed head (precise timing) etc, I dunno.

[onthefence]

And how is it, OTF, that you know they didn't look anywhere? How do you know what went on in the investigation? You got a link?

I said they didn't look EVERYwhere. Are you saying they did?You answer my questions and I'll answer yours, deal? My question is still:

you say above that there was no evidence left ANYWHERE, so X must not have happened because they found no evidence anywhere of it. Well they didn't look everywhere, so maybe there was evidence SOMEwhere, but they weren't looking in the right places for it and that is why they did not find anything anywhere. We know that they did not find evidence of murder or foul play ANYWHERE in the Peterson home, the warehouse, the boat or their autos, does this mean that the murder did not occur in any of these places? or that a dead body was not transported in the truck or the boat? and if it didn't occur in any of these places and she wasn't transported in the truck or the boat because there was no evidence of it ANYWHERE, then WHERE/HOW?

[Lavindar]

The condition of the brain and the skull plates tells a lot. Here's Peterson's descriiption of Conner's face:


Also the overriding of the skull plates. It's probably better to see it here, you can see how the forehead kind of collapses in, again because the brain has liquefied and those plates override.

[Lavindar]

Will have to read up more on this. But the circumstances and conditions around a stillborn birth and those of this baby seem quite different, so, I am not sure it is apples to apples or even apples to oranges. This baby was in the womb of a skeltonized mother whose uterus was abraded and exposed to the elements for who knows how long, and then allegededly was released from an abraded uterus opeining into a storm for some period of time and on the shore for some period of time basically intact. It really seems as incredible to me as some of the other theories floated.

I agree that it is not unusal for debris in the ocean to get tangled up with something, but, the baby was not like clothes in a washer his body was much more fragile than a towel or sheet, etc. all this storming and churning and slipping over the head of string and knots, yet the baby is basically intact after being in the ocean for at least a few hours in a storm in the ocean? It just seems really unlikely to me. to get tangled up and not leave marks on the neck or bodyAnd the string slipping over his collapsed head-seems almost miraculous. that a storm could put a string around his conveniently collapsed head (precise timing) etc, I dunno.


Do you know the period of time the bodies were on the shore before discovered? "some time" is very vague - do you mean minutes, hours, days, weeks, months?

[Lavindar]

I said they didn't look EVERYwhere. Are you saying they did?You answer my questions and I'll answer yours, deal? My question is still:

you say above that there was no evidence left ANYWHERE, so X must not have happened because they found no evidence anywhere of it. Well they didn't look everywhere, so maybe there was evidence SOMEwhere, but they weren't looking in the right places for it and that is why they did not find anything anywhere. We know that they did not find evidence of murder or foul play ANYWHERE in the Peterson home, the warehouse, the boat or their autos, does this mean that the murder did not occur in any of these places? or that a dead body was not transported in the truck or the boat? and if it didn't occur in any of these places and she wasn't transported in the truck or the boat because there was no evidence of it ANYWHERE, then WHERE/HOW?

To borrow a statement from Dr. Henry Lee.
.
The absense of evidence IS evidence - evidence of a cleanup.

Can you explain why there was NO DNA on the tool box. Scott told police he cut his hand on it that day, yet there was no blood or tissue of Scott's on the toolbox. He cut his hand badly enough that it bled on the inside of the door of his truck, but yet there was nothing on the tool box.

Surely Laci had ridden in his truck at one time or another, yet there was no evidence that she had ever been in that truck at all.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

[Lavindar]

between Conner and Laci consistent, inconsistent? Or can you describe that for us.
133) Brian Peterson: Conner's body was, relatively speaking, in much better shape with respect to most of the parts being there, compared to Laci's where, as you recall, we were missing substantial soft tissue, and even some bones from the arms and the legs. Conner's body had undergone a similar type process with respect to autolysis, maceration, body soaking in fluid, and so forth. But there wasn't quite the evidence that it had been exposed so much to the other physical forces that we discussed yesterday, namely the tidal action and animal feeding. So there were some similarities, but again, to my eye, marked differences, particularly including, particularly because Conner was so much smaller. And my thinking was that as small he was and as softened as he was, that if he had spent substantial unprotected time in the water, like Laci did, he would have been eaten. There simply wouldn't have been anything left.
134) David Harris: From your examination of Conner and the state that he was in, versus Laci, what did that kind of mean to you?
135) Brian Peterson: My conclusion was that Conner had been protected, certainly protected to a greater degree than Laci was.
136) David Harris: And did you have an opinion of how he was protected?
137) Brian Peterson: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.
138) David Harris: In terms of Laci's body, was the inside of her uterus somewhat protected or in a different state compared to the rest of her body?
139) Brian Peterson: Well, the fact is that her uterus was there at all, which was different compared to every other organ that she had had. So I think based on its location lower in the pelvis and however she acted against things at the bottom, and so forth, it took a while to wear away that part of her abdominal wall to get to the point where the uterus was exposed. It took further time to wear away the top of the uterus, which ultimately caused Conner's release.140) David Harris: Now, the term you kept using, you used several times, you described it for us before, that's that macerated term. That basically means that something had to be in a fluid environment?
141) Brian Peterson: Correct.
142) David Harris: And Laci was in a fluid environment, but she wasn't protected in the same way. Can you describe the difference there?
143) Brian Peterson: Sure. We'll even use the term maceration in a hospital pathology where we're looking at a still birth and a baby that's died in the uterus and then, perhaps, is delivered a day or two or three or more later will undergo the same type changes. Not to the degree that we see in Conner, but maceration-type changes anyway. In a fresher stillborn, those will often involve skin changes, overriding of the skull plates, and, to a certain degree, liquefaction of the organs. So we'll see that in a hospital setting, too, and that's where that term maceration would be used. I think the difference is they were both in fluid, they were both in fluid environments, but Conner was much more protected than Laci. So the question is how can one reasonably explain the fact, both fluid environments, there's so much more of her missing, there's really little of him missing, how does that happen. And my conclusion was the fluid was different. He was protected in the uterus. There was amniotic fluid. She was in the ocean. Different kind of protection.

[onthefence]

Do you know the period of time the bodies were on the shore before discovered? "some time" is very vague - do you mean minutes, hours, days, weeks, months?

Does anyone know the period of time the bodies were laying were they they were before they were discovered? My guess is probably a few days on the outside. The bodies were disovered by people out walking, iirc, so this area must have regular foot traffic? If they had been there longer than a day or so someone would surely have seen them?

[Lavindar]

Does anyone know the period of time the bodies were laying were they they were before they were discovered? My guess is probably a few days on the outside. The bodies were disovered by people out walking, iirc, so this area must have regular foot traffic? If they had been there longer than a day or so someone would surely have seen them?

Laci was found with a dog chewing on her shoulder or elbow or some part of her skeleton. I am not sure if the area Conner was in was a dog-walking park or not. Both were foot traffic areas, and I seriously doubt that anyone would see them and ignore them. Particularly when Conner was readily identifiable as a human fetus.

[onthefence]

To borrow a statement from Dr. Henry Lee.
.
The absense of evidence IS evidence - evidence of a cleanup.

Can you explain why there was NO DNA on the tool box. Scott told police he cut his hand on it that day, yet there was no blood or tissue of Scott's on the toolbox. He cut his hand badly enough that it bled on the inside of the door of his truck, but yet there was nothing on the tool box.

Surely Laci had ridden in his truck at one time or another, yet there was no evidence that she had ever been in that truck at all.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

The absence of evidence can be evidence I suppose, but it is not always evidence of the same thing. Could be a clean up but it could/should be an indicator, that you are maybe looking in the wrong place. All I can say is that if Scott did kill Laci, he is a) a criminal mastermind and incredibly lucky in the evidence destruction area b) the crime did not occur in the home, and he did not use the boat to dispose of her body.

[onthefence]

Laci was found with a dog chewing on her shoulder or elbow or some part of her skeleton. I am not sure if the area Conner was in was a dog-walking park or not. Both were foot traffic areas, and I seriously doubt that anyone would see them and ignore them. Particularly when Conner was readily identifiable as a human fetus.

That is horrible. I can hardly bear to read it. :(

[JustMyOpinion]

did the ME testify to the possibilities of the baby's condition or say that there was only one way the baby was in the condition he was in? -although gelatinous/soft, and a cut on his shoulder, and twine in a knot around his gelatinous head/neck, the baby was pretty much unscathed considering it was inside the abraded uterus of a basically skeltonized mother (no disrespect to Laci) for at least, 2 + months. I don't understand how the baby could have gone through all that -including the coffin birth theory, and been in the condition he was in. I have been reading up on this part because it is one of the things that bothers me about this case.

Thanks for answering. If the ME's testimony does not answer your questions, I can't add anything. I'm not a forensic pathologist. Laci's uterus was not completely abraded, he was protected for a long while, ME believed he had only been the water a few days. I think the plastic tape was ocean debris and the wound near the shoulder was the result of being tossed against something with the force of the waves. The baby was not unscathed at all, he was just in different condition than Laci because he had been protected from the elements & animal feeding.. JMO

[TopGunner]

I said they didn't look EVERYwhere. Are you saying they did?You answer my questions and I'll answer yours, deal? My question is still:

you say above that there was no evidence left ANYWHERE, so X must not have happened because they found no evidence anywhere of it. Well they didn't look everywhere, so maybe there was evidence SOMEwhere, but they weren't looking in the right places for it and that is why they did not find anything anywhere. We know that they did not find evidence of murder or foul play ANYWHERE in the Peterson home, the warehouse, the boat or their autos, does this mean that the murder did not occur in any of these places? or that a dead body was not transported in the truck or the boat? and if it didn't occur in any of these places and she wasn't transported in the truck or the boat because there was no evidence of it ANYWHERE, then WHERE/HOW?


Hey, there's no reason to be flip Offthefence. You keep posting that you really don't know the case well, therefore, you're ON the fence, yet you bark back information defending the convicted killer faster than I can type. And I can type pretty fast.

There was no evidence left ANYWHERE by "abductors" who managed to supposedly steal Laci in a TEN MINUTE window of time, take her home to change her cloths and then get out of Mayberry, kabeesh?
:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

The absence of evidence can be evidence I suppose, but it is not always evidence of the same thing. Could be a clean up but it could/should be an indicator, that you are maybe looking in the wrong place. All I can say is that if Scott did kill Laci, he is a) a criminal mastermind and incredibly lucky in the evidence destruction area b) the crime did not occur in the home, and he did not use the boat to dispose of her body.

Do you have any source for this statement? There was a hair of Laci's found enmeshed into pliers in the boat. That would seem to say that somehow her hair got all tangled up in those pliers and the pliers put themselves in the boat. As for Laci's home, Scott was doing an awful lot of cleaning, what with the wet mop and bucket, washing his clothes, vacuuming. Too bad he couldn't get back into the warehosue to clean that up, isn't it.

[Lavindar]

The absence of evidence can be evidence I suppose, but it is not always evidence of the same thing. Could be a clean up but it could/should be an indicator, that you are maybe looking in the wrong place. All I can say is that if Scott did kill Laci, he is a) a criminal mastermind and incredibly lucky in the evidence destruction area b) the crime did not occur in the home, and he did not use the boat to dispose of her body.


Please explain to me why there was NO EVIDENCE of Laci in a house she lived in? Maybe because someone cleaned it all up?
No hairs of hers on the bed she slept in. No hairs on the sofa where she sat watching TV.

[Cadillakin]

The absence of evidence can be evidence I suppose, but it is not always evidence of the same thing. Could be a clean up but it could/should be an indicator, that you are maybe looking in the wrong place. All I can say is that if Scott did kill Laci, he is a) a criminal mastermind and incredibly lucky in the evidence destruction area b) the crime did not occur in the home, and he did not use the boat to dispose of her body.Yeah, uh huh... Scott's in San Quentin with a death sentence... and he is a criminal mastermind.

Youre too funny...

[adnoid]

Yeah, uh huh... Scott's in San Quentin with a death sentence... and he is a criminal mastermind...

I always love it when the NGs claim Scott must be a criminal mastermind. As you so astutely point out he's in prison. I don't know the prerequisites for being classified as a mastermind, but I'm pretty sure getting caught is an automatic DQ.

[JD1974]

Thanks for answering. If the ME's testimony does not answer your questions, I can't add anything. I'm not a forensic pathologist. Laci's uterus was not completely abraded, he was protected for a long while, ME believed he had only been the water a few days. I think the plastic tape was ocean debris and the wound near the shoulder was the result of being tossed against something with the force of the waves. The baby was not unscathed at all, he was just in different condition than Laci because he had been protected from the elements & animal feeding.. JMO


I have a question about that. I lost a baby at 22 weeks, the doctor told me he had been dead from anywhere to 2-4 weeks, 4 at the most. When I went in to get my labor induced he asked me if I wanted to see the baby, I told him yes, he gave me a graphic, horrible warning about what I would most likely see, the baby would be black or blue, maybe some parts of the baby had become detached. This was at the most after being dead inside me for 4 weeks. My question is if Conner had been dead for 4 months inside Laci, wouldn't he have been in much worse shape than he was? Even protected inside me, I was warned what my child would look like after 4 weeks tops, 4 months is a far cry from 4 weeks.

I am in no way saying someone kept Laci somewhere or that Conner lived longer than suggested, I am merely curious because of my own personal experience. IMO

[Lavindar]

I have a question about that. I lost a baby at 22 weeks, the doctor told me he had been dead from anywhere to 2-4 weeks, 4 at the most. When I went in to get my labor induced he asked me if I wanted to see the baby, I told him yes, he gave me a graphic, horrible warning about what I would most likely see, the baby would be black or blue, maybe some parts of the baby had become detached. This was at the most after being dead inside me for 4 weeks. My question is if Conner had been dead for 4 months inside Laci, wouldn't he have been in much worse shape than he was? Even protected inside me, I was warned what my child would look like after 4 weeks tops, 4 months is a far cry from 4 weeks.

I am in no way saying someone kept Laci somewhere or that Conner lived longer than suggested, I am merely curious because of my own personal experience. IMO


Conner's organs were in the process of liquifying. His brain already had and the plates in his skull were slipping - his forehead was compressed. You could view his muscles through the skin. There was a tear from his chest to his abdomen and you could see his bowel. Conner was more developed than your child was - he would have been viable if he had been born. I think the difference in fetal age would account for the differences. I am not a doctor, but that is the only scenario that would make sense to me. Children who die in the womb closer to term, "appear" to be normal. AT least that is what I have read on the stillborn sites on the internet.

[JustMyOpinion]

The absence of evidence can be evidence I suppose, but it is not always evidence of the same thing. Could be a clean up but it could/should be an indicator, that you are maybe looking in the wrong place. All I can say is that if Scott did kill Laci, he is a) a criminal mastermind and incredibly lucky in the evidence destruction area b) the crime did not occur in the home, and he did not use the boat to dispose of her body.

In the home, there was no evidence of forced entry, of a struggle, no items were missing. The blouse she was last seen wearing was photographed in the hamper, her diamond necklace was on the dresser. ( her remains were found clad in remnants of a bra, panties & the same color slacks she had last been seen wearing). Nobody saw or spoke to her ( except Scott) after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23, and he gave inconsistent statements. I don't think Scott is a criminal mastermind, he made mistakes, he got caught, and he's been convicted. If he strangled or smothered her, there would not necessarily be a great deal of biological evidence to clean up, IMO.. and since concrete residue, one concrete anchor, and pliers with hair consistent with Laci's were found in the boat, I do think he utilized it in disposing of her body.. JMO.

[deputydi]

I do not know about the changing clothes, captive theory, etc. It seems far fetched, but that is not how it had to have happened and not what many of the more reasonable NG's seem to believe, based on what I have read. There seem to be many different theories (some a little more whack than others) as to how long (and if) Laci may have been alive past Dec 24th, where she (and if) might have been held. What I find th most puzzling is the condition of Conner vs the condition of Laci. I have not been able to reconcile the two. I am not sold on the "coffin birth" theory. I have not heard a good explanation from either side as to the baby's condition. There are some things about this case one can only assume and speculate on and the condition of the baby is one of those, imo.
Conner's birth was not a coffin birth. I'd really like to hear what "many of the more reasonable NG's seem to believe". Given the evidence and testimony that we can read for ourselves, none of the NG theories are able to hold water (more holes than a sieve). It is true that we've never seen the actual photo's, however, the testimony provides a graphic enough description. Maybe you should read it.

I do not think the P's had time to do much true grieving as they were too busy handling the media onslaught and the ordeal of defending themsevles, finding lawyers, etc..Like them or not, they had a full plate. It is easy to sit in judgement and easier to vilify them. It would have been difficult and horrible situation for anyone, no matter what. Imo, even Sharon Rocha had delayed grieving process because of all the media attention, press, etc.. all distractions from reality, in their own way. imo, The hard part and most of the true grieving came after all the cameras went away, books were written, etc and people had to get back to living their everyday lives without Laci.
I stay far, far away from most posts that bash either family. I can't imagine in my wildest nightmare being in the position of either the Petersons or the Rochas. Neither family had time to grieve. The difference, as I see it, is Laci's family remained dignified throughout their ordeal. I can't say the same for the Petersons.

[onthefence]

Conner's birth was not a coffin birth. I'd really like to hear what "many of the more reasonable NG's seem to believe". Given the evidence and testimony that we can read for ourselves, none of the NG theories are able to hold water (more holes than a sieve). It is true that we've never seen the actual photo's, however, the testimony provides a graphic enough description. Maybe you should read it.


I stay far, far away from most posts that bash either family. I can't imagine in my wildest nightmare being in the position of either the Petersons or the Rochas. Neither family had time to grieve. The difference, as I see it, is Laci's family remained dignified throughout their ordeal. I can't say the same for the Petersons.

The model for dignity and class in this type of situation was/is the Hackings and the Soares families. moo.

[onthefence]

In the home, there was no evidence of forced entry, of a struggle, no items were missing. The blouse she was last seen wearing was photographed in the hamper, her diamond necklace was on the dresser. ( her remains were found clad in remnants of a bra, panties & the same color slacks she had last been seen wearing). Nobody saw or spoke to her ( except Scott) after 8:30 p.m. on 12/23, and he gave inconsistent statements. I don't think Scott is a criminal mastermind, he made mistakes, he got caught, and he's been convicted. If he strangled or smothered her, there would not necessarily be a great deal of biological evidence to clean up, IMO.. and since concrete residue, one concrete anchor, and pliers with hair consistent with Laci's were found in the boat, I do think he utilized it in disposing of her body.. JMO.

sounds convincing, at least at first glance. you might be right.

[deputydi]

The model for dignity and class in this type of situation was/is the Hackings and the Soares families. moo.
Yes, these families did exhibit dignity and class, but this board is not about them.

[JustMyOpinion]

I have a question about that. I lost a baby at 22 weeks, the doctor told me he had been dead from anywhere to 2-4 weeks, 4 at the most. When I went in to get my labor induced he asked me if I wanted to see the baby, I told him yes, he gave me a graphic, horrible warning about what I would most likely see, the baby would be black or blue, maybe some parts of the baby had become detached. This was at the most after being dead inside me for 4 weeks. My question is if Conner had been dead for 4 months inside Laci, wouldn't he have been in much worse shape than he was? Even protected inside me, I was warned what my child would look like after 4 weeks tops, 4 months is a far cry from 4 weeks.

I am in no way saying someone kept Laci somewhere or that Conner lived longer than suggested, I am merely curious because of my own personal experience. IMO

I'm so sorry for your loss, that must have been a painful ordeal.
There is a difference in the decomposition process of a fetus residing inside a living mother vs the decomposition process of a fetus residing inside a dead mother. Laci's body was in the cold water of the bay, there was no exposure to oxygen and Conner was protected in a sterile environment ( amniotic sac containing fluid, closed cervix)