Who Can Tell Me What This is?

[Cadillakin]

http://i17.tinypic.com/53inkup.jpg

[Luke Davis]

Ad in a phone book. It is laminated, so more often than not, the book will open to the ad.

[accordn2me]

also noticed how it was folded over....our phone books come with them folded in like that...i guess so the tab doesn't get bent during delivery :shrug:

it is ironic that LE found SLP's phone book open to this page on 12/24/02! it's a sign! :eek:

[Cadillakin]

Ad in a phone book. It is laminated, so more often than not, the book will open to the ad.No offense Luke, but that's just the NG talking points. You don't know because you have never handled it. I have. That phone book belongs to me. It is the same year and issue that Scott Peterson had in his home. It is identical in every way to the 2002 Peterson family phone book.

For those of you who don't know it, when the detectives entered the Peterson home on Covena Ave on the night of Dec 24th around 7pm, they noticed right away the phone book was open to the to the page of trial lawyer, Richard Herman, who defended another well known murder case in Modesto... It was the state vs Douglas Mouser... against Distaso and Fladager, no less. For the police, the phone book page viewed on Scott's counter was on the hush-hush. In our country, criminal suspects our afforded certain protections. One of them is the right to counsel, without prejudice or the admittance of guilt. If the police and investigators were to publicly state that Scott was already looking for a lawyer to defend him in a murder trial, just HOURS AFTER LACI WENT MISSING, it would be a HIGHLY prejudicial to the jury and his right to a fair trial. So, the facts were kept quiet on the prosecution side. Geragos, when he got his turn, tried to suggest to officers on the stand that the viewing of the phone book prejudiced their view of the case and pointed to Scott as the suspect, But the police didn't bite. Geragos was looking for an admission that it was so, and if he would have got it, a mistrial or a dismissal was likely in the offing.

When this was first posted, within minutes the NG's led by Lovely Pigeon at WS dreamed up the "turns to that page automatically" defense. But like so many things they said, it simply wasn't true. Every single page that the book opens to stays on that page.

Below is the same phone book first turned randomly to the "C" section and secondly, to an injury accident lawyer. Does anybody see any evidence that this 2002 Stanislaus/Modesto Phone book is opening automatically to the defense lawyers page.. the one who defends murderers?

http://i12.tinypic.com/4mvow8x.jpg
http://i8.tinypic.com/2n8y92c.jpg

[Cadillakin]

By the way, it was myself and Loretta at Misfitting.com who broke this story. It received national attention. In fact, the same picture shown here was published in the New York Post. They cropped it, but I saw that the same sheets my wife and I were sleeping on, evident in the background of this photo you see at the top of this thread were showing slightly in the Post article. I took the photo from above while the phone book was lying on our bed.

I was on a website one evening following the news of the Peterson trial. There had been a display of pictures entered into evidence that day in the San Mateo courtroom. There were a couple of shots of the Peterson kitchen counter, with the pizza box and the phone book. At least one person, maybe it was Loretta herself, was very curious what page the Peterson phone book was open to.. In fact, it seemed important to us in that time. We were more than a little us curious. The evidence pictures had been shown on the screen in the courtroom to all in attendance, but the phone book laying on Scott and Laci's kitchen counter, next to the pizza box, was shown from the side and it was not clear what that thick ad page contained.. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but it seemed they were purposely not allowing us to see the pages Scott was viewing. But there was black text on green pages abutting the thicker advertising page showing in one of the photos.

It occurred to me, though it was 2004, that I may very well have the Modesto 2002 phone book in my kitchen, under the phone, in the stand cabinet. I remembered there were a couple old phone books there.

I went to my kitchen and there it was. Amazing, as Scott would say. The way that I ascertained the page that Scott was looking at was the phone book had only two of those thicker ad pages, and ONLY one of those was followed by the green pages. When I turned to the advertising page, that preceded the first green page, there it was, the defense lawyer page, advertising that he defends those accused of murder. Voila! I was able to verify independently and with the help of others that the green page immediately following had the exact same text on mine as the picture displayed in the courtroom. It was a definitive match. I sent it immediately to Loretta. She worked up the story and published it on her web page. Within 24 hours, it was being published on both coasts.

And thru it all, though there were demonstrations published on the web, somewhat like my second post in this thread, illustrating that the phone book stayed open to any page the user selected and DID NOT fling itself open to the thicker page, the NG's clinged to the idea that Scott's phonebook was just open to a random page discussing the defending of murderers... and that the phone book magically opened there all by itself.

Mable at WS made a really funny joke at WS about what the NG's were doing and saying to rationalize this "coincidence". Maybe she will come along and tell us again what she said, or send it to me, or maybe I can find it..

[onthefence]

No offense Luke, but that's just the NG talking points. You don't know because you have never handled it. I have. That phone book belongs to me. It is the same year and issue that Scott Peterson had in his home. It is identical in every way to the 2002 Peterson family phone book.

For those of you who don't know it, when the detectives entered the Peterson home on Covena Ave on the night of Dec 24th around 7pm, they noticed right away the phone book was open to the to the page of trial lawyer, Richard Herman, who defended another well known murder case in Modesto... It was the state vs Douglas Mouser... against Distaso and Fladager, no less. For the police, the phone book page viewed on Scott's counter was on the hush-hush. In our country, criminal suspects our afforded certain protections. One of them is the right to counsel, without prejudice or the admittance of guilt. If the police and investigators were to publicly state that Scott was already looking for a lawyer to defend him in a murder trial, just HOURS AFTER LACI WENT MISSING, it would be a HIGHLY prejudicial to the jury and his right to a fair trial. So, the facts were kept quiet on the prosecution side. Geragos, when he got his turn, tried to suggest to officers on the stand that the viewing of the phone book prejudiced their view of the case and pointed to Scott as the suspect, But the police didn't bite. Geragos was looking for an admission that it was so, and if he would have got it, a mistrial or a dismissal was likely in the offing.

When this was first posted, within minutes the NG's led by Lovely Pigeon at WS dreamed up the "turns to that page automatically" defense. But like so many things they said, it simply wasn't true. Every single page that the book opens to stays on that page.

Below is the same phone book first turned randomly to the "C" section and secondly, to an injury accident lawyer. Does anybody see any evidence that this 2002 Stanislaus/Modesto Phone book is opening automatically to the defense lawyers page.. the one who defends murderers?

http://i12.tinypic.com/4mvow8x.jpg
http://i8.tinypic.com/2n8y92c.jpg

Are the people they defend or call, murderers before they call or after? I think you meant to say people who are charged with murder or some other criminal offense, right?

Those links don't demonstrate where the phone book falls open. Sorry, but unleess it is supported by testimony or i see it myself, that dog don't hunt.

[onthefence]

By the way, it was myself and Loretta at Misfitting.com who broke this story. It received national attention. In fact, the same picture shown here was published in the New York Post. They cropped it, but I saw that the same sheets my wife and I were sleeping on, evident in the background of this photo you see at the top of this thread were showing slightly in the Post article. I took the photo from above while the phone book was lying on our bed.

I was on a website one evening following the news of the Peterson trial. There had been a display of pictures entered into evidence that day in the San Mateo courtroom. There were a couple of shots of the Peterson kitchen counter, with the pizza box and the phone book. At least one person, maybe it was Loretta herself, was very curious what page the Peterson phone book was open to.. In fact, it seemed important to us in that time. We were more than a little us curious. The evidence pictures had been shown on the screen in the courtroom to all in attendance, but the phone book laying on Scott and Laci's kitchen counter, next to the pizza box, was shown from the side and it was not clear what that thick ad page contained.. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but it seemed they were purposely not allowing us to see the pages Scott was viewing. But there was black text on green pages abutting the thicker advertising page showing in one of the photos.

It occurred to me, though it was 2004, that I may very well have the Modesto 2002 phone book in my kitchen, under the phone, in the stand cabinet. I remembered there were a couple old phone books there.

I went to my kitchen and there it was. Amazing, as Scott would say. The way that I ascertained the page that Scott was looking at was the phone book had only two of those thicker ad pages, and ONLY one of those was followed by the green pages. When I turned to the advertising page, that preceded the first green page, there it was, the defense lawyer page, advertising that he defends those accused of murder. Voila! I was able to verify independently and with the help of others that the green page immediately following had the exact same text on mine as the picture displayed in the courtroom. It was a definitive match. I sent it immediately to Loretta. She worked up the story and published it on her web page. Within 24 hours, it was being published on both coasts.

And thru it all, though there were demonstrations published on the web, somewhat like my second post in this thread, illustrating that the phone book stayed open to any page the user selected and DID NOT fling itself open to the thicker page, the NG's clinged to the idea that Scott's phonebook was just open to a random page discussing the defending of murderers... and that the phone book magically opened there all by itself.

Mable at WS made a really funny joke at WS about what the NG's were doing and saying to rationalize this "coincidence". Maybe she will come along and tell us again what she said, or send it to me, or maybe I can find it..

you have some interesting stories. first the one about you and Brochinni and now you and some other person breaking another story. you are all over the place! Amazing. thanks for the insights.

[Cadillakin]

Are the people they defend or call, murderers before they call or after? I think you meant to say people who are charged with murder or some other criminal offense, right?

Those links don't demonstrate where the phone book falls open. Sorry, but unleess it is supported by testimony or i see it myself, that dog don't hunt.Frankly, I don't expect to convince you of anything that implicates Scott Peterson. If you would admit that Scott was looking for a lawyer, either before or shortly after he returned from Berkeley, and WELL BEFORE the police even knew Laci was missing, that would be pretty damn incriminating. If you were to do so, openmindedly, you would have to give up the pretense that he is innocent and that you are onthefence..

And I don't expect you'll do that. For whatever reasons. you will never admit that Scott is guilty.

[Cadillakin]

you have some interesting stories. first the one about you and Brochinni and now you and some other person breaking another story. you are all over the place! Amazing. thanks for the insights.I take it that you are calling me a liar in your subtle way. I would respond that if you think I am lying about any of it, it just goes to show that you are seemingly unable to distinguish an honest man from a liar. And that may explain why you think Scott is innocent.

[Lavindar]

By the way, it was myself and Loretta at Misfitting.com who broke this story. It received national attention. In fact, the same picture shown here was published in the New York Post. They cropped it, but I saw that the same sheets my wife and I were sleeping on, evident in the background of this photo you see at the top of this thread were showing slightly in the Post article. I took the photo from above while the phone book was lying on our bed.

I was on a website one evening following the news of the Peterson trial. There had been a display of pictures entered into evidence that day in the San Mateo courtroom. There were a couple of shots of the Peterson kitchen counter, with the pizza box and the phone book. At least one person, maybe it was Loretta herself, was very curious what page the Peterson phone book was open to.. In fact, it seemed important to us in that time. We were more than a little us curious. The evidence pictures had been shown on the screen in the courtroom to all in attendance, but the phone book laying on Scott and Laci's kitchen counter, next to the pizza box, was shown from the side and it was not clear what that thick ad page contained.. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but it seemed they were purposely not allowing us to see the pages Scott was viewing. But there was black text on green pages abutting the thicker advertising page showing in one of the photos.

It occurred to me, though it was 2004, that I may very well have the Modesto 2002 phone book in my kitchen, under the phone, in the stand cabinet. I remembered there were a couple old phone books there.

I went to my kitchen and there it was. Amazing, as Scott would say. The way that I ascertained the page that Scott was looking at was the phone book had only two of those thicker ad pages, and ONLY one of those was followed by the green pages. When I turned to the advertising page, that preceded the first green page, there it was, the defense lawyer page, advertising that he defends those accused of murder. Voila! I was able to verify independently and with the help of others that the green page immediately following had the exact same text on mine as the picture displayed in the courtroom. It was a definitive match. I sent it immediately to Loretta. She worked up the story and published it on her web page. Within 24 hours, it was being published on both coasts.

And thru it all, though there were demonstrations published on the web, somewhat like my second post in this thread, illustrating that the phone book stayed open to any page the user selected and DID NOT fling itself open to the thicker page, the NG's clinged to the idea that Scott's phonebook was just open to a random page discussing the defending of murderers... and that the phone book magically opened there all by itself.

Mable at WS made a really funny joke at WS about what the NG's were doing and saying to rationalize this "coincidence". Maybe she will come along and tell us again what she said, or send it to me, or maybe I can find it..
I had the 2002 phone book also and one of the more interesting things I found in it was that there was more than one Scott Peterson living in Modesto at that time. Scott Lee Peterson was listed as Peterson, Scott and Laci. I tried calling the home number (I think this was also in 2004) and got an answering machine, meaning the phone number was still in use. Were the senior Petersons still using the house at that point? Also there was ALWAYS a Mercedes in the driveway when I would take the time to drive by. Different colors, but ALWAYS a Mercedes.

[Luke Davis]

No offense Luke, but that's just the NG talking points. You don't know because you have never handled it. I disagree.

[Cadillakin]

Here is a link to the original evidence file released by Judge Delucchi in the Scott Peterson trial. Shown is the Peterson home, and their kitchen counter, with the phone book open about 9:00 pm on Dec 24,2002, the night Laci disappeared. Do your own detective work and match it up to my phone book at the top of this thread.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/photo_gallery/evidence/?curPhoto=78

[Lavindar]

Frankly, I don't expect to convince you of anything that implicates Scott Peterson. If you would admit that Scott was looking for a lawyer, either before or shortly after he returned from Berkeley, and WELL BEFORE the police even knew Laci was missing, that would be pretty damn incriminating. If you were to do so, openmindedly, you would have to give up the pretense that he is innocent and that you are onthefence..

And I don't expect you'll do that. For whatever reasons. you will never admit that Scott is guilty.

I agree that if you drop a phonebook on it's spine, it will open to that page, but I seriously doubt that if it were sitting on the table top (or bed) closed, that it would miraculously open to that spot. IIRC that ad was NOT in the middle of the attorney section of the yellow pages either. It was at the beginning of the entire yellow page section which did not start with ATTORNEYS

[Cadillakin]

I disagree.That's fine with me.

[Cadillakin]

This is the quote of Mabel at WS that I thought so funny..

"I've taken my head out of the washing machine and progressed to observing phone books. Mine is lying on the table. I've been watching it for 20 minutes or so and it still hasn't opened itself."

Mabel was always my favorite poster at WS...

Here link to the original thread at WS when the knowledge of the phonebook was released into the public domain. Follow the action there. Notice how very fast Lovely Pigeon comes in to defend Scott and attack the lawyer information as invalid, based on her knowledge of phone books. Mind you, she has never seen a Stanislaus/Modesto phone book and it's only 5 minutes after I posted the top article, but I guess she KNOWS and is suggesting that ALL phonebooks are of identical layout, weight, and use identical stock and do EXACTLY what she suggests they do. And to this day, the NG's mimic her responses, without ever having a 2002 Modesto phone book in their hands...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9271

[Cadillakin]

I agree that if you drop a phonebook on it's spine, it will open to that page, but I seriously doubt that if it were sitting on the table top (or bed) closed, that it would miraculously open to that spot. IIRC that ad was NOT in the middle of the attorney section of the yellow pages either. It was at the beginning of the entire yellow page section which did not start with ATTORNEYSScott told Brocchini he was calling hospitals that evening before the police arrived. So, I guess those who have faith in Scott believe the phone book just flipped itself over from the hospital section to the lawyers defending murderers section...

[onthefence]

Frankly, I don't expect to convince you of anything that implicates Scott Peterson. If you would admit that Scott was looking for a lawyer, either before or shortly after he returned from Berkeley, and WELL BEFORE the police even knew Laci was missing, that would be pretty damn incriminating. If you were to do so, openmindedly, you would have to give up the pretense that he is innocent and that you are onthefence..

And I don't expect you'll do that. For whatever reasons. you will never admit that Scott is guilty.


you don't have to convince me of anything. However, links like the one you posted wouldn't convince a thinking person that the pic shows anything other than an open phone book (I will assume that it is a 2002 Modesto phone book for grins).

[Luke Davis]

you don't have to convince me of anything. However, links like the one you posted wouldn't convince a thinking person that the pic shows anything other than an open phone book (I will assume that it is a 2002 Modesto phone book for grins).I just threw my phone book on the bed and it opened to an ad for lawyers. It might never happen again but it did happen.

I thought the original story was they had called for pizza. The phone book was open to pizza and the lawyer ad. :shrug:

[Luke Davis]

O'BRIEN: A little change of strategy.

Let's talk about some pictures that most people haven't seen before. I want to first show you -- I'll tell you what we're seeing, and then you tell me what the significance is. This is a shot of a phone book. What's that about?

GOMEZ: Well, when detectives actually searched Scott Peterson's home the day Laci Peterson disappeared they noticed that the phone book was open and flipped to a page listing all of the lawyers in town. So obviously, prosecutors are contending that maybe Scott Peterson was already looking for some sort of legal help, even before police arrived, Soledad.

CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/30/ltm.04.html)


Prosecution Bombshell in Scott Peterson Trial Fizzles

[Cadillakin]

:shrug: I said the stories were interesting, all the connections etc..
whether they are true or not, there is no way of knowing or verifying.
The paper got the source wrong homeless person instead of you on the Ward case. guess the journalist must have not heard what Al told him or what Al told LE that told the person writing the story. kinda like golfing vs.fishing, homeless person vs. you.IF I took you seriously, I'd be offended by your suggestions that I'm lying.. But I don't...

[Luke Davis]

ROWLANDS: Well, the court released a number of photos from inside the Peterson house last week -- or earlier this week, rather. And there was a report out that a photo depicting a phone book, open, on the kitchen counter. Was opened up to an attorney's page, a defense attorney's page.

However, Modesto Police Sergeant Spurlock testified in this trial early on that on December 24, when Modesto Police went into the house, they noticed the phone book, as well.

They said and they testified that the phone book open to pizza.

I did remember pizza (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/30/lkl.00.html)

[Cadillakin]

you don't have to convince me of anything. However, links like the one you posted wouldn't convince a thinking person that the pic shows anything other than an open phone book (I will assume that it is a 2002 Modesto phone book for grins).Except for the fact that it is IDENTICAL in every way to the Peterson phone book of 2002.

[Luke Davis]

I think what thinking people have to ask themselves is, why would a law firm pay more for an ad that wouldn't be seen more?

[TopGunner]

the guy that flawlessly cleaned the home, the boat, etc The guy that planned this crime so far in advance that he supposedly bought a boat 2 weeks before to dump his wife in the bay, then remembered at the last minute that he might need an attorney, looked one up and left the phone book open to attorneys for murderers:cool: . how conveeeeenient.

Yeah, that guy: the one who said he lost his wife and it would be his first holiday without her - before she was lost, and weeks before the holiday. The one who sat down w/guest for Christmas dinner. The one who was telling the cops he'd have to check with his attny before he answered any more questions within days of Laci's disappearance...the one who asked about counciling for everyone when Laci was gone for only a few hours, did I mention the one who tried to sell the house FURNISHED when she'd only been missing for two weeks? Oh yeah, THAT sociopath! :cuss:

[Cadillakin]

the guy that flawlessly cleaned the home, the boat, etc Not true.. He didn't successfully clean the boat and home. There was evidence that the pliers within the boat contained a hair that was consistent with the hair of Scott's murdered wife. The hair was twisted into the pliers and considered likely to be Laci's hair by the odds of 108-1. 107 chances it was hers, 1 chance it was not. There was evidence presented that Scott kept a boat secret. This boat was thought to be utilized in the burial of Laci Peterson. Scott told the police of that boat at his home. Further, there was also evidence submitted that the concrete residues at the bottom of his boat were too substantial to belong to just the the one "anchor" that Scott said he brought with him to the Bay, suggesting to the jury that the prosecutors theory of Scott taking more weights/anchors to the burial site was likely. In fact, the jury examined that "anchor", and they were able to see the anchor that Scott had in his possession had lost minimal amounts of its form and shape, whereas the concrete dirt, cement, rock and mix in the boat bottom far exceeded that loss from Scott's single "anchor".

Relating to that, In the home, a small rock consistent with the concrete mix was found under the kitchen table. Laci was known to be a marvelous housekeeper, and Margarite Nava had just cleaned the day before. So, one might assume it was recently tracked in. His computer at home provided evidence that he had been searching at or near the burial site, before it was a burial site. He left minute blood droplets of his own on the duvet. On the day of Laci's disappearance, he incurred a sharp cut to the back of his knuckle that spilled blood in his vehicle, and proceeded to tell three different stories about the source of the cut. He inexplicably completely unloaded his large toolbox that day. A toolbox large enough to carry a womans body. He had an illegal loaded gun in his truck, and his warehouse looked like it was a concrete weight factory with a half dozen circles imprinted, suggesting that he made much more weight than he admitted to. He lied about the concrete, which is evidence, saying contractors left it. The contractors refuted him. The search dogs scented Laci leaving the house by the driveway and by car, not by foot, putting a damper on the "Laci walked" theory...and after hearings that were held at the behest of the defense, the validity of the dogs scenting at the driveway was upheld and found to be admissible as evidence... though some of the other "hits" were disallowed. Further, there was not one sign of encroachment on Laci's home at any time by an outsider which IS evidence. Laci was found clothed in the same pants she wore the last day/night she was with Scott, suggesting that she died before she went to bed. Also, there is clear evidence Scott was NOT preserving the evidence at or near his home, with many testifying that his boat cover and tarp were contaminated with gas/chemicals. Also, there was testimony Scott was vigorously vacuuming the kitchen area a day after his wife went missing, when others who loved and cared for Laci were out searching for her. In addition, the police found wet buckets outside when they arrived and testified that in their opinion, some cleaning had been done before they arrived. Scott himself said he washed his own clothes and took a shower before he noticed his wife was missing. His dog was leashed and he ignored it, having told others his wife was going to walk the dog, but upon finding this dog in that very unusual state, he decided to eat some pizza and drink some milk instead of becoming alarmed. That is evidence. His telling the police that he fished while standing in his front yard, and not knowing what bait he used or having opened his lure packages is also evidence obtained at the home. He also told two separate parties that he golfed, while changing his alibi to fishing for the police. That is evidence. And as any man would tell you, every fisherman knows vaguely if not specifically what they are fishing for before they leave to the fishing site. Scott claimed he didn't know.. His umbrellas were inexplicably taken down, transported to the Bay and brought back. His explanations of forgetfulness about not leaving them at the warehouse as he intended is evidence... His being in the home where he claimed Laci was alive and well at 10:08am or thereabouts, and having Karen Servas discover the dog just ten minutes later is powerful evidence that Laci never walked as Scott said she would and may have already been dead... Nobody ever saw her or heard from her from the previous night onward when she was with her husband. That too is evidence.

There is much more .. much much more.. So don't tell me there is no evidence at the home or car.. It is simply evidence you don't like or you wish to ignore. Most all that I listed was submitted as evidence to the jury in Scott's trial. Ignore if if you wish, but it IS evidence. And the jury used that and other evidence to convict him.

[Luke Davis]

Yeah, that guy: the one who said he lost his wife and it would be his first holiday without her - before she was lost, and weeks before the holiday. The one who sat down w/guest for Christmas dinner. The one who was telling the cops he'd have to check with his attny before he answered any more questions within days of Laci's disappearance...the one who asked about counciling for everyone when Laci was gone for only a few hours, did I mention the one who tried to sell the house FURNISHED when she'd only been missing for two weeks? Oh yeah, THAT sociopath! :cuss:

It always has amazed me how Amber would fall for a guy who just lost his wife.

[Lavindar]

Scott told Brocchini he was calling hospitals that evening before the police arrived. So, I guess those who have faith in Scott believe the phone book just flipped itself over from the hospital section to the lawyers defending murderers section...


Cadi, you know and I know, there are only two hospitals in Modesto that Laci would be taken to if an emergency occurred. How long would it take for Scott to look up Memorial and Doctors? Did he not call the hospitals after Sharon suggested it. In the opinion of many, acaring husband with a wife that pregnant would call the hospitals FIRST, not last. And that comes from every caring husband that I know.

[Lavindar]

Scott told Brocchini he was calling hospitals that evening before the police arrived. So, I guess those who have faith in Scott believe the phone book just flipped itself over from the hospital section to the lawyers defending murderers section...


Cadi, you know and I know, there are only two hospitals in Modesto that Laci would be taken to if an emergency occurred. How long would it take for Scott to look up Memorial and Doctors? Did he not call the hospitals after Sharon suggested it. In the opinion of many, a caring husband with a wife that pregnant would call the hospitals FIRST, not last. And that comes from every caring husband that I know.

[Lavindar]

I did remember pizza (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/30/lkl.00.html)


Trust me, that cardboard page is not next to a pizza place. It's inbetween the index and the start of the yellow pages. I had that phone book too and tried to watch it open to that page and had no luck.

[Lavindar]

the guy that flawlessly cleaned the home, the boat, etc The guy that planned this crime so far in advance that he supposedly bought a boat 2 weeks before to dump his wife in the bay, then remembered at the last minute that he might need an attorney, looked one up and left the phone book open to attorneys for murderers:cool: . how conveeeeenient.

I read somewhere that every criminal makes at least 25 mistakes. The boat as I stated earlier was NOT flawlessly cleaned - that's where they found Laci's hair. And you don't have to be so nasty with every sarcastic post you make, either.

You make erroneous statements and then when shown you are wrong, you get downright sarcastic and nasty. Try learning the facts before being so rude

[Luke Davis]

Trust me, that cardboard page is not next to a pizza place. <snip>I trust you. It is what it is.

[attorneywan2be]

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now when, one of the other things that the officers thought was suspicious at the time, it hasn't been testified to, but I think it's in some of your reports and I think you followed up on it, was they saw a phone book open in the house; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And they thought that that was suspicious because the phone book was open and it was to an ad for an attorney; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that's one of the things that kind of peaked these officers curiosity, thought that was odd, wife's missing, why is there a phone number open for an attorney, right?
Craig Grogan: That was something that was mentioned, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. In a couple of reports. You did some investigation on that, didn't you?
Craig Grogan: I did.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And what you did is you found that phone book, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And you opened it a couple of times and determined that the reason that it would be is because the attorney's ad is on a thicker piece of cardboard paper in the middle of the phone book, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I saw that the phone book would easily open to that page.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And so at that point you realized that for whatever concern that was Scott had indicated, at least in subsequent interviews, and we'll get to that, that he had opened the phone book to make some calls, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah, there was some indication that he was going to make some calls that night. I don't know who opened the phone book.
Mark Geragos: Okay. But your, you did it, I think you put in one of your reports and I'll get it if you want me to, but I think you said you demonstrated this yourself at least numerous times and that every time you did the phone book opened to the same ad for this attorney?
Craig Grogan: Yeah, I did write a report on that. I don't know if it was every time, but I agree with you that it would open very easily to that page.
Mark Geragos: Now, that, that was done approximately when, when did you figure out that that kind of suspicion ended up not being something that should have been acted on?
Craig Grogan: I don't know. I have to look that up.
Mark Geragos: I'll show you. I just found it. It looks like sometime in March you removed the phone book from the property room; is that right? Can you take a look at that. I've got a yellow highlighter. And I'll just ask you about this. That's all you have to read to refresh your recollection.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Does that refresh your recollection?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And basically what you did is sometime in March, by the way, either in one of the search warrants someone had seized this phone book, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And so you went in March, as part of the investigation that was ongoing, to determine, you pulled it out of the property room that we have talked about before, to determine what was going on with this phone book, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you put in here that that location of the phone book, I don't have Bates stamp on this thing, was a natural place for the phone book to open and that you were able to close the book and reopen it to that page three times in succession by running your thumb along the edge of the phone book pages; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, something very, very similar to that at least. Three times in succession, yes, it says that.

[Lavindar]

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now when, one of the other things that the officers thought was suspicious at the time, it hasn't been testified to, but I think it's in some of your reports and I think you followed up on it, was they saw a phone book open in the house; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And they thought that that was suspicious because the phone book was open and it was to an ad for an attorney; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that's one of the things that kind of peaked these officers curiosity, thought that was odd, wife's missing, why is there a phone number open for an attorney, right?
Craig Grogan: That was something that was mentioned, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. In a couple of reports. You did some investigation on that, didn't you?
Craig Grogan: I did.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And what you did is you found that phone book, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And you opened it a couple of times and determined that the reason that it would be is because the attorney's ad is on a thicker piece of cardboard paper in the middle of the phone book, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes, I saw that the phone book would easily open to that page.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And so at that point you realized that for whatever concern that was Scott had indicated, at least in subsequent interviews, and we'll get to that, that he had opened the phone book to make some calls, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah, there was some indication that he was going to make some calls that night. I don't know who opened the phone book.
Mark Geragos: Okay. But your, you did it, I think you put in one of your reports and I'll get it if you want me to, but I think you said you demonstrated this yourself at least numerous times and that every time you did the phone book opened to the same ad for this attorney?
Craig Grogan: Yeah, I did write a report on that. I don't know if it was every time, but I agree with you that it would open very easily to that page.
Mark Geragos: Now, that, that was done approximately when, when did you figure out that that kind of suspicion ended up not being something that should have been acted on?
Craig Grogan: I don't know. I have to look that up.
Mark Geragos: I'll show you. I just found it. It looks like sometime in March you removed the phone book from the property room; is that right? Can you take a look at that. I've got a yellow highlighter. And I'll just ask you about this. That's all you have to read to refresh your recollection.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Does that refresh your recollection?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And basically what you did is sometime in March, by the way, either in one of the search warrants someone had seized this phone book, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And so you went in March, as part of the investigation that was ongoing, to determine, you pulled it out of the property room that we have talked about before, to determine what was going on with this phone book, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you put in here that that location of the phone book, I don't have Bates stamp on this thing, was a natural place for the phone book to open and that you were able to close the book and reopen it to that page three times in succession by running your thumb along the edge of the phone book pages; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, something very, very similar to that at least. Three times in succession, yes, it says that.
Well, that makes it even more interesting. Scott opened the book to that page rather than the one listing attornies or the one for pizza. I don't think that helps him at all.

[deputydi]

It always has amazed me how Amber would fall for a guy who just lost his wife.

What's so amazing about that? Drat -- there's that word again. Since this case began I think of Scott everytime someone says "amazing". :o

[Luke Davis]

What's so amazing about that? Drat -- there's that word again. Since this case began I think of Scott everytime someone says "amazing". :oI wouldn't think it wise to date someone who had just lost their spouse. But that's just me.

[Lavindar]

I wouldn't think it wise to date someone who had just lost their spouse. But that's just me.

Actually he had said the same thing to Shawn in October, but he had just lost his "soulmate." Amazing how he loses things, isn't it?

[onthefence]

Except for the fact that it is IDENTICAL in every way to the Peterson phone book of 2002.

ok. It's a picture of an open phone book that is identical in every way to the Peterson's (I'll trust you on that one). and?

[onthefence]

I wouldn't think it wise to date someone who had just lost their spouse. But that's just me.


well nobody ever accused Frey of being wise-especially in the relationship and dating department.:D

[onthefence]

I wouldn't think it wise to date someone who had just lost their spouse. But that's just me.

It's a great line for someone to use in Scott P's situation though-sympathy and a lot less questions than I'm divorced. especially on women who are so willing to plow right in and ignore all the red flags and any past lessons learned-and there are plenty out there.

[onthefence]

I read somewhere that every criminal makes at least 25 mistakes. The boat as I stated earlier was NOT flawlessly cleaned - that's where they found Laci's hair. And you don't have to be so nasty with every sarcastic post you make, either.

You make erroneous statements and then when shown you are wrong, you get downright sarcastic and nasty. Try learning the facts before being so rude


that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

what erroneous statement did I make in that post and what part of my post was rude? The expression , "how conveeenient" is a quote from the Church Lady on SNL, it was supposed to be funny. Where is your sense of humor?

[Lavindar]

It's a great line for someone to use in Scott P's situation though-sympathy and a lot less questions than I'm divorced. especially on women who are so willing to plow right in and ignore all the red flags and any past lessons learned-and there are plenty out there.
I believe it was delivered with copious tears also.

[adnoid]

I wouldn't think it wise to date someone who had just lost their spouse. But that's just me.

When Scott first started pursuing Amber he wasn't using the "lost his wife" line, he was apparently using a different dishonest approach. He changed from that dishonest approach to the "lost my wife" dishonest approach when he was busted on being married.

[Cadillakin]

Craig Grogan: Yes, something very, very similar to that at least. Three times in succession, yes, it says that.As I said, the police didn't bite. When and if you are an attorney, you will not prejudice your case by openly admitting in court that your client is guilty.. although most all of them will be guilty... and the police officers won't prejudice the States case by admitting in court that they unfairly judged a defendant because he "lawyered up".

That's the way it is, friend. That's how it works...

[Cadillakin]

When Scott first started pursuing Amber he wasn't using the "lost his wife" line, he was apparently using a different dishonest approach. He changed from that dishonest approach to the "lost my wife" dishonest approach when he was busted on being married.I almost forgot he was a single man in the beginning...

[accordn2me]

I did remember pizza (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/30/lkl.00.html)
If Cadillakin's pic is the same phone book, you can clearly...OK, not real clearly, but you can see the opposing page is not pizza ads. Looks like cars and....copiers or cameras? What is it, Caddi?

[onthefence]

Not true.. He didn't successfully clean the boat and home. There was evidence that the pliers within the boat contained a hair that was consistent with the hair of Scott's murdered wife. The hair was twisted into the pliers and considered likely to be Laci's hair by the odds of 108-1. 107 chances it was hers, 1 chance it was not. There was evidence presented that Scott kept a boat secret. This boat was thought to be utilized in the burial of Laci Peterson. Scott told the police of that boat at his home. Further, there was also evidence submitted that the concrete residues at the bottom of his boat were too substantial to belong to just the the one "anchor" that Scott said he brought with him to the Bay, suggesting to the jury that the prosecutors theory of Scott taking more weights/anchors to the burial site was likely. In fact, the jury examined that "anchor", and they were able to see the anchor that Scott had in his possession had lost minimal amounts of its form and shape, whereas the concrete dirt, cement, rock and mix in the boat bottom far exceeded that loss from Scott's single "anchor".

Relating to that, In the home, a small rock consistent with the concrete mix was found under the kitchen table. Laci was known to be a marvelous housekeeper, and Margarite Nava had just cleaned the day before. So, one might assume it was recently tracked in. His computer at home provided evidence that he had been searching at or near the burial site, before it was a burial site. He left minute blood droplets of his own on the duvet. On the day of Laci's disappearance, he incurred a sharp cut to the back of his knuckle that spilled blood in his vehicle, and proceeded to tell three different stories about the source of the cut. He inexplicably completely unloaded his large toolbox that day. A toolbox large enough to carry a womans body. He had an illegal loaded gun in his truck, and his warehouse looked like it was a concrete weight factory with a half dozen circles imprinted, suggesting that he made much more weight than he admitted to. He lied about the concrete, which is evidence, saying contractors left it. The contractors refuted him. The search dogs scented Laci leaving the house by the driveway and by car, not by foot, putting a damper on the "Laci walked" theory...and after hearings that were held at the behest of the defense, the validity of the dogs scenting at the driveway was upheld and found to be admissible as evidence... though some of the other "hits" were disallowed. Further, there was not one sign of encroachment on Laci's home at any time by an outsider which IS evidence. Laci was found clothed in the same pants she wore the last day/night she was with Scott, suggesting that she died before she went to bed. Also, there is clear evidence Scott was NOT preserving the evidence at or near his home, with many testifying that his boat cover and tarp were contaminated with gas/chemicals. Also, there was testimony Scott was vigorously vacuuming the kitchen area a day after his wife went missing, when others who loved and cared for Laci were out searching for her. In addition, the police found wet buckets outside when they arrived and testified that in their opinion, some cleaning had been done before they arrived. Scott himself said he washed his own clothes and took a shower before he noticed his wife was missing. His dog was leashed and he ignored it, having told others his wife was going to walk the dog, but upon finding this dog in that very unusual state, he decided to eat some pizza and drink some milk instead of becoming alarmed. That is evidence. His telling the police that he fished while standing in his front yard, and not knowing what bait he used or having opened his lure packages is also evidence obtained at the home. He also told two separate parties that he golfed, while changing his alibi to fishing for the police. That is evidence. And as any man would tell you, every fisherman knows vaguely if not specifically what they are fishing for before they leave to the fishing site. Scott claimed he didn't know.. His umbrellas were inexplicably taken down, transported to the Bay and brought back. His explanations of forgetfulness about not leaving them at the warehouse as he intended is evidence... His being in the home where he claimed Laci was alive and well at 10:08am or thereabouts, and having Karen Servas discover the dog just ten minutes later is powerful evidence that Laci never walked as Scott said she would and may have already been dead... Nobody ever saw her or heard from her from the previous night onward when she was with her husband. That too is evidence.

There is much more .. much much more.. So don't tell me there is no evidence at the home or car.. It is simply evidence you don't like or you wish to ignore. Most all that I listed was submitted as evidence to the jury in Scott's trial. Ignore if if you wish, but it IS evidence. And the jury used that and other evidence to convict him.

I am telling you just that-that there wasn't. You are reaching. There was no evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or in the truck. Scott's words are not evidence of murder IN the home, in the boat or in the truck. That doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't commit the murder there, and laci was not transported that way it means there is just no evidence IN/ON any of those places to indicate this. The leash on the dog is not evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or truck.The hair was twisted in pliers that hadn't been opened in quite some time (according to state's witness-the asian lady forensics expert), so it is evidence that Laci's hair was twisted in some pliers long before she disappeared.

[Cadillakin]

If Cadillakin's pic is the same phone book, you can clearly...OK, not real clearly, but you can see the opposing page is not pizza ads. Looks like cars and....copiers or cameras? What is it, Caddi?I think it's called "brand names".. You should be able to see it clearly in the first posting link I made in this thread.. Well maybe not, I have the original pic which I can see clearly. The one I uploaded to tinypic.com was compressed.

It's Acura, American Airlines, Avis, Canon, Cat, lots of big companies with big names - just keeping their name out there in the public with a listing. No advertising other than the name. Definitely no pizzas.

[onthefence]

I think it's called "brand names".. You should be able to see it clearly in the first posting link I made in this thread.. Well maybe not, I have the original pic which I can see clearly. The one I uploaded to tinypic.com was compressed.

It's Acura, American Airlines, Avis, Canon, Cat, lots of big companies with big names - just keeping their name out there in the public with a listing. No advertising other than the name. Definitely no pizzas.


All this talk of Pizza is making me really hungry.

[accordn2me]

I am telling you just that-that there wasn't. You are reaching. There was no evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or in the truck. Scott's words are not evidence of murder IN the home, in the boat or in the truck. That doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't commit the murder there, and laci was not transported that way it means there is just no evidence IN/ON any of those places to indicate this. The leash on the dog is not evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or truck.The hair was twisted in pliers that hadn't been opened in quite some time (according to state's witness-the asian lady forensics expert), so it is evidence that Laci's hair was twisted in some pliers long before she disappeared.Please provide the link for the state's witness.

IIRC, the pliers were not rusty when found with the entwined hair. They rusted because they were never cleaned.

[Luke Davis]

When Scott first started pursuing Amber he wasn't using the "lost his wife" line, he was apparently using a different dishonest approach. He changed from that dishonest approach to the "lost my wife" dishonest approach when he was busted on being married.I can see dating a married man, if that's what someone wants. But someone who just lost their spouse, seems like a huge risk. :hat:

[Otter]

I am telling you just that-that there wasn't. You are reaching. There was no evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or in the truck. Scott's words are not evidence of murder IN the home, in the boat or in the truck. That doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't commit the murder there, and laci was not transported that way it means there is just no evidence IN/ON any of those places to indicate this. The leash on the dog is not evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or truck.The hair was twisted in pliers that hadn't been opened in quite some time (according to state's witness-the asian lady forensics expert), so it is evidence that Laci's hair was twisted in some pliers long before she disappeared.


Earlier you concurred with Lav's quote from Henry Lee ... No evidence is evidence of a clean up.

I'm sorry, by virtue of your nic its hard to think that you haven't come here with an agenda and are being IMO dishonest.

Show me that I'm wrong, I welcome that. :-)

[Luke Davis]

If Cadillakin's pic is the same phone book, you can clearly...OK, not real clearly, but you can see the opposing page is not pizza ads. Looks like cars and....copiers or cameras? What is it, Caddi?Yes. But if the phone book was on pizza, with a crowd in the house it could easily have changed. Try it. It is designed that way. That's why companies want their ad on that page.

[accordn2me]

I can see dating a married man, if that's what someone wants. But someone who just lost their spouse, seems like a huge risk. :hat:Luke, you don't seem like the Amber bashing type...so I'm not going to go there....or I'll try not to...OK.

Let's just look at a different scenario. Say the spouse in question has had a long terminal illness. What is the appropriate period of time for the spouse who is "left behind" to begin dating? SLP didn't specify why he'd "lost" his wife. If he honestly would have, I'm sure Amber would have been in the police department long before she was. As SLP truthfully said, "lost" can mean many things. Had he said, "my wife just left me," I would say that relationship is "a huge risk." However, the connotation from the word "lost" is that she is never coming back, don't you think?

[cookiewench]

I thought the original story was they had called for pizza. The phone book was open to pizza and the lawyer ad. :shrug:


They didn't go home and then call out for a pizza.

They picked up a pizza on their way home from the salon.

[Lavindar]

I think it's called "brand names".. You should be able to see it clearly in the first posting link I made in this thread.. Well maybe not, I have the original pic which I can see clearly. The one I uploaded to tinypic.com was compressed.

It's Acura, American Airlines, Avis, Canon, Cat, lots of big companies with big names - just keeping their name out there in the public with a listing. No advertising other than the name. Definitely no pizzas.

or hospitals

[Lavindar]

Yes. But if the phone book was on pizza, with a crowd in the house it could easily have changed. Try it. It is designed that way. That's why companies want their ad on that page. Luke, Laci called in the pizza from Salon Salon.

298) Mark Geragos: Okay. At some point you said that she went to the telephone to make a call,
299) Amy Rocha: Yes.
300) Mark Geragos: is that correct? Did she make a call to order a pizza?
301) Amy Rocha: Yes.

[Cadillakin]

The hair was twisted in pliers that hadn't been opened in quite some time (according to state's witness-the asian lady forensics expert), so it is evidence that Laci's hair was twisted in some pliers long before she disappeared.I think you need to go back and read the transcripts. You misstate the facts way too much.

Regarding the pliers, concern yourself with the time they were brought into evidence, Dec.27, and the times they were actually examined. Pay attention to the photo comparisons from the Dec 27 date of collection and the Feb 24 intial exam, and particularly Miss Yoshida's about the rusting that occurred from the time they brought the pliers into evidence until they were actually examined. Note also that they were laying in salt water when collected, which advances rusting, according to Miss Yoshida..

Then you might want to post again with some different thoughts.

[Cadillakin]

or hospitalsYeah, or hospitals.:seeya:

[Luke Davis]

Luke, Laci called in the pizza from Salon Salon.

298) Mark Geragos: Okay. At some point you said that she went to the telephone to make a call,
299) Amy Rocha: Yes.
300) Mark Geragos: is that correct? Did she make a call to order a pizza?
301) Amy Rocha: Yes.Yes..............

[frydaddy]

Yes. But if the phone book was on pizza, with a crowd in the house it could easily have changed. Try it. It is designed that way. That's why companies want their ad on that page.

Maybe he was looking for a store that carried whipped cream on Christmas Eve? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

Maybe he was looking for a store that carried whipped cream on Christmas Eve? :shrug:
roflmao - the drive from their house to Ron and Sharon's house involves passing 2 large grocery stores, a Longs Drugs, and a Walgreens. Walgreens is open 365 days a year and that store carrries food items. It is right next door to a grocery and across the street from a SaveMart and Longs drugs. I mention Walgreens because it would have been on the right side of the street on their way to Ron and Sharon. Simple to run in and grab some whipped cream. Oh, there's a 7/11 around there also.

[onthefence]

Earlier you concurred with Lav's quote from Henry Lee ... No evidence is evidence of a clean up.

I'm sorry, by virtue of your nic its hard to think that you haven't come here with an agenda and are being IMO dishonest.

Show me that I'm wrong, I welcome that. :-)


I agreed that no evidence could be evidence of a clean up. It can also mean that you are looking in wrong place for the evidence. When I say in the wrong place I mean house, car, etc-not necessarily the wrong person.

Everyone posting here has an agenda. You have read my posts, and seems have drawn conclusions regarding what my agenda is. If you feel I am being dishonest, there is probbably not much I can do to really change your mind-except to pretend-but that wouldn't be honest.

[onthefence]

Luke, you don't seem like the Amber bashing type...so I'm not going to go there....or I'll try not to...OK.

Let's just look at a different scenario. Say the spouse in question has had a long terminal illness. What is the appropriate period of time for the spouse who is "left behind" to begin dating? SLP didn't specify why he'd "lost" his wife. If he honestly would have, I'm sure Amber would have been in the police department long before she was. As SLP truthfully said, "lost" can mean many things. Had he said, "my wife just left me," I would say that relationship is "a huge risk." However, the connotation from the word "lost" is that she is never coming back, don't you think?

I would rather date someone whose spouse had died, than someone who is recently divorced, personally. Ideally, at least a year after in either situation so that the person has had time to work through some stuff. Do not see the big risk in dating someone whose wife had died (assuming they did not have a hand in it). Amber should have done a lot more checking on this, even if her friend is the one who set them up because her friend did not really know him either. It seems Amber made a lot of bad choices in her relationships with men , but, I am not sure what that aspect of her character/history has to do with the trial.

[TopGunner]

I would rather date someone whose spouse had died, than someone who is recently divorced, personally. Ideally, at least a year after in either situation so that the person has had time to work through some stuff. Do not see the big risk in dating someone whose wife had died (assuming they did not have a hand in it). Amber should have done a lot more checking on this, even if her friend is the one who set them up because her friend did not really know him either. It seems Amber made a lot of bad choices in her relationships with men , but, I am not sure what that aspect of her character/history has to do with the trial.

Personally I think Amber has excellent character and integrity. She had no idea ISP's wife died until she was already invested (in her heart) and at that time he assured her that it was OK. She was young and naive, but then I don't know any woman who hasn't walked the stupidity plank for a relationship at some point in their life. A nun maybe. She trusted her friends opinion and then trusted the killer. I tend to trust most people I meet, until they give me a reason not to. I felt bad for Amber, obviously she was blind-sided by the whole thing, but she did not walk away unwise. She paid dearly for her honest mistake.

I don't think any of us would know how we'd handle a situation until we were in it. I know many couples who, at the time, I thought it was a rebound deal or similar, and they're still going strong today, many happy years later. There's no blueprint.

[TopGunner]

I agreed that no evidence could be evidence of a clean up. It can also mean that you are looking in wrong place for the evidence. When I say in the wrong place I mean house, car, etc-not necessarily the wrong person.

Everyone posting here has an agenda. You have read my posts, and seems have drawn conclusions regarding what my agenda is. If you feel I am being dishonest, there is probbably not much I can do to really change your mind-except to pretend-but that wouldn't be honest.

Define agenda OTF. I don't have one. He's guilty, I know it, and I say it. I don't PRETEND to be something I'm not.

They didn't look in the wrong places.....the killer sits on death row, where he's staying.

:patriot:

[Devotion]

I can see dating a married man, if that's what someone wants.
But someone who just lost their spouse, seems like a huge risk. :hat:

:rolleyes: WHY? 75% of all the men I know of, that lost their mate, is married again in less than a year...usually with someone they knew before the wife died...and the second wife is treated better than the first...
How is it in your area?....jmo

[Cadillakin]

I am telling you just that-that there wasn't. You are reaching. There was no evidence of murder in the home, in the boat or in the truck. Scott's words are not evidence of murder IN the home, in the boat or in the truck. I think you have a poor understanding of circumstantial evidence. You seem to believe that IF an alternative theory or story can be invented to contravene evidence that has obvious meaning or interpretation to the average person, then the evidence under consideration can be discarded as not evidentiary. That's why you always claim the evidence is not evidence.

Scott's lies ARE evidence of murder in the home. When he lies and says he left the house at 9:30am on the morning of the 24th, he purposely lengthened the window of opportunity for foul play to have occurred to Laci. Lying is circumstantial evidence. Knowingly lying about the circumstances that occurred in the home is circumstantial evidence that there was foul play in the home and the person who lied is covering up their involvement. For instance, Karen Servas gave a good effort to fix the timeline of her movements. Scott did the opposite. Instead of checking his phone bill or the call logging on his cell phone to see THE EXACT TIME he called his voice mail after driving off from the neighborhood, he continued to go with the story that he left at 9:30am. The police eventually subpoenaed records to get the true time (10:08am) that Scott left his neighborhood. That is circumstantial evidence that something untoward happened in the home that morning and Scott was covering it up.

When he lies and/or tells multiple inconsistent stories about how he cut the back of his hand on the day his wife died, spilling his blood into the truck, he has circumstantially involved himself in the foul play that has befallen his wife. Lyiing, or making up multiple stories during a murder investigation is circumstantial evidence that the storyteller is obfuscating the truth. This circumstantially involves him in the crime.

And so on...

Scott was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If you don't understand what it is, and it appears you don't, perhaps you should make an effort to learn more about it.

[Luke Davis]

:rolleyes: WHY? 75% of all the men I know of, that lost their mate, is married again in less than a year...usually with someone they knew before the wife died...and the second wife is treated better than the first...
How is it in your area?....jmo
Not relevant to the subject of this thread.

[thinkaboutit]

Not true.. He didn't successfully clean the boat and home. There was evidence that the pliers within the boat contained a hair that was consistent with the hair of Scott's murdered wife. The hair was twisted into the pliers and considered likely to be Laci's hair by the odds of 108-1. 107 chances it was hers, 1 chance it was not. There was evidence presented that Scott kept a boat secret. This boat was thought to be utilized in the burial of Laci Peterson. Scott told the police of that boat at his home. Further, there was also evidence submitted that the concrete residues at the bottom of his boat were too substantial to belong to just the the one "anchor" that Scott said he brought with him to the Bay, suggesting to the jury that the prosecutors theory of Scott taking more weights/anchors to the burial site was likely. In fact, the jury examined that "anchor", and they were able to see the anchor that Scott had in his possession had lost minimal amounts of its form and shape, whereas the concrete dirt, cement, rock and mix in the boat bottom far exceeded that loss from Scott's single "anchor".

Relating to that, In the home, a small rock consistent with the concrete mix was found under the kitchen table. Laci was known to be a marvelous housekeeper, and Margarite Nava had just cleaned the day before. So, one might assume it was recently tracked in. His computer at home provided evidence that he had been searching at or near the burial site, before it was a burial site. He left minute blood droplets of his own on the duvet. On the day of Laci's disappearance, he incurred a sharp cut to the back of his knuckle that spilled blood in his vehicle, and proceeded to tell three different stories about the source of the cut. He inexplicably completely unloaded his large toolbox that day. A toolbox large enough to carry a womans body. He had an illegal loaded gun in his truck, and his warehouse looked like it was a concrete weight factory with a half dozen circles imprinted, suggesting that he made much more weight than he admitted to. He lied about the concrete, which is evidence, saying contractors left it. The contractors refuted him. The search dogs scented Laci leaving the house by the driveway and by car, not by foot, putting a damper on the "Laci walked" theory...and after hearings that were held at the behest of the defense, the validity of the dogs scenting at the driveway was upheld and found to be admissible as evidence... though some of the other "hits" were disallowed. Further, there was not one sign of encroachment on Laci's home at any time by an outsider which IS evidence. Laci was found clothed in the same pants she wore the last day/night she was with Scott, suggesting that she died before she went to bed. Also, there is clear evidence Scott was NOT preserving the evidence at or near his home, with many testifying that his boat cover and tarp were contaminated with gas/chemicals. Also, there was testimony Scott was vigorously vacuuming the kitchen area a day after his wife went missing, when others who loved and cared for Laci were out searching for her. In addition, the police found wet buckets outside when they arrived and testified that in their opinion, some cleaning had been done before they arrived. Scott himself said he washed his own clothes and took a shower before he noticed his wife was missing. His dog was leashed and he ignored it, having told others his wife was going to walk the dog, but upon finding this dog in that very unusual state, he decided to eat some pizza and drink some milk instead of becoming alarmed. That is evidence. His telling the police that he fished while standing in his front yard, and not knowing what bait he used or having opened his lure packages is also evidence obtained at the home. He also told two separate parties that he golfed, while changing his alibi to fishing for the police. That is evidence. And as any man would tell you, every fisherman knows vaguely if not specifically what they are fishing for before they leave to the fishing site. Scott claimed he didn't know.. His umbrellas were inexplicably taken down, transported to the Bay and brought back. His explanations of forgetfulness about not leaving them at the warehouse as he intended is evidence... His being in the home where he claimed Laci was alive and well at 10:08am or thereabouts, and having Karen Servas discover the dog just ten minutes later is powerful evidence that Laci never walked as Scott said she would and may have already been dead... Nobody ever saw her or heard from her from the previous night onward when she was with her husband. That too is evidence.

There is much more .. much much more.. So don't tell me there is no evidence at the home or car.. It is simply evidence you don't like or you wish to ignore. Most all that I listed was submitted as evidence to the jury in Scott's trial. Ignore if if you wish, but it IS evidence. And the jury used that and other evidence to convict him.

The hair was NOT twisted in the pliers.

HARRIS: And the part that we're referring to, when you're saying the hair was at the front or was at the front of these needle-nosed pliers, are they wrapped around the outside? Or do they actually go through, if you open up the teeth of the pliers, do they go through?

HENDEE: No, it didn't wrap around the pliers, didn't wrap around the needle nose. It just went through. It looked like at one location it just went through the pliers.



I am not aware of any testimony that supports this statement:

Further, there was also evidence submitted that the concrete residues at the bottom of his boat were too substantial to belong to just the the one "anchor" that Scott said he brought with him to the Bay, suggesting to the jury that the prosecutors theory of Scott taking more weights/anchors to the burial site was likely.

Can you please provide it?

This too please:

In the home, a small rock consistent with the concrete mix was found under the kitchen table

All tests for blood in the truck were NEGATIVE - no blood in the truck:

GERAGOS: Then there was -- let's see. There were -- it says no blood was detected on the steering wheel -- the steering wheel swab and six other swabs associated with the pickup truck; is that right?

KYO: That’s correct.


The nick on his knuckle was described as just that - not a "sharp cut" as you say - I've seen it described as a scuff and as a small cut - but never as a "sharp" cut. Obviously - it was so small - it never dropped any blood in his truck (see above testimony that I provided).

He inexplicably unloaded his tool box that morning? Source please??

He lied about the concrete? When?

There's a bit of a problem with the dog tracking - considering for some strange reason - the dog handlers took Scott's slipper as well as items of Laci's. Let's also not forget these items were kept in Brocchini's office drawer? Is THAT standard procedure?

If no sign of encroachment on Laci's home by an outsider is "evidence" of Scott's guilt - shouldn't the facts that there was no sign of a struggle - nor any evidence of a murder being committed in the home be considered as evidence of his innocence?

Laci was NOT found in the same pants she wore on the 23rd. Check Amy Rocha's testimony.

Yes - Scott found the dog leashed in the backyard, but didn't think anything of it at first - you find that suspicious....yet Karen Servas found the dog leashed in the street - yet her lack of concern you don't find suspicious?

I believe there was an explanation for the umbrellas being taken down.

Maybe instead of instructing others to go back and read the transcripts - you should? It seems that it is you that is either misinformed or ignoring facts.

[frydaddy]

I think you have a poor understanding of circumstantial evidence. You seem to believe that IF an alternative theory or story can be invented to contravene evidence that has obvious meaning or interpretation to the average person, then the evidence under consideration can be discarded as not evidentiary. That's why you always claim the evidence is not evidence.

Scott's lies ARE evidence of murder in the home. When he lies and says he left the house at 9:30am on the morning of the 24th, he purposely lengthened the window of opportunity for foul play to have occurred to Laci. Lying is circumstantial evidence. Knowingly lying about the circumstances that occurred in the home is circumstantial evidence that there was foul play in the home and the person who lied is covering up their involvement. For instance, Karen Servas gave a good effort to fix the timeline of her movements. Scott did the opposite. Instead of checking his phone bill or the call logging on his cell phone to see THE EXACT TIME he called his voice mail after driving off from the neighborhood, he continued to go with the story that he left at 9:30am. The police eventually subpoenaed records to get the true time (10:08am) that Scott left his neighborhood. That is circumstantial evidence that something untoward happened in the home that morning and Scott was covering it up.

When he lies and/or tells multiple inconsistent stories about how he cut the back of his hand on the day his wife died, spilling his blood into the truck, he has circumstantially involved himself in the foul play that has befallen his wife. Lyiing, or making up multiple stories during a murder investigation is circumstantial evidence that the storyteller is obfuscating the truth. This circumstantially involves him in the crime.

And so on...

Scott was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If you don't understand what it is, and it appears you don't, perhaps you should make an effort to learn more about it.

LOL - Apparently there is no room for objectivity or common sense "on the fence". And it's too bad they don't build many fences near law libraries or court rooms! However, there obviously is one around SQ, where the superhero of the undecided resides!

[Riviera]

Let's stop with the personal insults. Back on topic please--->

Who Can Tell Me What This is?

Thank you
R

[Luke Davis]

Let's stop with the personal insults. Back on topic please--->

Who Can Tell Me What This is?

Thank you
R
It is a phone book!

[Cadillakin]

It is a phone book!That's right! You win the grand prize!

[Cadillakin]

I'll address these items as time permits.. The easier ones first.

All tests for blood in the truck were NEGATIVE - no blood in the truckI can't say I'm shocked that a NG would suggest there was no blood in the truck, even though Geragos and Scott both admit it.. It seems you are just in denial, not reading or assimilating anything that negatively reflects on Scott. It was very big news during the trial that Scott's blood was found in the truck on the door panel..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: And all -- other than the inside door panel by the area where you have got like a pocket in the door, other than that, there was no presumptive positive for blood, correct?
Pin Kyo: That’s correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In interviews with national and local media in January, Peterson was asked about reports that blood was found in his truck. He told one local station "I cut open my knuckle, and there's a bloodstain on the door" as he reached from a toolbox to the pocket of his door.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: When this demonstration was done were you consulted?
Craig Grogan: I knew that we were going to return the vehicle, and that we sent it up to Department of Justice for one last go-through before we returned it. We took the items off of it, like the inner door panel where the blood was found, and we retained those. And we ordered another door panel to replace it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is more testimony about the blood in the truck in the transcripts. That I have to prove to you what is obvious and well known is at the least, tiresome. Also, there are many references to Scott's blood in the State's filings to keep the truck in their possession... as well as Geragos counter-filings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one other item in your post about the blood that should be addressed here..

The nick on his knuckle was described as just that - not a "sharp cut" as you say Please refer to Scott's answer quoted above as to the nature of his cut.."I cut open my knuckle", he said.

[thinkaboutit]

I'll address these items as time permits.. The easier ones first.

I can't say I'm shocked that a NG would suggest there was no blood in the truck, even though Geragos and Scott both admit it.. It seems you are just in denial, not reading or assimilating anything that negatively reflects on Scott. It was very big news during the trial that Scott's blood was found in the truck on the door panel..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: And all -- other than the inside door panel by the area where you have got like a pocket in the door, other than that, there was no presumptive positive for blood, correct?
Pin Kyo: That’s correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In interviews with national and local media in January, Peterson was asked about reports that blood was found in his truck. He told one local station "I cut open my knuckle, and there's a bloodstain on the door" as he reached from a toolbox to the pocket of his door.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: When this demonstration was done were you consulted?
Craig Grogan: I knew that we were going to return the vehicle, and that we sent it up to Department of Justice for one last go-through before we returned it. We took the items off of it, like the inner door panel where the blood was found, and we retained those. And we ordered another door panel to replace it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is more testimony about the blood in the truck in the transcripts. That I have to prove to you what is obvious and well known is at the least, tiresome. Also, there are many references to Scott's blood in the State's filings to keep the truck in their possession... as well as Geragos counter-filings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one other item in your post about the blood that should be addressed here..

Please refer to Scott's answer quoted above as to the nature of his cut.."I cut open my knuckle", he said.


Well thank you for pointing out my error. I concede there was blood in the truck - right where Scott said there would be blood - in the pocket of the door. Not sure how a man's own tiny drop of blood in the pocket of the door of his own truck points to him murdering his wife though. You don't propose that he killed her in the truck do you?

I didn't see the word "sharp" in Scott's description of what happened to his knuckle.

So sorry I am tiresome for you.....I'm not surprised that you have the nerve to insult me on my one error - even though there were SO MANY in your post.

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8971543]T

All tests for blood in the truck were NEGATIVE - no blood in the truck:



The nick on his knuckle was described as just that - not a "sharp cut" as you say - I've seen it described as a scuff and as a small cut - but never as a "sharp" cut. Obviously - it was so small - it never dropped any blood in his truck snipped

I cannot multiple quote so I snipped.

You are wrong about the blood in the truck. There was blood on the door. It was tested and proved to be Scott''s. He claimed he cut it on the tool box that morning. IIRC he changed that several times to cutting it helping someone work on farm machinery and that men "cut themselves." My point being that a small "nick" as you call it does NOT bleed sopiously enough or long enough to still be bleeding when the door panel is touched. You contitnually mis-state the truth. I believe Kyo's testimony states that there IS blood on the door panel in the trust. So try supporting your allegations with some evidence for a change.

Making up stories to fit your theory that deliberately mis-state what is said in the testimony is ludicrous. Ignoring a fact does not mean that fact does not exist.

[Lavindar]

Well thank you for pointing out my error. I concede there was blood in the truck - right where Scott said there would be blood - in the pocket of the door. Not sure how a man's own tiny drop of blood in the pocket of the door of his own truck points to him murdering his wife though. You don't propose that he killed her in the truck do you?

I didn't see the word "sharp" in Scott's description of what happened to his knuckle.

So sorry I am tiresome for you.....I'm not surprised that you have the nerve to insult me on my one error - even though there were SO MANY in your post.
Link to "tiny drop of blood" please. Or am I to assume that you are exaggerating again?

[thinkaboutit]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8971543]T

All tests for blood in the truck were NEGATIVE - no blood in the truck:



The nick on his knuckle was described as just that - not a "sharp cut" as you say - I've seen it described as a scuff and as a small cut - but never as a "sharp" cut. Obviously - it was so small - it never dropped any blood in his truck snipped

I cannot multiple quote so I snipped.

You are wrong about the blood in the truck. There was blood on the door. It was tested and proved to be Scott''s. He claimed he cut it on the tool box that morning. IIRC he changed that several times to cutting it helping someone work on farm machinery and that men "cut themselves." My point being that a small "nick" as you call it does NOT bleed sopiously enough or long enough to still be bleeding when the door panel is touched. You contitnually mis-state the truth. I believe Kyo's testimony states that there IS blood on the door panel in the trust. So try supporting your allegations with some evidence for a change.

Making up stories to fit your theory that deliberately mis-state what is said in the testimony is ludicrous. Ignoring a fact does not mean that fact does not exist.

Give me a break....I continually provide testimony to support what I say and always admit when I am wrong.

[TopGunner]

Oh good grief.

It was a phone book opened up to a page showing an advertisement for a defense lawyer, for those potentially guilty of murder.

I cut my hand reaching into the truck. We men, we cut each other (careful boys). I cut my hand handing out brochures.....

I believe Distasio caused ISP to shake like a tree during closing arguments when he suggested that Laci was the one who cut his hand while he strangled her. That makes more sense to me than all the excuses the CONVICTED killer gave.:tongue:

[thinkaboutit]

Link to "tiny drop of blood" please. Or am I to assume that you are exaggerating again?

Exaggerating again implies that I've done it before. Care to quote an exaggeration of mine? Bet you can't!!

Scott didn't change his story about the nick on his knuckle. IIRC he stated that he cut his knuckle on the toolbox and then again (reinjured) on the pocket door.

[thinkaboutit]

Link to "tiny drop of blood" please. Or am I to assume that you are exaggerating again?


Here you go..

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/4F-2_small.JPG

I'll even give you two:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/4F-3.JPG

I wouldn't even call it a "drop" more like a tiny smudge.

[Cadillakin]

Exaggerating again implies that I've done it before. Care to quote an exaggeration of mine? Bet you can't!!

Scott didn't change his story about the nick on his knuckle. IIRC he stated that he cut his knuckle on the toolbox and then again (reinjured) on the pocket door.And he said he cut it while working on the farms while holding out his hands for inspection.."Men, you know, we cut each other and we bleed" By the way, that was Scott's FIRST STORY about the blood, before he changed it to the toolbox story... It was shown in an on camera interview. I think it can still be found on the net..

[Cadillakin]

He inexplicably unloaded his tool box that morning? Source please?? That can be found in Scott's interview with the Department of Justice's, Doug Mansfield, on Dec 25,2002. Scott said he unloaded the tools from his toolbox after working on the mortiser machine.. Geragos addresses it below in trial testimony as he inquires what Scott said he did at the warehouse on Dec 24th, 2002, before he went to the Bay:

Mark Geragos: And cleaned up his office, correct?
Doug Mansfield: Correct.
Mark Geragos: He unloaded tools from his box?
Doug Mansfield: Uh-huh.
Mark Geragos: And that you understood that to be the green box in the back of the pickup truck?
Doug Mansfield: I did.
Mark Geragos: And when he, after unloading tools from the box, you asked him, did you talk to Laci? And he said he did not.
Doug Mansfield: That is correct.

[Lavindar]

Oh good grief.

It was a phone book opened up to a page showing an advertisement for a defense lawyer, for those potentially guilty of murder.

I cut my hand reaching into the truck. We men, we cut each other (careful boys). I cut my hand handing out brochures.....

I believe Distasio caused ISP to shake like a tree during closing arguments when he suggested that Laci was the one who cut his hand while he strangled her. That makes more sense to me than all the excuses the CONVICTED killer gave.:tongue:


Maybe this will help:

Interview with Gloria Gomez, KOVR
Scott Peterson was interviewed by Gomez on KOVR, the Sacramento CBS affiliate. The following transcript of that interview was admitted as evidence in his murder trial.

Peterson; Well, take a look at my hands. You can see you know, cuts here on my knuckles, numerous scars. I, I work on farms. I work with machinery. Um I know, I cut my knuckle that day.

Gomez: On what day?

Peterson: On Christmas Eve.

Gomez: Doing what?

Peterson: Um, reaching in the tool box of my truck and then into the, pocket on the door. I cutr open my knuckle and there's a blood stain on the door. On the driver's side door




Notice he said CUT, not nick.

I also have a problem with his discription of working on farm equipment. He was a salesman - when would he ever work on farm machinery?

[TopGunner]

Maybe this will help:

Interview with Gloria Gomez, KOVR
Scott Peterson was interviewed by Gomez on KOVR, the Sacramento CBS affiliate. The following transcript of that interview was admitted as evidence in his murder trial.

Peterson; Well, take a look at my hands. You can see you know, cuts here on my knuckles, numerous scars. I, I work on farms. I work with machinery. Um I know, I cut my knuckle that day.

Gomez: On what day?

Peterson: On Christmas Eve.

Gomez: Doing what?

Peterson: Um, reaching in the tool box of my truck and then into the, pocket on the door. I cutr open my knuckle and there's a blood stain on the door. On the driver's side door




Notice he said CUT, not nick.

I also have a problem with his discription of working on farm equipment. He was a salesman - when would he ever work on farm machinery?

Thanks Lav, and you're absolutely right...he was not a service tech for Tradecorp, he was a fertilizer salesman. Did anyone take the stand confirming that he worked on farm equipment, and that he worked on that equipment on December 24th? Nooooo......

:no:

He gave Sawyer another spin:

Peterson, who sold fertilizer, told ABC's Diane Sawyer: "I know for a fact there'd be plenty of blood in there from me. ... You know, I work on farms and you can take a look at my hands now and they have cuts all over them."



What an extremely ODD statement to make...

[Luke Davis]

IIRC Scott Peterson was a fan of the movie "Fight Club". I Bleed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAiaWrFyRBQ)

[I'mSun]

What an extremely ODD statement to make...Odd or stupid when you consider the fact he was trying to cover his rear. It ranks right up there with handing over his parking receipt from the Berkeley Marina before he was asked. Scott sure isn't very smart.

[Cadillakin]

He lied about the concrete? When? Gosh. I really have to answer that one? Are you kidding? Did Scott only make one anchor when there were at least FIVE circles (representing the forms or pitcher/buckets) superimposed in the dust and debris on top of his warehouse trailer? And other circles less clearly defined. Is that believable to you? Not to mention the dust and debris that was literally EVERYWHERE - on the trailer, on the floor, on the boat, in the boat, and on the boat cover.

The concrete mess is one of the many reasons that Scott was convicted. No right minded person believes Scott only made one 8.6lb anchor after seeing the mess in that warehouse. He lied about it. Geragos lied about it.

There is a TON of testimony in the transcripts about the concrete in the warehouse... including evidence of it's apparent volume far exceeding what is required in the making of a single 8 lb anchor. You find it. I don't have the time now to prove the obvious.

Also, there is the matter of the pool contractor and Scott's assertion that they left the concrete mix at his home.. The contractor or one of his men was on the local news here in Modesto, refuting the word of Scott Peterson..

[Lavindar]

Odd or stupid when you consider the fact he was trying to cover his rear. It ranks right up there with handing over his parking receipt from the Berkeley Marina before he was asked. Scott sure isn't very smart.
I recall reading someone that handing over alibi information before being asked for it, is very common among the guilty. The innocent have a tendence
to not hand it over because they know they are innocent. I know if I told the police I was shopping because I WAS shopping, it would not occur to me to give them a receipt for my purchases unless they asked for it. MOO

[Lavindar]

Gosh. I really have to answer that one? Are you kidding? Did Scott only make one anchor when there were at least FIVE circles (representing the forms or pitcher/buckets) superimposed in the dust and debris on top of his warehouse trailer? And other circles less clearly defined. Is that believable to you? Not to mention the dust and debris that was literally EVERYWHERE - on the trailer, on the floor, on the boat, in the boat, and on the boat cover.

The concrete mess is one of the many reasons that Scott was convicted. No right minded person believes Scott only made one 8.6lb anchor after seeing the mess in that warehouse. He lied about it. Geragos lied about it.

There is a TON of testimony in the transcripts about the concrete in the warehouse... including evidence of it's apparent volume far exceeding what is required in the making of a single 8 lb anchor. You find it. I don't have the time now to prove the obvious.

Also, there is the matter of the pool contractor and Scott's assertion that they left the concrete mix at his home.. The contractor or one of his men was on the local news here in Modesto, refuting the word of Scott Peterson..

My mind is still trying to figure out how bits of concrete from an anchor in the boat (I'm not even going to talk about the "crop circles" on the trailor in the warehouse) got mixed in with the boat cover in the first place.

Oh, and another big question in my mind - how can Scott call it an anchor when it is not attached to any rope? Throwing it overboard with no rope would make it a piece of concrete, not an anchor.

[deputydi]

I want to know who typed this transcript. Does anyone else notice a strange typo? If we're not careful, this could cause another 5 page discussion. ;)
Peterson: Um, reaching in the tool box of my truck and then into the, pocket on the door. I cutr open my knuckle and there's a blood stain on the door. On the driver's side door
Does anyone doubt that was a simple typo. I doubt anyone (hopefully) doesn't think it's an acronym for Can't Understand These Reporters. Makes the WITHG seem all the more likely it's just a typo and someone at a pawn shop is reading these boards LTAO.

It's embarassing to admit I look for this stuff now. :o

[TopGunner]

I recall reading someone that handing over alibi information before being asked for it, is very common among the guilty. The innocent have a tendence
to not hand it over because they know they are innocent. I know if I told the police I was shopping because I WAS shopping, it would not occur to me to give them a receipt for my purchases unless they asked for it. MOO

Not only would it not occur to you Lavindar, but what are the chances of you taking the receipt out of your pants pocket when you toss them in the washer, take a shower, dress in clean pants and put that receipt into the pocket of the clean pants? I don't think I'd describe ISP as stupid...who wouldn't be DAZED AND CONFUSED after murdering their family, on purpose.:flamemad:

[I'mSun]

I recall reading someone that handing over alibi information before being asked for it, is very common among the guilty. The innocent have a tendence
to not hand it over because they know they are innocent. I know if I told the police I was shopping because I WAS shopping, it would not occur to me to give them a receipt for my purchases unless they asked for it. MOOI've not heard this before, Lavindar, but it makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't think to hand over a shopping receipt, or any other receipt, until asked for it either. That's really interesting. Thanks!

[Cadillakin]

A few more to do.. I want to concede one minor point to thinkaboutit..

The hair was NOT twisted in the pliers. I inadvertently picked up Geragos language, as he used the term "twisted in" when discussing the states presentation of the hair evidence. His statement was meant to be derisive of the state.. but I remembered it and used it in my post.

Geragos in trial opening: "You'll remember yesterday that the evidence was going to show that the hair was all twisted in the pliers somehow."

Rule#1 to myself. Never quote Geragos or you will end up lying, twisting the truth, or just being wrong.

Let's change my statement from twisted in, to; "clamped and held within the pliers" Ok? Better?

[Cadillakin]

I've not heard this before, Lavindar, but it makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't think to hand over a shopping receipt, or any other receipt, until asked for it either. That's really interesting. Thanks!Yes indeed, very good point.

[Lavindar]

Not only would it not occur to you Lavindar, but what are the chances of you taking the receipt out of your pants pocket when you toss them in the washer, take a shower, dress in clean pants and put that receipt into the pocket of the clean pants? I don't think I'd describe ISP as stupid...who wouldn't be DAZED AND CONFUSED after murdering their family, on purpose.:flamemad:



OMG, that completely escaped me. The fact that the receipt was in his NEW CLEAN pants that he put on. You are right, of course. He had to empty the pockets of the pants he wore "golfishing" before he put them in the wash and then pocket the receipt in the NEW pants he put on. Makes him look even worse, doesn't it!!!!!!

[Cadillakin]

IIRC Scott Peterson was a fan of the movie "Fight Club". I Bleed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAiaWrFyRBQ)Another good one Luke. You're ahead on humor points in this thread.

[deputydi]

I recall reading someone that handing over alibi information before being asked for it, is very common among the guilty. The innocent have a tendence
to not hand it over because they know they are innocent. I know if I told the police I was shopping because I WAS shopping, it would not occur to me to give them a receipt for my purchases unless they asked for it. MOO
Don't forget, he also changed clothes before talking to the detectives. He made sure he transferred that receipt from the clothes he wore "fishing" (which he put in the washer) to the new, dry clothes he was wearing when he finally figured out his wife was "missing".

ETA: I just read your response a couple of posts above this one. I'm glad you haven't forgotten what I consider the MOST suspicious part of the speed with which he handed over the receipt.

[I'mSun]

Not only would it not occur to you Lavindar, but what are the chances of you taking the receipt out of your pants pocket when you toss them in the washer, take a shower, dress in clean pants and put that receipt into the pocket of the clean pants? I don't think I'd describe ISP as stupid...who wouldn't be DAZED AND CONFUSED after murdering their family, on purpose.:flamemad:Good point, TG. You and Lavindar have come up with some really interesting stuff. I'm wondering if this DAZED and CONFUSED is what generally precedes JAZZED!? :D

[Cadillakin]

Can you provide a link for "In the home, a small rock consistent with the concrete mix was found under the kitchen table." Yes, thank you for asking..

David Harris: As your assignment did you assist in the execution of a search warrant at 523 Covena?
David Hawn: Yes, I did.
David Harris: And did you kind of get tasked with the assignment of doing some documentation at the house that day?
David Hawn: Yes.
David Harris: If you can look around to your left to what's been marked as People's number 38, do you recognize that to be kind of a representation of the 523 Covena house?
David Hawn: Yes, I do.
David Harris: And was your assignment to photograph some items?
David Hawn: Yes, it was.
David Harris: What did you end up photographing?
David Hawn: Clothing out of two of the bedrooms.
David Harris: And these items were pulled out by other detectives and you took the pictures?
David Hawn: Yes.
David Harris: Did you document all, as best you could, all of the clothing, clothing items that weren't collected?
David Hawn: Yes.
David Harris:Now, during the process of going through the search, did something, did you see something or something come to your attention in another part of the house?
David Hawn: Yes, it did.
David Harris: What was that?
David Harris: A small piece of concrete?
David Hawn: Yes.
David Harris: Where did you see this at?
David Hawn: In the dining area.

[Luke Davis]

Odd or stupid when you consider the fact he was trying to cover his rear. It ranks right up there with handing over his parking receipt from the Berkeley Marina before he was asked. Scott sure isn't very smart.It's the 1% of fertilizer salesmen that give the other 99% a bad name. :hat:

[onthefence]

Maybe this will help:

Interview with Gloria Gomez, KOVR
Scott Peterson was interviewed by Gomez on KOVR, the Sacramento CBS affiliate. The following transcript of that interview was admitted as evidence in his murder trial.

Peterson; Well, take a look at my hands. You can see you know, cuts here on my knuckles, numerous scars. I, I work on farms. I work with machinery. Um I know, I cut my knuckle that day.

Gomez: On what day?

Peterson: On Christmas Eve.

Gomez: Doing what?

Peterson: Um, reaching in the tool box of my truck and then into the, pocket on the door. I cutr open my knuckle and there's a blood stain on the door. On the driver's side door




Notice he said CUT, not nick.

I also have a problem with his discription of working on farm equipment. He was a salesman - when would he ever work on farm machinery?

Most salesman handle the products that they are selling to some degree at some point.

[onthefence]

IIRC Scott Peterson was a fan of the movie "Fight Club". I Bleed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAiaWrFyRBQ)


It is one of my favorite movies :cool:

[TopGunner]

Most salesman handle the products that they are selling to some degree at some point.

He did not sell farm equipment. He sold fertilizer. It comes in a bag. Since when do bags cut?

[onthefence]

OMG, that completely escaped me. The fact that the receipt was in his NEW CLEAN pants that he put on. You are right, of course. He had to empty the pockets of the pants he wore "golfishing" before he put them in the wash and then pocket the receipt in the NEW pants he put on. Makes him look even worse, doesn't it!!!!!!

where should he have put it?

[onthefence]

He did not sell farm equipment. He sold fertilizer. It comes in a bag. Since when do bags cut?

So was the fertilizer used on farms or distributed via farm equipment of some kind? If he sold something like cars or phone systems I would find cuts from farm equipment unusual in the course of a business or work related event.

[Cadillakin]

If no sign of encroachment on Laci's home by an outsider is "evidence" of Scott's guilt - shouldn't the facts that there was no sign of a struggle - nor any evidence of a murder being committed in the home be considered as evidence of his innocence?On the face of it, those are good questions, but you miss something that is very relevant in the deciding of those questions..

And that is this.. There is reams of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, that Scott cleaned and adjusted the circumstances and potential evidence within his home. According to Scott, though probably not true, he showered and washed clothes when he returned from the Bay.. In reality, he may have really washed evidence of murder into the shower drain and off of his clothes and into the washing machine drains.. and used that story to explain why the shower and washing machine drains were recently used and washed clean.

In addition, there was uncontested testimony that Scott was vacuuming on Christmas day just hours after Laci was reported missing. If other persons had really invaded the Peterson home and accosted Laci, this vacuuming by Scott would at best constitute a complete lack of understanding of the need for preserving evidence of the crime. At worst, he is covering up his own involvement. He is either an idiot or a murderer. Nobody of average intelligence should be cleaning their home and washing if there was even a hint of the possibility that somebody came in and hurt or kidnapped their spouse.

Birgit Fladager: All right. Detective, did you direct Detective Skultety to do something specific in the house or some specific area?
Craig Grogan: Yes .
Birgit Fladager: What area was that?
Craig Grogan: The carpeted area in the converted garage near the sofa.
Birgit Fladager: And why did you ask him to do that?
Craig Grogan: Because of information that I had received that the defendant had been vacuuming there on December 25th.
Birgit Fladager: On Christmas day?
Craig Grogan: Yes .

[onthefence]

I've not heard this before, Lavindar, but it makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't think to hand over a shopping receipt, or any other receipt, until asked for it either. That's really interesting. Thanks!

So you would only provide info to police in similiar situation if you were asked to?

Did Scott volunteer the receipt spontaneously-i.e. without being asked to provide proof of his whereabouts?

[deputydi]

where should he have put it?
That question is hilarious. I can think of a hundred places and not one of them involve the clean pants. How many men do you know that even clean out their pants pockets? Okay, there are some I guess. The receipt would have gone on the dresser, on the vanity, on the washer -- wherever he happened to be standing. Once in a great while, the receipt might have gone in the garbage -- that's a long shot, however. :rolleyes:

[deputydi]

So you would only provide info to police in similiar situation if you were asked to?

Did Scott volunteer the receipt spontaneously-i.e. without being asked to provide proof of his whereabouts?
An innocent person who was worried sick about his missing pregnant wife wouldn't even think about providing proof of an alibi at that particular moment. IMO.

As for your second question, IIRC, he was asked where he had been that day and said he had been fishing, then produced the receipt to "prove" it.

[onthefence]

On the face of it, those are good questions, but you miss something that is very relevant in the deciding of those questions..

And that is this.. There is reams of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, that Scott cleaned and adjusted the circumstances and potential evidence within his home. According to Scott, though probably not true, he showered and washed clothes when he returned from the Bay.. In reality, he may have really washed evidence of murder into the shower drain and off of his clothes and into the washing machine drains.. and used that story to explain why the shower and washing machine drains were recently used and washed clean.

In addition, there was uncontested testimony that Scott was vacuuming on Christmas day just hours after Laci was reported missing. If other persons had really invaded the Peterson home and accosted Laci, this vacuuming by Scott would at best constitute a complete lack of understanding of the need for preserving evidence of the crime. At worst, he is covering up his own involvement. He is either an idiot or a murderer. Nobody of average intelligence should be cleaning their home and washing if there was even a hint of the possibility that somebody came in and hurt or kidnapped their spouse.

Birgit Fladager: All right. Detective, did you direct Detective Skultety to do something specific in the house or some specific area?
Craig Grogan: Yes .
Birgit Fladager: What area was that?
Craig Grogan: The carpeted area in the converted garage near the sofa.
Birgit Fladager: And why did you ask him to do that?
Craig Grogan: Because of information that I had received that the defendant had been vacuuming there on December 25th.
Birgit Fladager: On Christmas day?
Craig Grogan: Yes .


What potential evidence did he "adjust"?

Washing clothes is not conscious adjust/attempt to cover up evidence, especially at that point when you are not aware that a crime has been committed.

Did anyone check or testify to the contents of the vacuum cleaner bag? Was it empty?

[onthefence]

An innocent person who was worried sick about his missing pregnant wife wouldn't even think about providing proof of an alibi at that particular moment. IMO.

As for your second question, IIRC, he was asked where he had been that day and said he had been fishing, then produced the receipt to "prove" it.

So he was asked where he was that day and provided a receipt to prove it. What if he had not provided it unless asked specifically for the receipt to prove it, or said I didn't even think about the receipt and have misplaced it? I suspect either way his actions would have been viewed as suspicious.

[deputydi]

So he was asked where he was that day and provided a receipt to prove it. What if he had not provided it unless asked specifically for the receipt to prove it, or said I didn't even think about the receipt and have misplaced it? I suspect either way his actions would have been viewed as suspicious.
Why, at that point, do you believe he needed to prove ANYTHING? Laci had just been reported missing, the detectives had just started collecting statements and it's a question commonly asked in all investigations. No one had asked him or anyone else to prove their activities for the day -- that comes later. Good old Scotty, however, just happened to have the marina receipt in the pocket of his clean pants. You NGs crack me up when you deny, deny, deny that anything Scott did -- no matter how bizarre or innocuous -- was strange or out of the ordinary.

[Cadillakin]

Well thank you for pointing out my error. You mean, "your many errors". And your welcome..

I'll pass on answering the remainder of your post to me though I can't resist telling you that the Servas/Scott comparison when finding Mackenzie leashed is ridiculous.. Assessing a spouse who knows his pregnant and fragile wife will be walking the dog, then subsequently ignores finding the dog leashed and ALONE, without a single sign of his wife's presence or evidence of her well-being is extremely different than assessing a neighbor finding and putting a dog whom she does not own back into the property where he lives..

I shouldn't have to tell you that...

[Cadillakin]

Why, at that point, do you believe he needed to prove ANYTHING? Laci had just been reported missing, the detectives had just started collecting statements and it's a question commonly asked in all investigations. No one had asked him or anyone else to prove their activities for the day -- that comes later. Good old Scotty, however, just happened to have the marina receipt in the pocket of his clean pants. You NGs crack me up when you deny, deny, deny that anything Scott did -- no matter how bizarre or innocuous -- was strange or out of the ordinary.And minutes after that he was readying and replaying his loving, doting husband message to Laci so the detective would realize he would never hurt his beloved wife..

What a f***** jerk!

[onthefence]

Personally I think Amber has excellent character and integrity. She had no idea ISP's wife died until she was already invested (in her heart) and at that time he assured her that it was OK. She was young and naive, but then I don't know any woman who hasn't walked the stupidity plank for a relationship at some point in their life. A nun maybe. She trusted her friends opinion and then trusted the killer. I tend to trust most people I meet, until they give me a reason not to. I felt bad for Amber, obviously she was blind-sided by the whole thing, but she did not walk away unwise. She paid dearly for her honest mistake.

I don't think any of us would know how we'd handle a situation until we were in it. I know many couples who, at the time, I thought it was a rebound deal or similar, and they're still going strong today, many happy years later. There's no blueprint.


You are right that there is no blueprint. But let's be honest, there are plenty here who believe there is a blueprint (depending on who is being discussed) and that they know exactly how they would handle a situation if they were in it and how other people should/would act too.

yes many women have walked the stupidity plank, but, most live and learn. when you walk the same plank over and over, the naive (claim of not having been exposed previously to) card wears thin. most people would wonder if this person has issues, bad judgement or both. of course, that doesn't make them a bad person.

young, maybe. Naive, no. Blindsided by Scott, no.

[deputydi]

<snip>Laci was NOT found in the same pants she wore on the 23rd. Check Amy Rocha's testimony.<snip>
and, she wasn't found in the pants Scott said she was wearing that morning. So, tell me, what happened to those pants? Amy couldn't positively identify the pants Laci was found in nor could she find them anywhere in the house. Where did they go?

[onthefence]

Why, at that point, do you believe he needed to prove ANYTHING? Laci had just been reported missing, the detectives had just started collecting statements and it's a question commonly asked in all investigations. No one had asked him or anyone else to prove their activities for the day -- that comes later. Good old Scotty, however, just happened to have the marina receipt in the pocket of his clean pants. You NGs crack me up when you deny, deny, deny that anything Scott did -- no matter how bizarre or innocuous -- was strange or out of the ordinary.

Why do you believe that I believed he needed to prove anything? Where do you think the receipt should have been?

You crack me up too! :beer:

[I'mSun]

So you would only provide info to police in similiar situation if you were asked to?

Did Scott volunteer the receipt spontaneously-i.e. without being asked to provide proof of his whereabouts?"In similar situation" It's hard to speak to that because I don't run around murdering people. However, under normal circumstances, I wouldn't even think to provide a receipt, or any other proof of my whereabouts, unless I was asked. Thinking back, I don't believe I have ever had to prove my whereabouts and I've never provided proof because it was never needed. However, if I was trying to cover my *****, I might indeed offer proof without being asked for it, just like Scott did.

[I'mSun]

Why do you believe that I believed he needed to prove anything? Where do you think the receipt should have been?
If I had a receipt in my pants pocket and decided to wash my pants in a hurry, I can pretty much guarantee you that receipt would be washed right along with the pants. If somehow I remembered to take the receipt out, I would have put it on a counter top, with other receipts or in a drawer. The absolute LAST place I would put it would be in another pants pocket.

[onthefence]

"In similar situation" It's hard to speak to that because I don't run around murdering people. However, under normal circumstances, I wouldn't even think to provide a receipt, or any other proof of my whereabouts, unless I was asked. Thinking back, I don't believe I have ever had to prove my whereabouts and I've never provided proof because it was never needed. However, if I was trying to cover my *****, I might indeed offer proof without being asked for it, just like Scott did.

okie dokie :eek:

[deputydi]

Why do you believe that I believed he needed to prove anything? Where do you think the receipt should have been?

You crack me up too! :beer:
Maybe you missed the post where I answered your question. Here it is:
That question is hilarious. I can think of a hundred places and not one of them involve the clean pants. How many men do you know that even clean out their pants pockets? Okay, there are some I guess. The receipt would have gone on the dresser, on the vanity, on the washer -- wherever he happened to be standing. Once in a great while, the receipt might have gone in the garbage -- that's a long shot, however.
I can't think of a single reason (oh, wait -- I can think of one :) ) why he would take the receipt out of the wet, smelly pants and transfer it to the clean pair he was putting on instead of either throwing it away (did he really need it anymore? :rolleyes: ) or placing it on a table, a counter top or something nearby. Does this honestly make sense to you or is it just something to argue about?

[deputydi]

If I had a receipt in my pants pocket and decided to wash my pants in a hurry, I can pretty much guarantee you that receipt would be washed right along with the pants. If somehow I remembered to take the receipt out, I would have put it on a counter top, with other receipts or in a drawer. The absolute LAST place I would put it would be in another pants pocket.
EXACTLY! You've got to be a guy, right?

[onthefence]

"In similar situation" It's hard to speak to that because I don't run around murdering people. However, under normal circumstances, I wouldn't even think to provide a receipt, or any other proof of my whereabouts, unless I was asked. Thinking back, I don't believe I have ever had to prove my whereabouts and I've never provided proof because it was never needed. However, if I was trying to cover my *****, I might indeed offer proof without being asked for it, just like Scott did.

a) we obviously aren't talking talking about normal circumstances.

b) Why is it hard to speak?. you how Scott P should have done it, but can't speak for yourself-:confused: :shrug:

[frydaddy]

Similar to a ball game or any other pay parking lot...DASH TO TRASH.

[onthefence]

Maybe you missed the post where I answered your question. Here it is:

I can't think of a single reason (oh, wait -- I can think of one :) ) why he would take the receipt out of the wet, smelly pants and transfer it to the clean pair he was putting on instead of either throwing it away (did he really need it anymore? :rolleyes: ) or placing it on a table, a counter top or something nearby. Does this honestly make sense to you or is it just something to argue about?

I have hubby and 2 grown sons. One-the receipt and everything else (including pens, money, etc) would have been washed along with everything else :( ,

the other take everything out, put it on the washer, dryer or counter, put on clean/dry clothes and put everything back into pants pockets,

the other, take everything out, put any receipts into a dresser drawer, change in a change tray on dresser, wallet on dresser, wallet back in clean/dry pants.

so some of us have similiar and some have different habits and experiences. which way is the right way?

[deputydi]

Similar to a ball game or any other pay parking lot...DASH TO TRASH.
I love that!!!

[deputydi]

I have hubby and 2 grown sons. One-the receipt and everything else (including pens, money, etc) would have been washed along with everything else :( ,

the other take everything out, put it on the washer, dryer or counter, put on clean/dry clothes and put everything back into pants pockets,

the other, take everything out, put any receipts into a dresser drawer, change in a change tray on dresser, wallet on dresser, wallet back in clean/dry pants.

so some of us have similiar and some have different habits and experiences. which way is the right way?
Numbers 1 and 3 I believe. Number 2 I don't. And, if it's true, he must have quite a collection of old receipts by now.

[frydaddy]

I have hubby and 2 grown sons. One-the receipt and everything else (including pens, money, etc) would have been washed along with everything else :( ,

the other take everything out, put it on the washer, dryer or counter, put on clean/dry clothes and put everything back into pants pockets,

the other, take everything out, put any receipts into a dresser drawer, change in a change tray on dresser, wallet on dresser, wallet back in clean/dry pants.

so some of us have similiar and some have different habits and experiences. which way is the right way?

Probably whichever one most closely resembles or supports Scott? :rolleyes:

[TopGunner]

So was the fertilizer used on farms or distributed via farm equipment of some kind? If he sold something like cars or phone systems I would find cuts from farm equipment unusual in the course of a business or work related event.

If I'm not mistaken, the farmers would distribute the fertilizer in their fields, with their farm equipment. The company would ship the product. I've been in sales for many years, and I have never cut myself. And I sell something a whole lot more dangerous than cow poo.

[I'mSun]

Probably whichever one most closely resembles or supports Scott? :rolleyes:Exactly! :beer:

[I'mSun]

a) we obviously aren't talking talking about normal circumstances.

b) Why is it hard to speak?. you how Scott P should have done it, but can't speak for yourself-:confused: :shrug:Nit picking, are ya? I already explained why I couldn't speak with authority on the subject because I am NOT A MURDERER.

[I'mSun]

EXACTLY! You've got to be a guy, right?Um, no. :D

[TopGunner]

Maybe you missed the post where I answered your question. Here it is:

I can't think of a single reason (oh, wait -- I can think of one :) ) why he would take the receipt out of the wet, smelly pants and transfer it to the clean pair he was putting on instead of either throwing it away (did he really need it anymore? :rolleyes: ) or placing it on a table, a counter top or something nearby. Does this honestly make sense to you or is it just something to argue about?

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. I know that everyone reading here doesn't know anyone who takes old receipts out of their pants pockets...takes a shower, puts on clean cloths and then goes back to retreive receipts from their dirty cloths to put in the new pant pocket. How stupid does THAT sound? Geez...

[Otter]

It is one of my favorite movies :cool:

I'm so sorry for you. :rolleyes:

He did not sell farm equipment. He sold fertilizer. It comes in a bag. Since when do bags cut?

Yeah, I've often seen workers in the garden center frolicking in the fertilizer. SP sold the heavy duty stuff. It'd kill you if you touched it.

So he was asked where he was that day and provided a receipt to prove it. What if he had not provided it unless asked specifically for the receipt to prove it, or said I didn't even think about the receipt and have misplaced it? I suspect either way his actions would have been viewed as suspicious.

He produced the receipt without asking. Pulled it right out, after washing those wet, dirty jeans.

You are right that there is no blueprint. But let's be honest, there are plenty here who believe there is a blueprint (depending on who is being discussed) and that they know exactly how they would handle a situation if they were in it and how other people should/would act too.

yes many women have walked the stupidity plank, but, most live and learn. when you walk the same plank over and over, the naive (claim of not having been exposed previously to) card wears thin. most people would wonder if this person has issues, bad judgement or both. of course, that doesn't make them a bad person.

young, maybe. Naive, no. Blindsided by Scott, no.

Okay, its Laci's fault that she's dead in your opinion. Talk about "the stupidity plank". All your placating words ... its Laci's fault. She didn't "live and learn", so what did she do ... "reap what she had sown"?

Blindsided by ISP? Absolutely! And a jury has spoken.

[TopGunner]

You are right that there is no blueprint. But let's be honest, there are plenty here who believe there is a blueprint (depending on who is being discussed) and that they know exactly how they would handle a situation if they were in it and how other people should/would act too.

yes many women have walked the stupidity plank, but, most live and learn. when you walk the same plank over and over, the naive (claim of not having been exposed previously to) card wears thin. most people would wonder if this person has issues, bad judgement or both. of course, that doesn't make them a bad person.

young, maybe. Naive, no. Blindsided by Scott, no.

Yes, she was totally blindsided by Scott. No, she's not psychic. She was in her early 20's, a baby by my definition, learning as best she could. If there was a blueprint, relationship guru's wouldn't be in business, the isle's of Barns & Noble would be empty, and divorce would be unheard of, you think?

;)

[deputydi]

Um, no. :D
Sorry. :(

Do you know of any guy who would take a wadded up receipt out of his pocket and transfer it to a clean pair of pants? I'm lucky if hubby takes ANYTHING out of his pockets.

[Lavindar]

On the face of it, those are good questions, but you miss something that is very relevant in the deciding of those questions..

And that is this.. There is reams of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, that Scott cleaned and adjusted the circumstances and potential evidence within his home. According to Scott, though probably not true, he showered and washed clothes when he returned from the Bay.. In reality, he may have really washed evidence of murder into the shower drain and off of his clothes and into the washing machine drains.. and used that story to explain why the shower and washing machine drains were recently used and washed clean.

In addition, there was uncontested testimony that Scott was vacuuming on Christmas day just hours after Laci was reported missing. If other persons had really invaded the Peterson home and accosted Laci, this vacuuming by Scott would at best constitute a complete lack of understanding of the need for preserving evidence of the crime. At worst, he is covering up his own involvement. He is either an idiot or a murderer. Nobody of average intelligence should be cleaning their home and washing if there was even a hint of the possibility that somebody came in and hurt or kidnapped their spouse.

Birgit Fladager: All right. Detective, did you direct Detective Skultety to do something specific in the house or some specific area?
Craig Grogan: Yes .
Birgit Fladager: What area was that?
Craig Grogan: The carpeted area in the converted garage near the sofa.
Birgit Fladager: And why did you ask him to do that?
Craig Grogan: Because of information that I had received that the defendant had been vacuuming there on December 25th.
Birgit Fladager: On Christmas day?
Craig Grogan: Yes .

May I add that there was no cleanup at the warehouse. Scott attempted to get into the warehouse during the early morning hours but was refused access by the police who was posted at the warehouse. Scott told the police there was no power to the warehouse, which was a lie. He attempted to prevent them from getting information from the warehouse. Personally, I think he intended to clean it up that night and was thwarted by the police.

[Lavindar]

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. I know that everyone reading here doesn't know anyone who takes old receipts out of their pants pockets...takes a shower, puts on clean cloths and then goes back to retreive receipts from their dirty cloths to put in the new pant pocket. How stupid does THAT sound? Geez...


I can't think of a single reason for him to keep the receipt period. Maybe he knew he would have to prove his whereabouts to someone and he kept it for that reason. Another consciousness of guilt molve.

[Luke Davis]

He did not sell farm equipment. He sold fertilizer. It comes in a bag. Since when do bags cut?IIRC he sold liquid fertilizer in bladders. I remember a taped call where he told his assistants to burn the bladder. I always wondered about that.:shrug:

[TopGunner]

IIRC he sold liquid fertilizer in bladders. I remember a taped call where he told his assistants to burn the bladder. I always wondered about that.:shrug:

LOL Luke...there's only one kind of bladder I'm familiar with and I'm pretty sure it's not the kind you're talking about, so ummm.....what's a bladder?

[TopGunner]

I can't think of a single reason for him to keep the receipt period. Maybe he knew he would have to prove his whereabouts to someone and he kept it for that reason. Another consciousness of guilt molve.

No doubt he kept the receipt for the same reason he kept his voice mail messages to Laci (and listened to/then saved twice).

[Lavindar]

I have hubby and 2 grown sons. One-the receipt and everything else (including pens, money, etc) would have been washed along with everything else :( ,

the other take everything out, put it on the washer, dryer or counter, put on clean/dry clothes and put everything back into pants pockets,

the other, take everything out, put any receipts into a dresser drawer, change in a change tray on dresser, wallet on dresser, wallet back in clean/dry pants.

so some of us have similiar and some have different habits and experiences. which way is the right way?


Personally, I think the logical place for the parking receipt is in the glove compartment. I wonder if he had to keep it on display on his dash. The pocket is the least likely place that I would believe it would be UNLESS he needed it to prove something and he KNEW he would need it.

[TopGunner]

Personally, I think the logical place for the parking receipt is in the glove compartment. I wonder if he had to keep it on display on his dash. The pocket is the least likely place that I would believe it would be UNLESS he needed it to prove something and he KNEW he would need it.

I have a joyful commute each day so needless to say, there's lots of receipts in my world...parking one's too. I've never carried them in the pockets of my jeans, and I've certainly never put receipts that I've taken OUT of my pockets (or purse for that matter) back into my pockets or purse. WTH?

[deputydi]

May I add that there was no cleanup at the warehouse. Scott attempted to get into the warehouse during the early morning hours but was refused access by the police who was posted at the warehouse. Scott told the police there was no power to the warehouse, which was a lie. He attempted to prevent them from getting information from the warehouse. Personally, I think he intended to clean it up that night and was thwarted by the police.
I agree. I also believe he was stupid enough to believe that the cops would just go away when he said the power was off.

I'll tell you what I think Scott's biggest lapse in judgment was -- a lot of people believe that LE ALWAYS waits 48 hrs or longer to investigate a report of a missing adult. That is true sometimes -- but not always. I don't think he even considered the possibility that the investigation into Laci's disappearance would begin immediately. I think he thought that it would be reported and her family would be frantic, but the police wouldn't do anything for a couple of days. Boy was he wrong. That's (IMO) why he screwed up his "story" a couple of times and why the warehouse hadn't been cleaned out. He just wasn't prepared for the immediate attention. Then things sort of spiraled out of control and it unexpectedly became a world wide story -- much to Scott's surprise and dismay.

[Luke Davis]

LOL Luke...there's only one kind of bladder I'm familiar with and I'm pretty sure it's not the kind you're talking about, so ummm.....what's a bladder?
Something like this.http://www.habmigern2003.info/biogas/Baron-digester/Baron-digester-Dateien/image002.jpg

Basically, a flexible tank. You might remember Scott had a flat bed trailer for hauling them.

[Lavindar]

I agree. I also believe he was stupid enough to believe that the cops would just go away when he said the power was off.

I'll tell you what I think Scott's biggest lapse in judgment was -- a lot of people believe that LE ALWAYS waits 48 hrs or longer to investigate a report of a missing adult. That is true sometimes -- but not always. I don't think he even considered the possibility that the investigation into Laci's disappearance would begin immediately. I think he thought that it would be reported and her family would be frantic, but the police wouldn't do anything for a couple of days. Boy was he wrong. That's (IMO) why he screwed up his "story" a couple of times and why the warehouse hadn't been cleaned out. He just wasn't prepared for the immediate attention. Then things sort of spiraled out of control and it unexpectedly became a world wide story -- much to Scott's surprise and dismay.


And I think he thought he was dealing with a bunch of country bumpkins.

Even if they had waitied only 24 hours, it would put it on Christmas and even police have families and want to celebrate the holidays. It would seem that only Scott got to have Christmas dinner that year.

[deputydi]

I can't think of a single reason for him to keep the receipt period. Maybe he knew he would have to prove his whereabouts to someone and he kept it for that reason. Another consciousness of guilt molve.
I can't think of one either. I shove receipts in my purse all the time, but eventually when I clean it out, I don't put them back into my CLEANED OUT purse. The ones I think I may need I'll put in a desk drawer but I absolutely do not save parking receipts (unless it's business travel and I'm getting reimbursed). This is one of the most illogical things the NGs have come up with.

Consciousness of guilt ------ you bet! He knew at some point he'd have to prove where he had been all day.

[TopGunner]

And I think he thought he was dealing with a bunch of country bumpkins.

Even if they had waitied only 24 hours, it would put it on Christmas and even police have families and want to celebrate the holidays. It would seem that only Scott got to have Christmas dinner that year.

DD & Lav, I completely agree with both of you. I also believe he thought he had TIME, and the fact that it was Christmas would not just buy him more time...but that there'd be a skeleton crew as well. FOR SURE he believed he was smarter than the LE. His actions proved that over and over again.

[TopGunner]

Something like this.http://www.habmigern2003.info/biogas/Baron-digester/Baron-digester-Dateien/image002.jpg

Basically, a flexible tank. You might remember Scott had a flat bed trailer for hauling them.


Hey Luke, many thanks for this post. No, I had no idea what this was, nor do I recall the flat bed trailer...probably because I never believed "we men cut each other" and all the other excuses he gave. But again, I appreciate knowing this...thanks!

[Lavindar]

Hey Luke, many thanks for this post. No, I had no idea what this was, nor do I recall the flat bed trailer...probably because I never believed "we men cut each other" and all the other excuses he gave. But again, I appreciate knowing this...thanks!


The flatbed trailer was where all the "concrete crop circles" were. It figured prominently in the case. I always thought it was funny that he needed a TRUCK for his work. Couldn't he have towed with the Land Rover?

[I'mSun]

I can't think of a single reason for him to keep the receipt period. Maybe he knew he would have to prove his whereabouts to someone and he kept it for that reason. Another consciousness of guilt molve.A parking receipt isn't one people generally keep; it's not like you need it to return something. Absolutely another consciousness of guilt action.

[Lavindar]

Something like this.http://www.habmigern2003.info/biogas/Baron-digester/Baron-digester-Dateien/image002.jpg

Basically, a flexible tank. You might remember Scott had a flat bed trailer for hauling them.

That looks very environmentally unfriendly to me.

[Luke Davis]

Hey Luke, many thanks for this post. No, I had no idea what this was, nor do I recall the flat bed trailer...probably because I never believed "we men cut each other" and all the other excuses he gave. But again, I appreciate knowing this...thanks!IIRC the flat bed trailer is where the rings were. I remember a photo of them. There was also a diagram of the warehouse, showing a fork lift, fertilizer, trailer, etc.

[adnoid]

Not only would it not occur to you Lavindar, but what are the chances of you taking the receipt out of your pants pocket when you toss them in the washer, take a shower, dress in clean pants and put that receipt into the pocket of the clean pants? I don't think I'd describe ISP as stupid...who wouldn't be DAZED AND CONFUSED after murdering their family, on purpose.:flamemad:

Very good point. In fact, the receipt is to be placed on the dashboard of the car while you are parked so that if the attendant comes by they see you have paid. What I do is after I get home from a trip I clean up the car & throw those receipts out, or I throw them out if I stop for gas along the way. If for some reason I do not do either of those right away the receipt sits on the dash until the next time I clean out my car. And I'm not so fastidious I would put something on the door to keep it from being dinged like Scott did. No way I'd ever put it in my pocket - what would be the point?

[I'mSun]

Sorry. :(

Do you know of any guy who would take a wadded up receipt out of his pocket and transfer it to a clean pair of pants? LOL! Not a problem.

Can I think of anyone? Nope, not even one. In fact, I can't think of anybody, male or female, who would do that.

[JustMyOpinion]

You are right that there is no blueprint. But let's be honest, there are plenty here who believe there is a blueprint (depending on who is being discussed) and that they know exactly how they would handle a situation if they were in it and how other people should/would act too.

yes many women have walked the stupidity plank, but, most live and learn. when you walk the same plank over and over, the naive (claim of not having been exposed previously to) card wears thin. most people would wonder if this person has issues, bad judgement or both. of course, that doesn't make them a bad person.

young, maybe. Naive, no. Blindsided by Scott, no.

I don't think Laci walked "the stupidity plank", there's not one shred of evidence that Laci knew her husband had bought a boat, searched the tides, and told others he had lost his wife & would spend his first holidays alone, or that she believed her husband was capable of killing her. On 12/23, he attended a prenatal appointment with her, they went to a salon together, they returned together to their own home where she was alone and completely vulnerable. She had no opportunity to "live and learn", nor was she "blindsighted", because she & Conner were murdered by a cunning, charming, deceptive, manipulative sociopath, IMO.

[Cadillakin]

She had no opportunity to "live and learn", nor was she "blindsighted", because she & Conner were murdered by a cunning, charming, deceptive, manipulative sociopath, IMO.It was absolutely heartbreaking to hear Sharon relating Laci's last thoughts in the courtroom, "Why are you killing me Scott, I love you with all my heart"

[onthefence]

Numbers 1 and 3 I believe. Number 2 I don't. And, if it's true, he must have quite a collection of old receipts by now.

Of course, the receipts are eventually saved or thrown away-sometimes they lay on the floor in the jeans until there is nothing clean left to wear, and then I fished the stuff out and wash the jeans. Believe it.........or not. :shrug:

[onthefence]

I don't think Laci walked "the stupidity plank", there's not one shred of evidence that Laci knew her husband had bought a boat, searched the tides, and told others he had lost his wife & would spend his first holidays alone, or that she believed her husband was capable of killing her. On 12/23, he attended a prenatal appointment with her, they went to a salon together, they returned together to their own home where she was alone and completely vulnerable. She had no opportunity to "live and learn", nor was she "blindsighted", because she & Conner were murdered by a cunning, charming, deceptive, manipulative sociopath, IMO.

:confused: My post that you refer to above, had nothing to do with Laci. :no:

[onthefence]

Personally, I think the logical place for the parking receipt is in the glove compartment. I wonder if he had to keep it on display on his dash. The pocket is the least likely place that I would believe it would be UNLESS he needed it to prove something and he KNEW he would need it.

The logical place for me is in the "ashtray" area of my car. A receipt like the one Scott had would have stayed in there until I cleaned it out or trashed. Personally, the receipt back in his pants pocket is not something I would do, I just don't find it highly suspicious.

[onthefence]

Probably whichever one most closely resembles or supports Scott? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :tongue: :D

[onthefence]

I agree. I also believe he was stupid enough to believe that the cops would just go away when he said the power was off.

I'll tell you what I think Scott's biggest lapse in judgment was -- a lot of people believe that LE ALWAYS waits 48 hrs or longer to investigate a report of a missing adult. That is true sometimes -- but not always. I don't think he even considered the possibility that the investigation into Laci's disappearance would begin immediately. I think he thought that it would be reported and her family would be frantic, but the police wouldn't do anything for a couple of days. Boy was he wrong. That's (IMO) why he screwed up his "story" a couple of times and why the warehouse hadn't been cleaned out. He just wasn't prepared for the immediate attention. Then things sort of spiraled out of control and it unexpectedly became a world wide story -- much to Scott's surprise and dismay.

If he didn't think the search for Laci would begin immediatley then why would he bother to put the receipt in his pants pockets?

[JustMyOpinion]

:confused: My post that you refer to above, had nothing to do with Laci. :no:

Scott is a charming, deceptive, manipulative, calculating sociopath, IMO.
He murdered Laci & Conner, he victimized others as well ( such as Sharon, Brent, Ron, Dennis, Amy, Amber, his own parents, ) to name a few.
None of them "walked the stupidity plank", they simply couldn't peer inside the mind of Scott Peterson, imho.

[Lavindar]

The logical place for me is in the "ashtray" area of my car. A receipt like the one Scott had would have stayed in there until I cleaned it out or trashed. Personally, the receipt back in his pants pocket is not something I would do, I just don't find it highly suspicious.

I think you are misunderstanding what we are saying. It's not tht the receipt was in the pants pocket - it's that it was in the pants pocket of a CLEAN PAIR or PANTS that he was NOT wearing at the Marina. How did it wind up in those?????

Had the receipt been put in the pocket of the pants he was wearing at the Marina would not seem so illogical. What mnakes no sense is how they got into the pocket of a pair of pants that was in Modesto and had never been to the Marina. MOO

[onthefence]

I think you are misunderstanding what we are saying. It's not tht the receipt was in the pants pocket - it's that it was in the pants pocket of a CLEAN PAIR or PANTS that he was NOT wearing at the Marina. How did it wind up in those?????

Had the receipt been put in the pocket of the pants he was wearing at the Marina would not seem so illogical. What mnakes no sense is how they got into the pocket of a pair of pants that was in Modesto and had never been to the Marina. MOO

But didn't he wash the pants he wore to the marina? and wouldn't he have taken the contents of his pockets out before he washed them? and would it be suspicious for him to put those contents back into whatever dry pants he put back on?

[onthefence]

Scott is a charming, deceptive, manipulative, calculating sociopath, IMO.
He murdered Laci & Conner, he victimized others as well ( such as Sharon, Brent, Ron, Dennis, Amy, Amber, his own parents, ) to name a few.
None of them "walked the stupidity plank", they simply couldn't peer inside the mind of Scott Peterson, imho.

Scott P dated Amber 4 times. Amber was not murdered, nor was anyone she loved.

The topic was whether or not Amber excercised good judgement-or not in dating Scott P.- nothing more. imo, she exercised bad judgement in getting involved with Scott P. despite her past experiences with less than honest married men. Peering inside his mind was not necessary to figure this one out. That does not mean she deserved that-or anything else that resulted or that she is alone in that weakness. It just mean she excercised bad judgement. no praise no blame. However, it didn't turn out too bad for her in the end. She got a makeover, a book deal and her very own spa. So, I guess there is a silver lining in every cloud. :D

[Lavindar]

But didn't he wash the pants he wore to the marina? and wouldn't he have taken the contents of his pockets out before he washed them? and would it be suspicious for him to put those contents back into whatever dry pants he put back on?


put back on? You have lost me. He removed things from his allegedly wet-from-rain that did NOT OCCUR and put them into the pants he put BACK ON? How many times a day did he cheange his clothes?

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott P dated Amber 4 times. Amber was not murdered, nor was anyone she loved.

The topic was whether or not Amber excercised good judgement-or not in dating Scott P.- nothing more. imo, she exercised bad judgement in getting involved with Scott P. despite her past experiences with less than honest married men. Peering inside his mind was not necessary to figure this one out. That does not mean she deserved that-or anything else that resulted or that she is alone in that weakness. It just mean she excercised bad judgement. no praise no blame. However, it didn't turn out too bad for her in the end. She got a makeover, a book deal and her very own spa. So, I guess there is a silver lining in every cloud. :D


The topic of this thread was "Who can tell me what this is"? Not "Amber's judgement". Shawn Sibley testified that she told Scott Amber had been hurt in the past, and she wouldn't set him up with her unless he was sincerely wanting what he was claiming. SCOTT WAS LYING to Shawn, he continued to do so, and he is the person who perpetrated FRAUD on both Shawn and Amber. Scott is a self-serving, manipulative, charming, conning, deceitful human being. Scott's VICTIMS are not weak or lacking in judgement, imho. Scott is LACKING in conscience, character and manipulates others to serve his own purposes, imho.

[Cadillakin]

The topic of this thread was "Who can tell me what this is"? Not "Amber's judgement". Shawn Sibley testified that she told Scott Amber had been hurt in the past, and she wouldn't set him up with her unless he was sincerely wanting what he was claiming. SCOTT WAS LYING to Shawn, he continued to do so, and he is the person who perpetrated FRAUD on both Shawn and Amber. Scott is a self-serving, manipulative, charming, conning, deceitful human being. Scott's VICTIMS are not weak or lacking in judgement, imho. Scott is LACKING in conscience, character and manipulates others to serve his own purposes, imho.It's really weird how the NG's are consistently anti-Amber, and the guilties stand up for her..

The perpetrator of the fraud, the user of women gets the NG's understanding.. the the victim of his fraud is distained..

[onthefence]

It's really weird how the NG's are consistently anti-Amber, and the guilties stand up for her..

The perpetrator of the fraud, the user of women gets the NG's understanding.. the the victim of his fraud is distained..

I assume you are lumping me into the NG category, based on the string of posts? for the record, I am not "anti" Amber. I am Amber neutral. There are also the Amber bashers, who will insist she was a needy, evil, calculating young woman of low morals and some even suggest her as a suspect, then there those that will insist she is someone of sterling character, a hero, a paragon of young motherhood (instead of a character in a cautionary tale) and a model for young women everywhere. Heaven help us all. She is a person with good points and bad, just like most of us. I say, who cares? :shrug:

[onthefence]

The topic of this thread was "Who can tell me what this is"? Not "Amber's judgement". Shawn Sibley testified that she told Scott Amber had been hurt in the past, and she wouldn't set him up with her unless he was sincerely wanting what he was claiming. SCOTT WAS LYING to Shawn, he continued to do so, and he is the person who perpetrated FRAUD on both Shawn and Amber. Scott is a self-serving, manipulative, charming, conning, deceitful human being. Scott's VICTIMS are not weak or lacking in judgement, imho. Scott is LACKING in conscience, character and manipulates others to serve his own purposes, imho.

The topic of this thread was "Who can tell me what this is"?

People lost interest in posting on "Who can tell me what this is"? after about the 5th post. Perhaps we should all move on.

[Luke Davis]

The topic of this thread was "Who can tell me what this is"?

People lost interest in posting on "Who can tell me what this is"? after about the 5th post. Perhaps we should all move on.I won a prize!
http://sheknows.com/graphics/emoticons/weirdthread.gif

[Cadillakin]

I assume you are lumping me into the NG category, based on the string of posts? for the record, I am not "anti" Amber. Hahahahahahahahaha.. Yeah, I believe you.

[deputydi]

I assume you are lumping me into the NG category, based on the string of posts? for the record, I am not "anti" Amber. I am Amber neutral. There are also the Amber bashers, who will insist she was a needy, evil, calculating young woman of low morals and some even suggest her as a suspect, then there those that will insist she is someone of sterling character, a hero, a paragon of young motherhood (instead of a character in a cautionary tale) and a model for young women everywhere. Heaven help us all. She is a person with good points and bad, just like most of us. I say, who cares? :shrug:
Right. Just like you're Scott neutral.

[cookiewench]

and would it be suspicious for him to put those contents back into whatever dry pants he put back on?


Yes. Who - when switching pants (or purse, if a woman) stuff things like useless receipts in there?

Generally - a person would go through what had been in pockets or purse, and exchange whatever was still useful into the new ones.

[cookiewench]

If he didn't think the search for Laci would begin immediatley then why would he bother to put the receipt in his pants pockets?

You're admitting that Scott expected to be suspected?

Before he'd even called Sharon to find out if she was over there, he thought he might be suspected in her going "missing"?

[Wearing A Halo]

Right. Just like you're Scott neutral.

LOL! Then she would be a "SINner".

[cookiewench]

Why should Amber have been able to see through Scott's lies, his ruses, and his phony stories, when his wife, who'd been with him for six years couldn't?

Every comment about Amber not being suspicious enough of his stories, not being able to see his true character, and falling for a sociopath is also an insult to Laci, IMO.

He'd been lying to Laci for more than six years - yet she still believed that he was meeting with his boss on the night that he went to the Christmas party with Amber.

If Laci couldn't see through him after all that time, it just proves how GOOD Scott was at being a lying sociopath - not how stupid Amber is.

[Luke Davis]

Why should Amber have been able to see through Scott's lies, his ruses, and his phony stories, when his wife, who'd been with him for six years couldn't?

Every comment about Amber not being suspicious enough of his stories, not being able to see his true character, and falling for a sociopath is also an insult to Laci, IMO.

He'd been lying to Laci for more than six years - yet she still believed that he was meeting with his boss on the night that he went to the Christmas party with Amber.

If Laci couldn't see through him after all that time, it just proves how GOOD Scott was at being a lying sociopath - not how stupid Amber is.

I think Dennis Rocha was the only one not fooled by Scott.

[deputydi]

LOL! Then she would be a "SINner".
ROFLMAO. You're quick!

[cookiewench]

I think Dennis Rocha was the only one not fooled by Scott.

But Amber's the only one who gets called stupid and careless for being fooled by him.

I think that most of us women believe that we would have been able to see through his slick little show. I believe that I would have.

But sometimes, I wonder.

I wonder.

[Lavindar]

I think Dennis Rocha was the only one not fooled by Scott. I agree, Luke. And Ron wasn't too thrilled with him either. It would appear that men could see through him more easily than women could.

HOw many parents put up with someone they don't care for "for the sake of their child."? I would classify most parents in that category. I know it was mostly men who said that the fishing story was fishy - to me anyway. I guess men just weren't susceptible to his "charm."

[Cadillakin]

Why should Amber have been able to see through Scott's lies, his ruses, and his phony stories, when his wife, who'd been with him for six years couldn't?

Every comment about Amber not being suspicious enough of his stories, not being able to see his true character, and falling for a sociopath is also an insult to Laci, IMO.

He'd been lying to Laci for more than six years - yet she still believed that he was meeting with his boss on the night that he went to the Christmas party with Amber.

If Laci couldn't see through him after all that time, it just proves how GOOD Scott was at being a lying sociopath - not how stupid Amber is.I'm with you 100% on this one, particularly your comment that the criticisms of Amber are also insults to Laci. Good for you for saying that!

[Spencer]

DISTASO: Okay. And did he go somewhere and get a parking receipt for you?

EVERS: Yes, he did.

DISTASO: Do you know where he went?

EVERS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: Where was that?

EVERS: He opened up the, he opened up the door to his truck, and reached in, and pulled a receipt from the ashtray.

************************************************** ********

GERAGOS: Sure. Page 482, starting at line 16. Does that refresh your recollection as to what actually happened, detective?

EVERS: Not really.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, at the preliminary hearing, which was back in October, specifically you were you asked the question, was, did Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he had any type of receipt or anything to show whether he had gone fishing that day? Answer. Did the detective ask him that? Question. Yeah. Answer. No. I asked him that. Question. And what did he say? Answer, by you. He said that he had a parking receipt from the marina. Question. And did he show you that? Answer. Yes, he did.

GERAGOS: Those were your, those were the questions and answers you were asked at the preliminary hearing by Mr. Distaso; isn't that correct? The prosecutor asked you those questions, right?

EVERS: I don't remember that particular question. I do remember,

GERAGOS: I'm asking you specifically about the preliminary hearing. As far as you remember, those are the questions and answers Mr. Distaso asked of you, and your answers, correct?

EVERS: Yes.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

DISTASO: Okay. And did he go somewhere and get a parking receipt for you?

EVERS: Yes, he did.

DISTASO: Do you know where he went?

EVERS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: Where was that?

EVERS: He opened up the, he opened up the door to his truck, and reached in, and pulled a receipt from the ashtray.

************************************************** ********

GERAGOS: Sure. Page 482, starting at line 16. Does that refresh your recollection as to what actually happened, detective?

EVERS: Not really.

GERAGOS: Okay. Well, at the preliminary hearing, which was back in October, specifically you were you asked the question, was, did Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he had any type of receipt or anything to show whether he had gone fishing that day? Answer. Did the detective ask him that? Question. Yeah. Answer. No. I asked him that. Question. And what did he say? Answer, by you. He said that he had a parking receipt from the marina. Question. And did he show you that? Answer. Yes, he did.

GERAGOS: Those were your, those were the questions and answers you were asked at the preliminary hearing by Mr. Distaso; isn't that correct? The prosecutor asked you those questions, right?

EVERS: I don't remember that particular question. I do remember,

GERAGOS: I'm asking you specifically about the preliminary hearing. As far as you remember, those are the questions and answers Mr. Distaso asked of you, and your answers, correct?

EVERS: Yes.

That clears things up - thanks.

imo

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=Spencer;8974413]DISTASO: Okay. And did he go somewhere and get a parking receipt for you?

EVERS: Yes, he did.

DISTASO: Do you know where he went?

EVERS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: Where was that?

EVERS: He opened up the, he opened up the door to his truck, and reached in, and pulled a receipt from the ashtray.

************************************************** ********

GERAGOS: Sure. Page 482, starting at line 16. Does that refresh your recollection as to what actually happened, detective?
Gee, the preliminary transcripts that I have don't say that at all:


Re: Preliminary Hearing October 31, 2003 (Day #3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Det. Jon Evers: pages 456-500

People of the State of California v. Scott Lee Peterson

Preliminary Hearing Day #3
FRIDAY OCTOBER 31, 2003
Witness for the People: Det. Jon Evers
Transcript Pages: 456 - 500


481
1 Q. And what -- can you tell the Court what happened
2 then?
3 MR. McALLISTER: Objection. Hearsay.
4 MR. DISTASO: Again, Your Honor, all of these -- maybe
5 we can have a continuing objection, because these are all
6 going to be Prop. 115 type responses.
7 THE COURT: Sounds like it, Mr. McAllister, so the
8 Court will allow it under Prop. 115.
9 MR. DISTASO: Q. Go ahead, Detective.
10 A. I was standing in the front yard of the residence,
11 and Scott was standing next to me, and a gentleman walked
12 up, he said he was the stepfather of Lacy. He asked Scott
13 if he was able to go golf today or golfing today.
14 Q. And what did the defendant respond?
15 A. He said that it was too cold and that he went
16 fishing instead.
17 Q. And then what happened?
18 A. Well, the stepfather, he said -- he said, "You mean
19 going -- going fishing 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning. Boy,
20 that's late to go fishing."
21 Q. And did the defendant make any response to that?
22 A. Not that I can remember.
23 MR. McALLISTER: Objection. That's not a question. He
24 can't be expected to make a response to it.
25 THE COURT: Overruled.
26 MR. DISTASO: Q. Go ahead.
27 A. I don't remember, no.
28 MR. DISTASO: No further questions.

482
1 THE COURT: Mr. McAllister.
2 MR. McALLISTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 MR. DISTASO: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I do have some
4 additional questions. My apologies.
5 THE COURT: Go ahead.
6 MR. DISTASO: Q. Who was the first responding
7 detective.
8 A. Detective Brocchini.
9 Q. And were you present during some of Detective
10 Brocchini's investigation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And when I mean "present," what was your purpose in
13 that? Were you with him, following him around? What was
14 your -- or were you just standing there? Explain that to
15 the Court.
16 A. I just accompanied him wherever Scott went with
17 the -- with Brocchini, then I went with him.
18 Q. Did -- were you present when -- were you present --
19 did Detective Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he
20 had any type of receipt or anything to show where he'd gone
21 fishing that day?
22 A. Did the detective ask him that?
23 Q. Yeah.
24 A. No, I asked him that.
25 Q. And what did he say?
26 A. He said that he had a parking receipt from the
27 marina.
28 Q. And did he show you that?

483
1 A. Yes, he did.
2 Q. While I'm having this marked, did the defendant
3 ever tell you or the detective or any of the other officers
4 that you're aware of what he was fishing for that day?
5 A. No. Or -- yeah.
6 (Exhibit 82 was marked for
7 identification.)
8 MR. DISTASO: Q. Did you ask him?
9 A. I didn't ask him.
10 Q. Did any other officer ask him?
11 MR. McALLISTER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 MR. DISTASO: Q. Well, were you present when any other
14 officer asked him?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who was that?
17 A. Officer Spurlock.
18 Q. What was the -- tell me what Officer Spurlock asked
19 him.
20 A. He asked him what was he fishing for.
21 Q. And what was the defendant's response?
22 A. He couldn't say.
23 Q. Did he -- let me show you People's 82. Do you
24 recognize this?
25 A. Yes, I do.
26 Q. And what is that?
27 A. It's a receipt for a parking lot.
28 Q. And is that a copy of the receipt to the Berkeley

484
1 Marina that the defendant handed you?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. And after he handed it to you, what did you do with
4 it?5 A. I gave it to Detective Brocchini.
6 Q. Now, were you -- after you were at the 523 Covena
7 Avenue address, did you go with the defendant and Detective
8 Brocchini anywhere else?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where was that?
11 A. We went to Scott Peterson's place of employment on
12 Emerald.
13 Q. And that's the 1027 North Emerald address?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what happened when you were there?
16 A. We walked into the -- to the office area, and
17 Detective Brocchini asked him about the lights, he didn't
18 have any lights on; and Scott said that there was no
19 electricity.
20 Q. So did you then -- did anyone attempt to turn the
21 lights on? Or let me ask you this. Did you attempt to turn
22 the lights on?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did the defendant ever offer to somehow produce
25 lighting in the shop?
26 A. No.
27 Q. And did -- did you somehow or Detective Brocchini
28 produce lighting in the shop?

.I don't see any ashtray in that testimony ANYWHERE Another Geragos trick - he doesn't mention ashtray AT ALL in the trial testimony.

[Lavindar]

Anad here it is from Marlene's site - seems to agree with what I posted


A. I just accompanied him wherever Scott went with the -- with Brocchini, then I went with him.

Q. Did -- were you present when -- were you present -- did Detective Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he had any type of receipt or anything to show where he'd gone fishing that day?

A. Did the detective ask him that?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, I asked him that.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said that he had a parking receipt from the marina.

Q. And did he show you that?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. While I'm having this marked, did the defendant ever tell you or the detective or any of the other officers that you're aware of what he was fishing for that day?

A. No. Or -- yeah. (Exhibit 82 was marked for identification.)

NO ASHTRAY

[Cadillakin]

Spencer's quoting of the testimony is correct.. It's direct between Distaso and Evers.

[Lavindar]

Spencer's quoting of the testimony is correct.. It's direct between Distaso and Evers.

Where is this transcript that has it because I cannot find it

[Cadillakin]

Where is this transcript that has it because I cannot find itIt's direct testimony between Distaso and Evers, dated June 15, 2004. I think you're quoting from the prelim.. McAllister didn't do any examinations in the trial, only the prelim.

[Lavindar]

Thank you. The way it ws written was confusing to me. There were no dates on line numbers or documentation provided with it other than the page 482 line 16 of the preliminary.

[One2Snoop]

Yes. Who - when switching pants (or purse, if a woman) stuff things like useless receipts in there?

Generally - a person would go through what had been in pockets or purse, and exchange whatever was still useful into the new ones.

I have a question? (Not necessarily directed at you CW) I thought Scott was considered a neat freak? IIRC when looking at the pics with his clothes hanging in the closet they were all color coordinated and neatly hung? He was also anal about his truck/worried when someone bumped it with another car door. My point is, why would someone like this keep a reciept anywhere in their truck/car, particularly the ashtray? We know Scott didn't smoke. The only thing I use my ashtray for is my cell phone and only to place it there while I'm charging it.

I consider myself a semi-neat freak. :biggrin: When it gets messy enough and I can't stand it anymore, I clean it. Just thinking back on people I know who are neat freaks, they're orderly and keep only whats necessary and if they keep reciepts, its usually in a file folder in their home or office. I won't go into the extremely freaky stories :tongue: about this buttttt....
Thinking back to my traveling sales days, I often wonder if Scott didn't keep the reciept for travel expenses, seeing as how he spent more time playing than working. He didn't keep it necessarily for proof he was at the Berkley Marina but more so out of creature of habbit sort of thing? In hindsight it was the best thing that ever happened for the prosecutions case, IMO. Placed him in the same place Laci and Conners bodies washed ashore. (R.I.P. :rose: :rose: )

Just some thoughts, IMO, JMO.

ETA: I still keep reciepts today, creature of habbit sort of thing.

Scott did not plan the perfect murder. He thought he was perfect and this is why he failed. IMO.

[adnoid]

...The perpetrator of the fraud, the user of women gets the NG's understanding.. the the victim of his fraud is distained..

At first this behavior perplexed me. Now that I've seen it a bunch of times it just disgusts me. But I know it will continue, just as I know women will continue to throw themselves at serial killers. It's a strange world.

[One2Snoop]

At first this behavior perplexed me. Now that I've seen it a bunch of times it just disgusts me. But I know it will continue, just as I know women will continue to throw themselves at serial killers. It's a strange world.



:no: Sorry, I don't want to be lumped in there. "Only some women" will continue to throw themselves at killers.

It disgusts me too. :mad:

:patriot:

[onthefence]

I agree, Luke. And Ron wasn't too thrilled with him either. It would appear that men could see through him more easily than women could.

HOw many parents put up with someone they don't care for "for the sake of their child."? I would classify most parents in that category. I know it was mostly men who said that the fishing story was fishy - to me anyway. I guess men just weren't susceptible to his "charm."

Kids put up with stepparents too for the sake of the family.

[onthefence]

Anad here it is from Marlene's site - seems to agree with what I posted


A. I just accompanied him wherever Scott went with the -- with Brocchini, then I went with him.

Q. Did -- were you present when -- were you present -- did Detective Brocchini or yourself ask the defendant if he had any type of receipt or anything to show where he'd gone fishing that day?

A. Did the detective ask him that?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, I asked him that.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said that he had a parking receipt from the marina.

Q. And did he show you that?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. While I'm having this marked, did the defendant ever tell you or the detective or any of the other officers that you're aware of what he was fishing for that day?

A. No. Or -- yeah. (Exhibit 82 was marked for identification.)

NO ASHTRAY

So, he didn't produce the receipt spontaneously, as some here have suggested. He was specifically asked if he had a receipt for where he was.

Also:

DISTASO: Okay. And did he go somewhere and get a parking receipt for you?

EVERS: Yes, he did.

DISTASO: Do you know where he went?

EVERS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: Where was that?

EVERS: He opened up the, he opened up the door to his truck, and reached in, and pulled a receipt from the ashtray.


So, was the receipt in the truck or his pants pocket? Sounds like it was in the truck. based on the above.

[Lavindar]

So, he didn't produce the receipt spontaneously, as some here have suggested. He was specifically asked if he had a receipt for where he was.

Also:

DISTASO: Okay. And did he go somewhere and get a parking receipt for you?

EVERS: Yes, he did.

DISTASO: Do you know where he went?

EVERS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: Where was that?

EVERS: He opened up the, he opened up the door to his truck, and reached in, and pulled a receipt from the ashtray.


So, was the receipt in the truck or his pants pocket? Sounds like it was in the truck. based on the above.


You know it would help a lot if you could provide dates or line numbers or a source from where you got the information or ANYTHING to prove you didn't just type something in. Guess you never had to document anything in your life.

[Lavindar]

Kids put up with stepparents too for the sake of the family.

And your point is? I was talking about men being able to see through Scott and you throw up a step-parent issue.

[Luke Davis]

:no: Sorry, I don't want to be lumped in there. "Only some women" will continue to throw themselves at killers.

It disgusts me too. :mad:

:patriot:I missed the lumping. Isn't women two or more?

[One2Snoop]

I missed the lumping. Isn't women two or more?

http://www.websitegoodies.com/smilies/gfx/fighting0059.gif

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I have a question? (Not necessarily directed at you CW) I thought Scott was considered a neat freak? IIRC when looking at the pics with his clothes hanging in the closet they were all color coordinated and neatly hung? He was also anal about his truck/worried when someone bumped it with another car door. My point is, why would someone like this keep a reciept anywhere in their truck/car, particularly the ashtray? We know Scott didn't smoke. The only thing I use my ashtray for is my cell phone and only to place it there while I'm charging it.

I consider myself a semi-neat freak. :biggrin: When it gets messy enough and I can't stand it anymore, I clean it. Just thinking back on people I know who are neat freaks, they're orderly and keep only whats necessary and if they keep reciepts, its usually in a file folder in their home or office. I won't go into the extremely freaky stories :tongue: about this buttttt....
Thinking back to my traveling sales days, I often wonder if Scott didn't keep the reciept for travel expenses, seeing as how he spent more time playing than working. He didn't keep it necessarily for proof he was at the Berkley Marina but more so out of creature of habbit sort of thing? In hindsight it was the best thing that ever happened for the prosecutions case, IMO. Placed him in the same place Laci and Conners bodies washed ashore. (R.I.P. :rose: :rose: )

Just some thoughts, IMO, JMO.

ETA: I still keep reciepts today, creature of habbit sort of thing.

Scott did not plan the perfect murder. He thought he was perfect and this is why he failed. IMO.

Did Scott arrange his clothes?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Yes. Who - when switching pants (or purse, if a woman) stuff things like useless receipts in there?

Generally - a person would go through what had been in pockets or purse, and exchange whatever was still useful into the new ones.Does "generally" cover within hours of murdering someone?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Here is a link to the original evidence file released by Judge Delucchi in the Scott Peterson trial. Shown is the Peterson home, and their kitchen counter, with the phone book open about 9:00 pm on Dec 24,2002, the night Laci disappeared. Do your own detective work and match it up to my phone book at the top of this thread.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/photo_gallery/evidence/?curPhoto=78


Did SP ever call them?