One Trip Or Two Trip

[cookiewench]

What do you think? I've never settled on a permanent theory.

I think Laci's scent at the Gallo dumpster is a big clue to a night trip. I can't see Scott putting something in there in broad daylight.

No one saw him loading umbrellas into the truck, and that would have taken a couple of trips. That would mean he had to do his dirty deed and get out of the house by about 11:00pm, though.


But, a neighbor said she saw his truck in the driveway around 4:45am, I believe. Or was it 5:45?

A night trip would explain his strange behavior the next day, if he was very tired and very worried. The way he goofed off at the warehouse sounds like he was indecisive about what to do - too jazzed to go play some alibi golf, and thinking that he should take a run back to the bay to check everything out.

[TopGunner]

Two, for sure.

[Luke Davis]

Two, for sure.Ditto, for sure.

[cookiewench]

You think he went back the next day without the boat, or took it with him to check out the bay?

Wait a minute: if he went at night, what was the purpose of the faux fishing tackle?

[Cadillakin]

What do you think? I've never settled on a permanent theory.

I think Laci's scent at the Gallo dumpster is a big clue to a night trip. I can't see Scott putting something in there in broad daylight.

No one saw him loading umbrellas into the truck, and that would have taken a couple of trips. That would mean he had to do his dirty deed and get out of the house by about 11:00pm, though.


But, a neighbor said she saw his truck in the driveway around 4:45am, I believe. Or was it 5:45?

A night trip would explain his strange behavior the next day, if he was very tired and very worried. The way he goofed off at the warehouse sounds like he was indecisive about what to do - too jazzed to go play some alibi golf, and thinking that he should take a run back to the bay to check everything out.I don't think the Gallo evidence was allowed.. Delucchi found fault with it.. As a resident here, I found fault with it too for other reasons.. And as to Medina's supposed sighting of Scott's truck in the driveway.. under repeated questioning, she would not specifically identify either of the vehicles as Scott's truck at 5am..

Two trips. The state of Laci's partially dressed body tells the tale. The pizza box and dressing that were left out on the counter indicates that Laci never cleaned and mopped in the morning ... Scott had already told the first police arrivals that Laci did do cleaning and mopping. In saying so, Scott was attempting to explain the buckets and mops just outside the front door to the officers.. The mops and bucket appeared to be recently used. In light of that first story he provided, Scott became cognizant of the leftover counter items while the police were moving around his house that evening and according to Brocchini, Scott removed the pizza box from view.. Then LATER, in the late night interview, Scott told the story that he had eaten pizza and drank milk to Brocchini, in an attempt to explain why last nights dinner was STILL OUT ON THE COUNTER if Laci had indeed mopped and cleaned.

Notice how Scott works the pizza into the interview with Brocchini the night of the 24th.. some 6 hours after the initial police arrival at the Peterson home. In the context of the questioning and the initial mentioning of the pizza, Scott leaps forward in time to work in an explanation for that pizza box being out... as Brocchini is clearly asking about earlier in the afternoon... I noticed also in reading the entire interview how passive Scott was.. and asserting he was damn hungry was a definite change in tone. Later on, the pizza is brought up again, as he takes it to the shower:confused::confused:

BROCCHINI: Right. Okay did you drive straight there?
PETERSON: I did.
BROCCHINI: You stop for lunch?
PETERSON: No.
BROCCHINI: Did you buy bait?
PETERSON: Nope, I’m not a bait fisherman.
BROCCHINI: You didn’t buy no lunch, didn’t even eat nothin’?
PETERSON: Um.
BROCCHINI: Take a lunch?
PETERSON: No I didn’t. I was damn hungry for that pizza when I got home.

some other questions, some time passes in the interview, then this....

BROCCHINI: Yeah I think so. Did you, did you, you, did you start the washer?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Did you put soap?
PETERSON: Um hum. (affirmative)
BROCCHINI: Okay then what?
PETERSON: Ah grabbed some pizza from the fridge.
BROCCHINI: Took the box out?
PETERSON: Yeah put it on the counter like it was, ahh, glass of milk, then jumped in the shower.
BROCCHINI: You had a glass of milk?
PETERSON: Ah small one, yeah.
BROCCHINI: Okay, you put it in a glass?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: How many pizza did you have?
PETERSON: Ah I think just one full piece, and a half a bit of another one.
BROCCHINI: Then you took a shower?
PETERSON: Um hum. but I took some pizza in there with me, started the shower.


That last line in the interview is the weirdest damn thing to say.. taking pizza to the shower... Even mentioning or remembering something so weird as that is significant to me. Why would he say THAT in an interview? Why remember such an odd detail? My guess is that Laci threw up when he killed her.. and Scott washed the regurgitation matter into the drain of the shower... In case the forensics guys found pizza bits in the drain... he had his explanation.

I'll stop here, night kill.. Scott buried her at night..

[cookiewench]

How interesting. And he told Sharon he had grabbed a piece of pizza out of the FRIDGE. Now, I'm not Martha Stewart, but I don't leave splattered dressing on the counter overnight simply because it would be so much harder to clean it up later.

I think he probably killed her while she was eating or about to eat, too.

Her inside-out blouse (the type of blouse that Laci would have taken to the cleaners, not thrown in a hamper with the home laundry) would be from him either pulling it over her head to disable her, or from pulling it off of her after he'd killed her because it needed to be there as "proof" that she'd gone to bed that night. She had other tan pants.

[cookiewench]

Oops. I meant to say that I also don't think Laci would shove the whole pizza box in the fridge. That's a college-kid type of thing to do. An efficient woman will take any leftover pieces out, wrap them up, and dispose of the box.

[Lavindar]

Oops. I meant to say that I also don't think Laci would shove the whole pizza box in the fridge. That's a college-kid type of thing to do. An efficient woman will take any leftover pieces out, wrap them up, and dispose of the box.
LOL guess that makes me a college-kid. There's another fact that no one seems to bring up in support of the two trip theory. The buoys in the Bay are lit at night for the deep water channel. Scott could have launched off Richmond (much closer to Brooks) with the launch wheels. There's a lot to support the two-trip theory. I Think it was most likely a two trip deal too - and his purpose of going to the Bay on the 24th was merely to solidify his alibi.

[Cadillakin]

PETERSON: Ah grabbed some pizza from the fridge.
BROCCHINI: Took the box out?
PETERSON: Yeah put it on the counter like it was, ahh, glass of milk, then jumped in the shower.Notice how Scott stumbles and changes directions when talking about the pizza box.. "Yeah put it on the counter like it was ______ (Where was he going with that?)

Another thing that Scott does in the interview with Brocchini; he often leaves out the pronoun, "I", as if that will somehow make him seem less involved.. It's easily noticed that his language isn't right. He's pretty easy to read...

[Cadillakin]

I strongly believe Scott didn't have the boat with him on the 24th, in the morning/afternoon. I base this on the fact that Scott invented interactions with the park employees (bumping into the pylon and them laughing at him)to Brocchini.

Those employees were all known and all testified.. The Geragos team did not even attempt to question them and verify that Scott was THERE on a short, innocuous fishing trip.. Why? Because he wasn't there with the boat. He was watching, watching.. He knew they were there, so he made up the lie to Brocchini, but they NEVER SAW HIM.

There is no other possible or reasonable explanation why the employees were not questioned about seeing Scott. THAT WAS HIS ALIBI.. Geragos might have said...

Geragos: And you saw Scott with his boat...
Employee; YES
Geragos: And you saw nothing odd, just a normal guy fishing, right?
Employee: Right..
Geragos: Did he look like he was hiding a body in that small boat?
Employee: No, I could see nothing like that.

If that testimony would have occurred, the jury would have hung..

But not one single solitary person saw Scott in the afternoon that day.. NONE. ZERO.. No evidence of any boat. Not one person can vouch for anything he says about hooking up the boat or traveling to the bay and fishing...

[Lavindar]

I strongly believe Scott didn't have the boat with him on the 24th, in the morning/afternoon. I base this on the fact that Scott invented interactions with the park employees (bumping into the pylon and them laughing at him)to Brocchini.

Those employees were all known and all testified.. The Geragos team did not even attempt to question them and verify that Scott was THERE on a short, innocuous fishing trip.. Why? Because he wasn't there with the boat. He was watching, watching.. He knew they were there, so he made up the lie to Brocchini, but they NEVER SAW HIM.

There is no other possible or reasonable explanation why the employees were not questioned about seeing Scott. THAT WAS HIS ALIBI.. Geragos might have said...

Geragos: And you saw Scott with his boat...
Employee; YES
Geragos: And you saw nothing odd, just a normal guy fishing, right?
Employee: Right..
Geragos: Did he look like he was hiding a body in that small boat?
Employee: No, I could see nothing like that.

If that testimony would have occurred, the jury would have hung..

But not one single solitary person saw Scott in the afternoon that day.. NONE. ZERO.. No evidence of any boat. Not one person can vouch for anything he says about hooking up the boat or traveling to the bay and fishing...


Yet Geragos got it out in the media that he had been seen.

[cookiewench]

Notice how Scott stumbles and changes directions when talking about the pizza box.. "Yeah put it on the counter like it was ______ (Where was he going with that?)

Another thing that Scott does in the interview with Brocchini; he often leaves out the pronoun, "I", as if that will somehow make him seem less involved.. It's easily noticed that his language isn't right. He's pretty easy to read...



Arggghh: that reminds me of two "Petersonisms" that drive me batty and that also are very telling.

One of them is the use of the word "we", although they never qualify who "we" is, and I guess we're supposed to think this means all of the Petersons. Even on his personal website, Scott talks about how "we" are encouraged by all the support, blah blah.....not "my family and I". It's like none of them are capable of being an individual and speaking as an individual.

The other one is the phrase "no question". It's a negative phrase, not a positive one, and they use it instead of "yes", or "sure" or "that is correct". It's like, instead of confirming whatever it is they were asked, they're putting up their hand and saying "no more questions!".

Jackie - Janey - Lee - Scott - they ALL use these two forms of speech.

[One2Snoop]

:beer: Cheers to you cookiewench for starting this topic and here I thought I was the only one who believed in the two trip theory. I've always been a firm believer that it took two trips, simply because there isn't any possible way Scott could dispose of Laci and Conner in broad daylight without someone seeing him. I always wondered what the cell phone records showed the evening of the 23rd after 9 pm. The only reason I can think of why the prosecution didn't go with this two trip theory is because SP left his cell phone at home that night or had it turned off. No traceable activity.

IMO, JMO.

[Rachel Cory]

I strongly believe Scott didn't have the boat with him on the 24th, in the morning/afternoon. I base this on the fact that Scott invented interactions with the park employees (bumping into the pylon and them laughing at him)to Brocchini.

Those employees were all known and all testified.. The Geragos team did not even attempt to question them and verify that Scott was THERE on a short, innocuous fishing trip.. Why? Because he wasn't there with the boat. He was watching, watching.. He knew they were there, so he made up the lie to Brocchini, but they NEVER SAW HIM.

There is no other possible or reasonable explanation why the employees were not questioned about seeing Scott. THAT WAS HIS ALIBI.. Geragos might have said...

Geragos: And you saw Scott with his boat...
Employee; YES
Geragos: And you saw nothing odd, just a normal guy fishing, right?
Employee: Right..
Geragos: Did he look like he was hiding a body in that small boat?
Employee: No, I could see nothing like that.

If that testimony would have occurred, the jury would have hung..

But not one single solitary person saw Scott in the afternoon that day.. NONE. ZERO.. No evidence of any boat. Not one person can vouch for anything he says about hooking up the boat or traveling to the bay and fishing...

I'm assuming you are not posting the above as fact. That might confuse some people.

[cookiewench]

I'm assuming you are not posting the above as fact. That might confuse some people.


Do you know someone who saw Scott at the marina that day?

[Cadillakin]

I'm assuming you are not posting the above as fact. That might confuse some people.If you're referring to the NG's, don't worry, I won't confuse them.. They're already confused...

[Lavindar]

I'm assuming you are not posting the above as fact. That might confuse some people.

People are talking about their beliefs, not some "evidence" that Scott is innocent. I don't see anyone saying it is a fact. They are speculating, just as we believe you are speculating on your van stealing laci as she entered the park. We still are waiting on your source for that information.

[Cadillakin]

People are talking about their beliefs, not some "evidence" that Scott is innocent. I don't see anyone saying it is a fact. They are speculating, just as we believe you are speculating on your van stealing laci as she entered the park. We still are waiting on your source for that information.With one important difference, I based my speculation on the trial proceedings, on some facts..

[Cadillakin]

I have a question...

Most of us in the Guilty camp believe Scott took two trips.. The reasons vary a bit between us for the second trip...

My question is; If in fact Scott did kill Laci at night, came back home, and went back again.. why would he take his boat? Think about it.. If he decided to take the boat on his second trip to the Bay for some kind of fishing alibi.. would he not make 100% sure he had witnesses that saw him in the boat and going out fishing?

Scott had no witnesses..He lied about it.. There would be no reason to lie about the workers and make up a story if he had the boat and really went fishing. On that deserted day, a simple hello to a couple of them would have sealed his fishing alibi.

[Lavindar]

With one important difference, I based my speculation on the trial proceedings, on some facts..

Point taken.

[accordn2me]

:beer: Cheers to you cookiewench for starting this topic and here I thought I was the only one who believed in the two trip theory. I've always been a firm believer that it took two trips, simply because there isn't any possible way Scott could dispose of Laci and Conner in broad daylight without someone seeing him. I always wondered what the cell phone records showed the evening of the 23rd after 9 pm. The only reason I can think of why the prosecution didn't go with this two trip theory is because SP left his cell phone at home that night or had it turned off. No traceable activity.

IMO, JMO.I respectfully disagree. (snicker)

[Cadillakin]

I respectfully disagree. Why do you disagree?

[Cadillakin]

BROCCHINI: Right. Okay did you drive straight there?
PETERSON: I did.
BROCCHINI: You stop for lunch?
PETERSON: No.
BROCCHINI: Did you buy bait?
PETERSON: Nope, I’m not a bait fisherman.
BROCCHINI: You didn’t buy no lunch, didn’t even eat nothin’?
PETERSON: Um.
BROCCHINI: Take a lunch?
PETERSON: No I didn’t. I was damn hungry for that pizza when I got home.

some other questions, some time passes in the interview, then this....

BROCCHINI: Yeah I think so. Did you, did you, you, did you start the washer?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Did you put soap?
PETERSON: Um hum. (affirmative)
BROCCHINI: Okay then what?
PETERSON: Ah grabbed some pizza from the fridge.
BROCCHINI: Took the box out?
PETERSON: Yeah put it on the counter like it was, ahh, glass of milk, then jumped in the shower.
BROCCHINI: You had a glass of milk?
PETERSON: Ah small one, yeah.
BROCCHINI: Okay, you put it in a glass?
PETERSON: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: How many pizza did you have?
PETERSON: Ah I think just one full piece, and a half a bit of another one.

I just noticed that at the begining of the Brocchini interview when Scott is trying to explain why the pizza was out on the counter, he asserted to Brocchini that while fishing or on his way back, he was damn hungry for that pizza.. A few minutes later when Brocchini asked him how much he ate, he said one piece, or a piece and a half.. Hmmm.. Not much of an appetite for a guy who said he could hardly wait to get at that pizza...

If I would have posted this in the early days of the trial, ten NG.s would have sworn that it was the Jumbo-HeMan Pizza that he bought at Mountain Mikes... with each piece weighiing over 2 lbs.

Catching Scott in a lie is such a ho-hum deal. Almost everything he says is a lie or contradicts known facts. Can you believe that Marlene once asserted that Scott never lied about anything except for the affair... She's a smart one, that Marlene.

[accordn2me]

Why do you disagree?I don't believe there were thousands of bay watchers on their balconies with telescopes and binoculars on that Christmas Eve. I posted some pics on the "Blowing off Steam" thread of a trip we took in a 14' boat. We weren't that far off shore at all. The chances that anyone could see what you are doing, even with binoculars, is very slim...to none.

[Luke Davis]

I don't believe there were thousands of bay watchers on their balconies with telescopes and binoculars on that Christmas Eve. I posted some pics on the "Blowing off Steam" thread of a trip we took in a 14' boat. We weren't that far off shore at all. The chances that anyone could see what you are doing, even with binoculars, is very slim...to none.IIRC There were video cameras at the Berkeley Marina and there were dozens of National Guard troops on the bridges. There was an alert for a mysterious Zodiac boat.

Still, probably no one would have paid attention to a loan fisherman in a boat.

[Cadillakin]

I don't believe there were thousands of bay watchers on their balconies with telescopes and binoculars on that Christmas Eve. I posted some pics on the "Blowing off Steam" thread of a trip we took in a 14' boat. We weren't that far off shore at all. The chances that anyone could see what you are doing, even with binoculars, is very slim...to none.In fact, the place was deserted, with only a few people buying parking tickets in the days preceding and afterwards.. The park workers testifed to that.. Ideal conditions as you suggest.. just as Scott would have wanted.. But it's unlikely Scott would have known those conditions existed.. He did check the tides.. low tide at 3am.. When we check the tides, that's what we are looking at, low and high tides... Wading boots and camouflage jacket were in his bag..

So, do you think Scott killed her at night, then basically let the cover of darkness pass him by.. exposing himself to the neighbors being able to see him hoisting her body into the truck.. and the tenants that he worked along side in adjoining warehouse space, being able to see him remove her from the truck to get her into the warehouse? Because there was no other way! Scott's back gate did not wheel open to let the truck in, it was a walk thru gate for people.. so Laci had to come thru that gate in broad daylight and into the back of his truck in a partially open, exposed place.. There is no other way.. We know from the evidence photos, his warehouse was full with the boat already inside, so the truck could not get inside... We know the boat stayed inside during the prep, because it had cement dust and debris all over it.. so the truck did not go inside.. Impossible. So Laci would have had to be lifted out of the back and carried or dragged into the warehouse thru the big door... Let's see.. a long body-size package being lifted out of his truck in broad daylight the day his wife goes missing.. That's tough to explain..

Some of the tenants were likely there.. I worked on Christmas Eve.. A lot of people work on Christmas Eve. Most of them start work at 7 or 8 am. I know some of those people. I used to solicit business in that warehouse area..

So, he sat on her all night.. watching porn or taking cat naps till the morning.. and when morning came, he waited till 10 am to even begin to move her...I can't fathom that at all.. It's dark till 7am in Modesto in December. After that, he can be seen..

At the bay, he had to back his truck and boat down the boating ramp.. Other people might/would be there.. If anybody saw him setting off with his boat cover still on the front, that would bust him for sure.. or if they saw him, even from a distance, throwing something large overboard, he would be a cooked goose.

Do you think Scott would have checked his email and his Ebay account with the Ping Golf Bag for sale, gone to his warehouse and sent another mail to his boss if the deed wasn't already done.. The NG's love to use that argument, but they pretend it was Laci on the computer at the house... ..

I don't know about you... but if I kill somebody, I'm not going to sit around the house in broad daylight with her body on the floor next to me surfing the web, selling my golf bag... sending friendly emails.. I'll do that stuff when Im finished.. but not while she needs to be disposed of and buried. What if somebody came over.. What if Sharon arrived and wanted to talk to her.. was worried about her.. or one of her friends did the same, and Scott had to make up a story how she walked away a few minutes ago.. Walked where? It's cold outside, why didnt she take her car? Does she have her cell? Where Scott, where did she go? It was Christmas Eve.. visitors do arrive.. Family comes over..

There is more, but I'll leave it at that. You're entitled to disagree.

[deputydi]

I have a question...

Most of us in the Guilty camp believe Scott took two trips.. The reasons vary a bit between us for the second trip...

My question is; If in fact Scott did kill Laci at night, came back home, and went back again.. why would he take his boat? Think about it.. If he decided to take the boat on his second trip to the Bay for some kind of fishing alibi.. would he not make 100% sure he had witnesses that saw him in the boat and going out fishing?

Scott had no witnesses..He lied about it.. There would be no reason to lie about the workers and make up a story if he had the boat and really went fishing. On that deserted day, a simple hello to a couple of them would have sealed his fishing alibi.
I am a firm believer in the two trip theory. IMO, the reason he took the boat with him on the second trip was to go back to the area where he dumped Laci and he couldn't do that on foot. He had to make sure (in the daylight) that she hadn't floated to the surface and he hadn't left any evidence behind.

I've always believed that his real intention was to dump her body at night and then go golfing as planned the next day. No one would ever have to know he was anywhere near the marina and he knew without a doubt her body wouldn't be found anywhere close to where he could prove to have been all day. I think he got worried about what he may have left behind and felt compelled to go back. I truly don't believe he ever intended "fishing" to be his alibi. On the second trip I think he was worried that someone may have seen him and he had no one to testify he was at the golf course.

[Lavindar]

I am a firm believer in the two trip theory. IMO, the reason he took the boat with him on the second trip was to go back to the area where he dumped Laci and he couldn't do that on foot. He had to make sure (in the daylight) that she hadn't floated to the surface and he hadn't left any evidence behind.

I've always believed that his real intention was to dump her body at night and then go golfing as planned the next day. No one would ever have to know he was anywhere near the marina and he knew without a doubt her body wouldn't be found anywhere close to where he could prove to have been all day. I think he got worried about what he may have left behind and felt compelled to go back. I truly don't believe he ever intended "fishing" to be his alibi. On the second trip I think he was worried that someone may have seen him and he had no one to testify he was at the golf course.


Wasn't there something missing from his boat - a seat cushion or life preserver or something? That could account for his return trip - to try to find it. Just speculating.

[deputydi]

Wasn't there something missing from his boat - a seat cushion or life preserver or something? That could account for his return trip - to try to find it. Just speculating.
I vaguely remember something missing from the boat, but I don't remember what it was. I agree -- he wasn't sure he had covered all his tracks so he felt compelled to go "fishing". His statement explaining he made the "last minute decision to go fishing because it was too cold to golf" never, ever made sense to me.

[Cadillakin]

I am a firm believer in the two trip theory. IMO, the reason he took the boat with him on the second trip was to go back to the area where he dumped Laci and he couldn't do that on foot. He had to make sure (in the daylight) that she hadn't floated to the surface and he hadn't left any evidence behind.

I've always believed that his real intention was to dump her body at night and then go golfing as planned the next day. No one would ever have to know he was anywhere near the marina and he knew without a doubt her body wouldn't be found anywhere close to where he could prove to have been all day. I think he got worried about what he may have left behind and felt compelled to go back. I truly don't believe he ever intended "fishing" to be his alibi. On the second trip I think he was worried that someone may have seen him and he had no one to testify he was at the golf course.Ok, all that is reasonable.. I agree with you mostly, but tell me why you think Scott told Brocchini that he interacted with the maintenance workers when he backed into the pylon and they laughed at him? Why would he invent a story of his boat hitting the pylon, the park workers seeing that and laughing at him. Those men, all of the men on duty testified. There was no interaction or knowledge of Scott. There can be no mistake on this.. because within days of the 24th, the police were swarming the area asking everybody about Scott. If the workers saw him or his very distinct short-bed truck with a large green toolbox, they would have remembered.

Scott also said he talked to a couple of guys who asked him if he caught anything.. and neither of those guys came forward either, despite the massive publicity.. Probably a made-up story, as well. Maybe they moved to Mars afterwards and never heard of Scott dumping his wife in the marina... So, you see, the first lie to Brocchini is about his boat bumping into the pylon.. the second lie he tells he was supposedly coming in after fishing, and some men asked him about his fishing luck.. For reasons known only to him, Scott felt he had to invent an alibi for the boat being present and for his fishing.. That's how I see it...

But let's not get sidetracked.. Tell me why you think Scott lied about the park workers seeing him with his truck and boat? Why?. He had already forked over the ticket from the parking lot with the proper date proving he was there.. so why does he have to lie about the boat and his fishing?

[deputydi]

Ok, all that is reasonable.. I agree with you mostly, but tell me why you think Scott told Brocchini that he interacted with the maintenance workers when he backed into the pylon and they laughed at him? Why would he invent a story of his boat hitting the pylon, the park workers seeing that and laughing at him. Those men, all of the men on duty testified. There was no interaction or knowledge of Scott. There can be no mistake on this.. because within days of the 24th, the police were swarming the area asking everybody about Scott. If the workers saw him or his very distinct short-bed truck with a large green toolbox, they would have remembered.
Scott is a pathological liar. He is slicker at making up stories on the spot than anyone I have every known. He probably thought it would make his story sound more believable if someone had seen him. Or, maybe, he actually thought they had seen him. The backing into the pylon thing may or may not have happened -- every good lie has a thread of truth running through it. The fact that didn't remember him either didn't concern him or he just didn't think about it at all.

Scott also said he talked to a couple of guys who asked him if he caught anything.. and neither of those guys came forward either, despite the massive publicity.. Probably a made-up story, as well. Maybe they moved to Mars afterwards and never heard of Scott dumping his wife in the marina... So, you see, the first lie to Brocchini is about his boat bumping into the pylon.. the second lie he tells he was supposedly coming in after fishing, and some men asked him about his fishing luck.. For reasons known only to him, Scott felt he had to invent an alibi for the boat being present and for his fishing.. That's how I see it...
You can tell Scott's lying when you look at him and his mouth is moving.

But let's not get sidetracked.. Tell me why you think Scott lied about the park workers seeing him with his truck and boat? Why?. He had already forked over the ticket from the parking lot with the proper date proving he was there.. so why does he have to lie about the boat and his fishing?
Again -- pathological liars just can't help embellishing a good story. Sure, he had the proof but this would be further "proof" and it made his story sound a whole lot more interesting. Remember Francois and Pasqual -- were they really necessary to his Paris story?

[Cadillakin]

I am a firm believer in the two trip theory. IMO, the reason he took the boat with him on the second trip was to go back to the area where he dumped Laci and he couldn't do that on foot. Upon reflecting.. I don't think going back to the secret place where you buried your spouse when you can be seen is a good idea at all.. if only for the fact, if somebody sees you there, the police search will probably commence in that very spot.. He might have gone just 30 minutes away from Modesto in another direction and got himself a fishing alibi...

Also, when arrested, Scott had a pair of binoculars with him.

[Luke Davis]

I vaguely remember something missing from the boat, but I don't remember what it was. I agree -- he wasn't sure he had covered all his tracks so he felt compelled to go "fishing". His statement explaining he made the "last minute decision to go fishing because it was too cold to golf" never, ever made sense to me.IIRC a life vest was reported missing but later found in the warehouse. Also, there were scratches on the boat and trailer, which may be why SP made up the pylon story.

[deputydi]

Upon reflecting.. I don't think going back to the secret place where you buried your spouse when you can be seen is a good idea at all.. if only for the fact, if somebody sees you there, the police search will probably commence in that very spot.. He might have gone just 30 minutes away from Modesto in another direction and got himself a fishing alibi...

Also, when arrested, Scott had a pair of binoculars with him.
You're right that it's not a good idea -- but neither is killing your spouse. Scott didn't much care if someone saw him in the daylight because he had already decided to change his alibi from golfing to fishing. Anyone seeing him would assume he was just out boating. Kind of an odd thing to do in Dec, but maybe it isn't odd in CA.

[Cadillakin]

IIRC a life vest was reported missing but later found in the warehouse. Also, there were scratches on the boat and trailer, which may be why SP made up the pylon story.Luke.. my friend, we went over this before.. two life jackets were in the boat when Scott purchased it. One was lost and never found.. The other was in the warehouse.

[Luke Davis]

You're right that it's not a good idea -- but neither is killing your spouse. Scott didn't much care if someone saw him in the daylight because he had already decided to change his alibi from golfing to fishing. Anyone seeing him would assume he was just out boating. Kind of an odd thing to do in Dec, but maybe it isn't odd in CA.
Not odd at all, even Ron went fishing.

[Luke Davis]

Luke.. my friend, we went over this before.. two life jackets were in the boat when Scott purchased it. One was lost and never found.. The other was in the warehouse.
SP said it was lost?

[Cadillakin]

You're right that it's not a good idea -- but neither is killing your spouse. Scott didn't much care if someone saw him in the daylight because he had already decided to change his alibi from golfing to fishing. Anyone seeing him would assume he was just out boating. Kind of an odd thing to do in Dec, but maybe it isn't odd in CA.Well, if he went to get an alibi, perhaps he should have let a somebody see him, or he could have talked to at least one person, , i.e... ask an employee for directions to the bathroom.., or ran around his truck naked.. because not a single person vouches that Scott was at the Bay. Nor did anybody see his truck or boat...So, I doubt that he went there to get an alibi...

Nope.. Even a dumb guy like Scott knows that to have an alibi, somebody must be able to vouch for your presence...

[deputydi]

Well, if he went to get an alibi, perhaps he should have let a somebody see him, or he could have talked to at least one person, , i.e... ask an employee for directions to the bathroom.., or ran around his truck naked.. because not a single person vouches that Scott was at the Bay. Nor did anybody see his truck or boat...So, I doubt that he went there to get an alibi...

Nope.. Even a dumb guy like Scott knows that to have an alibi, somebody must be able to vouch for your presence...
Nope . . . he had a time stamped receipt proving that he was there. I'm just saying that it didn't matter whether anyone did or did not see him. If someone actually saw him, fine. If no one saw him he still had the parking receipt.

At this point IMO, he wasn't trying to hide his whereabouts. He had already dumped Laci into the Bay and his only mission on the second trip was to make sure she stayed where he had put her. Anyone seeing him on the second trip wouldn't have seen him doing anything suspicious.

[Luke Davis]

He should have been on the cam and made a call to friends and waved at them. I remember watching the search for Laci on some of the bay cams.

Berkeley Marina (http://www.ocscsailing.com/Sailor_Resources.htm)

[accordn2me]

<snipped>

So, do you think Scott killed her at night, then basically let the cover of darkness pass him by.. exposing himself to the neighbors being able to see him hoisting her body into the truck.. and the tenants that he worked along side in adjoining warehouse space, being able to see him remove her from the truck to get her into the warehouse? <snipped>I'm not firm one way or the other. However, my first theory is that Laci did indeed get up that Christmas Eve morning. I believe she put on a different pair of tan pants than the ones she wore the night before to Salon Salon. I believe she plugged the curling iron in and may have logged onto the internet. SLP killed her before she put her shirt on and opened the blinds/curtains, in just one scenario. But we'll probably never know, will we?

[Lavindar]

Ok, all that is reasonable.. I agree with you mostly, but tell me why you think Scott told Brocchini that he interacted with the maintenance workers when he backed into the pylon and they laughed at him? Why would he invent a story of his boat hitting the pylon, the park workers seeing that and laughing at him. Those men, all of the men on duty testified. There was no interaction or knowledge of Scott. There can be no mistake on this.. because within days of the 24th, the police were swarming the area asking everybody about Scott. If the workers saw him or his very distinct short-bed truck with a large green toolbox, they would have remembered.

Scott also said he talked to a couple of guys who asked him if he caught anything.. and neither of those guys came forward either, despite the massive publicity.. Probably a made-up story, as well. Maybe they moved to Mars afterwards and never heard of Scott dumping his wife in the marina... So, you see, the first lie to Brocchini is about his boat bumping into the pylon.. the second lie he tells he was supposedly coming in after fishing, and some men asked him about his fishing luck.. For reasons known only to him, Scott felt he had to invent an alibi for the boat being present and for his fishing.. That's how I see it...

But let's not get sidetracked.. Tell me why you think Scott lied about the park workers seeing him with his truck and boat? Why?. He had already forked over the ticket from the parking lot with the proper date proving he was there.. so why does he have to lie about the boat and his fishing?


I think you mean Yuri Faria, one of Geragos's invisible people who allegedly saw Scott, but took off sailing around the world, presumably for Brazil and was not available to be interviewed by anyone. I think he was a figment of Geragos's imagination.

[Cadillakin]

I think you mean Yuri Faria, one of Geragos's invisible people who allegedly saw Scott, but took off sailing around the world, presumably for Brazil and was not available to be interviewed by anyone. I think he was a figment of Geragos's imagination.I believe Yuri's traveling/boat mate did testify and stated Scott was not seen. He described a man and a woman together. Nothing close to Scott.

My point is nobody saw Scott there with his boat.. so why does anybody believe he had his boat there? Because Scott said so? There is NOTHING in the trial record that confirms Scott left Modesto or arrived in Berkeley towing a boat..

[cookiewench]

I'm not firm one way or the other. However, my first theory is that Laci did indeed get up that Christmas Eve morning. I believe she put on a different pair of tan pants than the ones she wore the night before to Salon Salon. I believe she plugged the curling iron in and may have logged onto the internet. SLP killed her before she put her shirt on and opened the blinds/curtains, in just one scenario. But we'll probably never know, will we?


I think he would have realized that there was too much of a chance that someone would knock on the door while he was in the middle of a murder, if he waited til morning to do it.

[accordn2me]

I think he would have realized that there was too much of a chance that someone would knock on the door while he was in the middle of a murder, if he waited til morning to do it.Murderers have to take chances. If he killed her the night before, what if Amy and her friend(s) would have stopped by....what if Sharon or/and Ron would have called that night to say pick up whipped cream? Either way, SLP took chances.

[Cadillakin]

Nope . . . he had a time stamped receipt proving that he was there. I'm just saying that it didn't matter whether anyone did or did not see him. If someone actually saw him, fine. If no one saw him he still had the parking receipt.

At this point IMO, he wasn't trying to hide his whereabouts. He had already dumped Laci into the Bay and his only mission on the second trip was to make sure she stayed where he had put her. Anyone seeing him on the second trip wouldn't have seen him doing anything suspicious.His time stamp does not prove that Scott was there with his boat.. and that's the point of contention.. that's what you and I are going back and forth about... There is absolutely nothing proving Scott had his boat with him or went in the water on Dec 24, after 12:00pm other than Scott's word.. That's all. Scott's word.

Apparently, you believe Scott was telling the truth about what occurred when he arrived there in Berkeley, setting out into the Bay for some fake fishing or cruising about to check on Laci. I don't.

Evidence in the trial reveals that Scott often drove the frontage of the Bay after Laci's burial and camped out briefly from different vantage points to watch the proceedings. As I mentioned in another post, when Scott was arrested, he had binoculars in his car. He knew where to look, where to watch for Laci. If anybody is interested in this evidence, you can see where Scott went on these trips from the GPS maps submitted into evidence... as the satellites followed Scott on his secret trips to the Bay. That was Scott's MO. He watched.. and he watched some more.. I don't know if he watched with pride or with worry, but he watched.. Further, I believe that his watching the Bay started the very next day following the night he killed and buried Laci, at least a couple of days before the courts authorized following him via satellite. And he always watched from a hidden vantage point.. He didn't go right down to the water and cup his hand over his eyes to look at the Bay, but he stayed back.. across the street, or otherwise removed from public view.

There is no substantiation that he was even there in Berkeley other than a pulled parking ticket from an unattended machine in a deserted parking lot. For days after the police got Scott's parking ticket, they worked feverishly to find out if he was really there, if he had an accomplice, etc.. They walked the banks, they audited the ticket machine to try and find out who bought the tickets.. they talked to employees, neighbors, the people living on the boats, and they advertised about him. We heard it in Modesto.. Anybody knowing Scott's whereabouts from the 22nd to the 24th, please contact the police. So, your assertion that the ticket creates an alibi for Scott is simply not so.. The police did not believe Scott went fishing. They never believed a word out of his mouth about that day, Nor do I.

Distaso, though he mumbles and bumbles teaches me ... I trust him. I listen to him. He's a geek, but a man worthy of trust an admiration. He informs the public in an interview after the trial that when prosecuting, he presents what evidence he has at his disposal, what is allowed, and what is provable. I notice that his philosophy, at least as he expresses it, is not about presenting truth, but rather evidence that is provable... He provides the evidence to the jury, they provide the judgment and verdict. In the Peterson trial, Distaso doesn't mention a single word about a night trip by Scott even though 80-90% of the followers of the trial believe Scott killed and buried her at night. Distaso leaves it alone, choosing not to muddy the waters.. When it is time to discuss the manner and time of Laci's death, Distaso told the jurors in his own pragmatic fashion, "I don't care if you think he killed her at night or in the morning.. but he is the one who killed her.."

And so it goes..

It doesn't matter much if Scott had the boat or didn't have the boat.. We all know he killed her.. but for me, it is my nature to unravel the mystery..to get to the bottom of things. My inclination is to never believe anything a liar says unless it is verified by others or independent facts..

And the boat and the fishing trip in Berkeley are not verifiable by any known facts. And that is the bottom line.

[cookiewench]

Murderers have to take chances. If he killed her the night before, what if Amy and her friend(s) would have stopped by....what if Sharon or/and Ron would have called that night to say pick up whipped cream? Either way, SLP took chances.

Not at 10-11 at night. He already knew that Amy had guests from out of town who she was meeting for a late dinner, and that Sharon & Ron knew that Scott & Laci went to bed early - as did Sharon and Ron themselves, I believe. He could have always said that Laci was asleep, but what could he have said if someone had stopped by at 9:30 in the morning, with Laci's car in the driveway and her body wrapped in a tarp on the living room floor?

In the daytime - anything might happen - there would be more people and cars on the street to see you loading "umbrellas", etc.

[accordn2me]

Not at 10-11 at night. He already knew that Amy had guests from out of town who she was meeting for a late dinner, and that Sharon & Ron knew that Scott & Laci went to bed early - as did Sharon and Ron themselves, I believe. He could have always said that Laci was asleep, but what could he have said if someone had stopped by at 9:30 in the morning, with Laci's car in the driveway and her body wrapped in a tarp on the living room floor?

In the daytime - anything might happen - there would be more people and cars on the street to see you loading "umbrellas", etc.
All you say is true. However, it's a finite number of minutes. Whether the mornig, night, dusk, dawn....he did it SOME time and without detection, I remind. SLP's being seen trying to dispose of the bodies has a virtually nil change of happening.

Now I really do have to go to bed....I couldn't pass a lie detector test on any subject at this point.

Have a wonderful day tomorrow, lovelies! and gentlemen! :blowkiss:

[Lavindar]

Cadi, do you think the prosecution had more evidence than they presented? That they held some things back just in case they might need them later?

I agree with your assessment of Distaso. He's not flashy, but he's dedicated.

[Cadillakin]

Cadi, do you think the prosecution had more evidence than they presented? That they held some things back just in case they might need them later?

I agree with your assessment of Distaso. He's not flashy, but he's dedicated.As to your question; Yes.. undoubtedly. I recall a ton of secrecy regarding the warrants and the witness list.. which I now understand is very unusual.. especially as it regards the witness list. The one guy that we know for sure that was on that list was burglar Steven Todd, whom the State described in court filings as a "necessary and material witness against Scott Peterson."

I think in many trials there is sometimes a poker game between the prosecutors and defense.. as to how they will proceed and defend. The discovery is all there, but the way to the finish line has not been plotted. I think Todd was there for Distaso if he decided to prove Scott made a night trip. IMO, Todd saw Scott loading his truck and moving about at night when he was casing the neighborhoods for his burglaries.. In fact, that was a leak from the police department or prosecution side.... first locally, then nationally. I heard it loud and clear.. and when I read the court filing about Todd being a material witness.. I thought that has to be it.. he saw Scott..

I've stated many times that Geragos was defending against the prosecution's two-trip gambit when he had his assistant, Atty Harris.. try to get a concession out of Medina that Scott's truck was parked there in the Peterson driveway at 5am on the 24th.. Harris didn't get exactly what he wanted, that Medina saw the truck.. but she did say that she saw two vehicles in the Peterson driveway. What other vehicles would be in the Peterson driveway except for Laci's car and Scott's truck at that time of the morning.. ? This testimony may have thwarted any idea that Distaso had about proving Scott was out at night.. Picking a fight with the friendly Medina about her eyesight or clarity wouldn't have looked too good to the jurors. In addition to her testimony that Scott was probably home, if Geragos would have bested one of the witnesses that saw Scott leaving Modesto or out at the Bay, Todd or another, the prosecution might have foundered right then and there.. Read the Medina testimony. You will notice the concerted effort to have Scott anchored and alibied at his home in the early morning of Dec 24.

The end strategy was that Distaso decided to proceed in a MUCH narrower fashion.. Instead of throwing everything he knew into the mix.. and bringing forth witnesses that Geragos would attack and perhaps defeat, he proceeded based on Scott's admissions, his lies and the parking ticket.. Distaso then assures the jury, "You can convict him just on those facts, the location of the bodies and the fishing trip" "Either he was framed, or he did it" And then he goes over the many reasons that a frame up can't occur with any kind of reasonable scenario..

Geragos had no defense..

[deputydi]

<snip>And so it goes..

It doesn't matter much if Scott had the boat or didn't have the boat.. We all know he killed her.. but for me, it is my nature to unravel the mystery..to get to the bottom of things. My inclination is to never believe anything a liar says unless it is verified by others or independent facts..

And the boat and the fishing trip in Berkeley are not verifiable by any known facts. And that is the bottom line.
I do see where you are going with this, but I am still convinced he killed her at night and went back the next day to make sure he didn't make any mistakes. He had a lot of stuff in his car the day he was arrested that wasn't there before and the binoculars are only one item. He may not have had them on the 24th and returning by boat to the scene of the crime was the only way he could have reassured himself. Why else would he have made that last minute change in his plans? If he had not returned with or without binoculars and with or without the boat, he could have simply carried through with his original plan to go golfing and pick up the fruit basket.

I don't believe much of what Scott says, but I do believe he made the second trip to the marina with his boat. The parking ticket proves he was there. It doesn't prove he had his boat with him, but IF someone saw him, how would he explain being there to go sturgeon fishing without one? He couldn't be 100% sure no one would see him. His lie about people watching him launch his boat, etc. was just to embellish his story. He's a master at that and doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

[Lavindar]

I do see where you are going with this, but I am still convinced he killed her at night and went back the next day to make sure he didn't make any mistakes. He had a lot of stuff in his car the day he was arrested that wasn't there before and the binoculars are only one item. He may not have had them on the 24th and returning by boat to the scene of the crime was the only way he could have reassured himself. Why else would he have made that last minute change in his plans? If he had not returned with or without binoculars and with or without the boat, he could have simply carried through with his original plan to go golfing and pick up the fruit basket.

I don't believe much of what Scott says, but I do believe he made the second trip to the marina with his boat. The parking ticket proves he was there. It doesn't prove he had his boat with him, but IF someone saw him, how would he explain being there to go sturgeon fishing without one? He couldn't be 100% sure no one would see him. His lie about people watching him launch his boat, etc. was just to embellish his story. He's a master at that and doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Cadillakin]

I do see where you are going with this, but I am still convinced he killed her at night and went back the next day to make sure he didn't make any mistakes. He had a lot of stuff in his car the day he was arrested that wasn't there before and the binoculars are only one item. He may not have had them on the 24th and returning by boat to the scene of the crime was the only way he could have reassured himself. Why else would he have made that last minute change in his plans? If he had not returned with or without binoculars and with or without the boat, he could have simply carried through with his original plan to go golfing and pick up the fruit basket. Again, you're believing Scott's story. There was no plan.. There was nothing at all substantiating Scott had any plans. It was simply a lie to Amy. A man doesn't simply show up at the golf course without a tee time, without other players, and expect to play on a holiday.. I've never been a member of a country club, but I do think you have to reserve a tee time no matter your status at the club. There was no evidence that Scott had a start time..

I don't believe much of what Scott says, but I do believe he made the second trip to the marina with his boat. The parking ticket proves he was there. It doesn't prove he had his boat with him, but IF someone saw him, how would he explain being there to go sturgeon fishing without one? He couldn't be 100% sure no one would see him. His lie about people watching him launch his boat, etc. was just to embellish his story. He's a master at that and doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.It's getting a little fuzzy here.. Scott wasn't there to fish. He was there to check out his handiwork.. I think you have more or less agreed to that. A boat is not necessary to inspect the relevant area for floating bodies. Scott proved that over and over. I have evidence from the trial that Scott did exactly that numerous times.. He drove to the bay and inspected Laci's burial site. I'm not inventing it or relying on his word..

His shortbed truck is very distinct to men because we notice those things, as the shortbeds are mostly for looks and lack some function. His green toolbox was very distinctive also.. Usually men, and that includes me, take note of boats that other men own.. particularly so at the lake or body of water .. We check out their girlfriends and wives too.. It's our nature. If he was there on the water in broad daylight, IMO, somebody would have seen him... remembered him, and come forward.

Even the employees that were there on the site, said they only remember just a couple of people.. only one boater, said one of them.. a couple of people in the Caesar Chavez Park area said another.. But they were conscious of the surroundings.. It's their place.. Just as where you work is your place. They didn't have any recollection of Scott, his truck or his boat.. I used to work at a big city park as an asst recreation director.. When working, it was my park.. I knew what went on there.. Any bad guys there, I saw them.. Everything there, I surveyed. I'm sure the employees of that Marina felt that way too.. NO Scott.

Do note that the police searched many OTHER fishing and boating areas. Why? Because it was their thinking that Scott might have buried her at another lake or site, and went to Berkeley and picked up the ticket to throw them off.. They believed this might be the case because there was not a shred of substantiating evidence that Scott was there on the water with his boat, on the afternoon of the 24th. That is my position also.

The discussion as to the boat's presence between you and I is now redundant, much of that my fault. Have your say.. and let's wrap it up.

[cookiewench]

That could have also had something to do with why Jackie was so het up to find someone who'd seen Scott at the marina that day.

Perhaps she'd heard the two-trip theory and was desperate to find someone who'd seen him there during the DAY, launching his boat without a cover on it and without anything other than himself and his fishing rod in it.

[Cadillakin]

That could have also had something to do with why Jackie was so het up to find someone who'd seen Scott at the marina that day.

Perhaps she'd heard the two-trip theory and was desperate to find someone who'd seen him there during the DAY, launching his boat without a cover on it and without anything other than himself and his fishing rod in it.I recall that now.. Most of us in those early days were convinced Scott wasn't there.. That's the signals we were getting from the police.. but the ticket.. the ticket. When we learned he had a half sister there, we thought she was complicit.. somehow she might have passed Scott the ticket.. or the machine wasn't printing the right times.. I'm recalling now that at least two of the posters on the boards went there and actually paid the 5 bucks and pulled the tickets so we could see all the writing on the ticket and if they were printing accurate times. We learned that the night time, ie 11:59pm, wasn't the time that the ticket was pulled.. as so many had thought when we became aware of the parking ticket..and there was a phony leak as to that time.. but rather the time the ticket expired for that day and night.

And yes, I do recall Jackie's desperation to prove Scott was really there and her public pitch for witnesses. She thought it would exonerate him..

[deputydi]

Again, you're believing Scott's story. There was no plan.. There was nothing at all substantiating Scott had any plans. It was simply a lie to Amy. A man doesn't simply show up at the golf course without a tee time, without other players, and expect to play on a holiday.. I've never been a member of a country club, but I do think you have to reserve a tee time no matter your status at the club. There was no evidence that Scott had a start time..<snip>
I'm not sure what we are arguing about since your opinion, as well as mine, is purely conjecture. Are you saying that you don't believe he was at the marina at all on the 24th? I'm confused. :confused:

[Cadillakin]

I'm not sure what we are arguing about since your opinion, as well as mine, is purely conjecture. Are you saying that you don't believe he was at the marina at all on the 24th? I'm confused. :confused:We WERE arguing about whether Scott had his boat with him when he went to the Marina on the afternoon on the 24th. But I've finished.

[Cadillakin]

Cadi, do you think the prosecution had more evidence than they presented? That they held some things back just in case they might need them later?
To answer you in a less substantial but more personal way that I previously did... My friend and co-worker was on the prosecution's witness list. She was somebody who had observed a woman walking who looked like Laci.. As to how the prosecution was going to use her, I don't know. Nor did she know.. but she did tell me she realized that the person she saw walking was another lady who lived around the block from her.. Initially, she reported a sighting of Laci..

So, the prosecution was sitting on Rachel and others.. waiting to see what Geragos did in his cross and direct..

The example I gave is rather mundane and not exciting.. but it does further prove there were others waiting to testify, if needed. And there was indeed more evidence that didn't come in

[deputydi]

We WERE arguing about whether Scott had his boat with him when he went to the Marina on the afternoon on the 24th. But I've finished.
Settle down. Your THEORY is no more correct nor incorrect than mine.

[Cadillakin]

Settle down. Your THEORY is no more correct nor incorrect than mine.There is no need to tell me to settle down.. I said few posts ago the argument was redundant.. I took the blame for that.. I said I was wrapping up and asked you to finish up as well... But you didn't respect my request, and started again with a critique of my post, and added that you were confused about what I said..

When somebody takes their share of the blame for an argument, and asks you politely to finish or stop, you should respect that.

[frydaddy]

We're all friends here...no need for this disagreement to get any more air time than it already has.

The one fact of the matter is that there is virtually no evidence that can be used in court to prove a night trip. Having said that, I'm not stating that one trip is any more likely than two or vice versa. I'm saying in order to prove the night trip, you have to speculate using the day trip and I'm not sure the prosecution would want to make that play in a retrial, should the infinitely low possibility of such occur.

The most curious thing about a night trip is the umbrellas. Of course, we don't know if he was telling the truth about them going to the bay during the day, but if he used them for some type of cover during the night trip, I don't see why they'd end up back home the evening of the 24th. Just food for thought.

[Luke Davis]

To answer you in a less substantial but more personal way that I previously did... My friend and co-worker was on the prosecution's witness list. She was somebody who had observed a woman walking who looked like Laci.. As to how the prosecution was going to use her, I don't know. Nor did she know.. but she did tell me she realized that the person she saw walking was another lady who lived around the block from her.. Initially, she reported a sighting of Laci..

So, the prosecution was sitting on Rachel and others.. waiting to see what Geragos did in his cross and direct..

The example I gave is rather mundane and not exciting.. but it does further prove there were others waiting to testify, if needed. And there was indeed more evidence that didn't come in

There were two posters from the CTV board that were on the list and never took the stand. They were represented by Gloria Allred after the prosecuter read their posts.

[TopGunner]

There were two posters from the CTV board that were on the list and never took the stand. They were represented by Gloria Allred after the prosecuter read their posts.

Wow, I never heard this before. Do you remember the content of their posts Luke?

[Luke Davis]

Wow, I never heard this before. Do you remember the content of their posts Luke?They were friends from Arizona and drove over for the beginning of the trial. They took photos of Laci's house and then every few miles over to the Berkeley Marina. They posted the photos, I think in Photobucket.

The posters discussed the photos. As the trial progressed their was a dispute about the concrete driveway. Laci's neighbor was making improvements as I remember. One of the photos, showed clearly the condition of the driveway before the neighbor started work.

The prosecuter contacted the posters. Their story was in the newspaper but I don't think ever testified. I think the lawyers just stipulated the photo was accurate.

This is all from memory but some others may remember.

[Wearing A Halo]

They were friends from Arizona and drove over for the beginning of the trial. They took photos of Laci's house and then every few miles over to the Berkeley Marina. They posted the photos, I think in Photobucket.

The posters discussed the photos. As the trial progressed their was a dispute about the concrete driveway. Laci's neighbor was making improvements as I remember. One of the photos, showed clearly the condition of the driveway before the neighbor started work.

The prosecuter contacted the posters. Their story was in the newspaper but I don't think ever testified. I think the lawyers just stipulated the photo was accurate.

This is all from memory but some others may remember.

They would be Katie Koollady (KatieCoolady) and Jordy.

[Luke Davis]

They would be Katie Koollady (KatieCoolady) and Jordy.Thank you for the reminder, perhaps some would be interested in what some posters can do.

Katie & Jordy's Excellent Adventure
The incredibly true story of two Tempe women and the photograph that helped convict Scott Peterson

New Times (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-01-13/news/katie-jordy-s-excellent-adventure/1)

They didn't even know it was coming. "The next thing we knew," Monkman says, "we were in front of the mikes, and she had her arms around both of us."

Allred introduced them, then warned the reporters not to ask any questions. They ignored her instructions, and the questions came furiously:

"Genna, do you work for Court TV?"

"Do you work for the prosecutor's office?"

"Why'd you take the picture?"

Then, "Was this picture taken in 2003 or 2004?"

McCallie couldn't help it. "2004," she cried.

The reporters gasped. It hardly mattered -- either way, it was taken before the defense expert had done his tests. But it was still news . . . and there was that gag order. McCallie, embarrassed, ducked behind Allred.

Monkman and McCallie stayed in Redwood City for another week and a half, long enough to catch the closing arguments. Monkman was breathlessly paraphrasing prosecutor Rick Distaso's closing arguments online when the prosecutor began to hammer the missing bag of cement.

[Lavindar]

Luke, you are correct. The defense stipulated that the photograph was what it was, making it unnecessary for Jordy to testify. Toward the end, there were a lot of stipulations with no testimony.

[adnoid]

Wow, I never heard this before. Do you remember the content of their posts Luke?

Here you go. (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-01-13/news/katie-jordy-s-excellent-adventure/)

[deputydi]

There is no need to tell me to settle down.. I said few posts ago the argument was redundant.. I took the blame for that.. I said I was wrapping up and asked you to finish up as well... But you didn't respect my request, and started again with a critique of my post, and added that you were confused about what I said..

When somebody takes their share of the blame for an argument, and asks you politely to finish or stop, you should respect that.
We have always gotten along and I truly don't know why you are being so testy with me. The title of this thread is "One trip or two" and that's what was being discussed. I absolutely did respect your request -- your posts just left me a little confused and I asked for clarification. Have I violated some rule I'm not aware of?

You believe he didn't have the boat with him on the second trip (if there was one) and I believe he did. We disagree on this one point and that's okay, isn't it? I don't want to make an enemy here when the point on which we disagree can't ever be proven conclusively.

[TopGunner]

Here you go. (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-01-13/news/katie-jordy-s-excellent-adventure/)

Thanks Adnoid, I love KatieCoolady. I've read a lot of her stuff at the other camp, she's awesome. So sad about her sister, so GREAT about their photo!

[One2Snoop]

I remember KatieCoolady and Jordy. I vaguely remember them being on the list to testify. It's been to long. I only remember some controversy surrounding their trip and the cement in the driveway etc....

Cool and interesting they were friends of yours Cadillakin. Thanks for sharing.

I strongly believe Scott make two trips due to time constraints he put on himself the morning of the 24th. No way he left Modesto "just" after 11 am, drove to Berkley Marina, dumped Laci's and Conners bodies and returned home by (approximately 5 pm). He no doubt encountered traffic (amongst other things) which we have lots of here in N Cali.

The only way I can see this happening in the time frame allotted is he had to be seriously focused on his mission, but we already know he wasn't, why go piddle around his office warehouse from approx 10 AM - 11 AM? Why piddle around with putting market umbrellas in the back of his pick-up? :shrug:

All of the above is IMO/JMO but a strong one!

[frydaddy]

Thanks Adnoid, I love KatieCoolady. I've read a lot of her stuff at the other camp, she's awesome. So sad about her sister, so GREAT about their photo!

Katie and Jordy were awesome, Katie provided trial updates from the courtroom on a couple of occasions, giving us first hand info long before it was reported on television. Last I heard, Katie was writing for Justice magazine or something like that, but I believe that it is no longer in publication or active.

Katie and Jordy have done an awful lot to advocate for victims. Katie herself dealt with extremely sad and disturbing circumstances, with the savage murder of her sister at the hands of two brothers who I believe are still trying to gain release via the mental illness excuse.

I haven't seen Jordy or Katie on the net in some time. Due to the attention they got during the trial and the fact that they have both received continual abuse regarding their personal lives, some of it so disgusting that I was embarrassed to be a human being, they most likely tried to take a step back into normal life. Obviously, some people harbor resentment that still exists two years after the fact. Perhaps some things are better kept to themselves or simply let go.

[adnoid]

...Katie herself dealt with extremely sad and disturbing circumstances, with the savage murder of her sister at the hands of two brothers who I believe are still trying to gain release via the mental illness excuse...

Currently a bunch of the hug-a-thug anti punishment types are working hard to get her sister's killers out of jail, because they're just nice boys who are misunderstood. There's some sort of hearing on 9/28 out there in Phoenix.

Story here. (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-04-26/news/sympathy-for-the-devil/)

On topic: I think 2 trips.

[deputydi]

Currently a bunch of the hug-a-thug anti punishment types are working hard to get her sister's killers out of jail, because they're just nice boys who are misunderstood. There's some sort of hearing on 9/28 out there in Phoenix.

Story here. (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-04-26/news/sympathy-for-the-devil/)

On topic: I think 2 trips.
I read Katie and Jordy's postings avidly and so appreciated their up to the minute courtroom anecdotes even when they didn't win a lottery seat. I notice this article was written in April of this year and it makes reference to a hearing "next week". Do you know what the result was?

[frydaddy]

Currently a bunch of the hug-a-thug anti punishment types are working hard to get her sister's killers out of jail, because they're just nice boys who are misunderstood. There's some sort of hearing on 9/28 out there in Phoenix.

Story here. (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-04-26/news/sympathy-for-the-devil/)

On topic: I think 2 trips.

Short on time...but will read this article when I get a chance. Mainly wanted to say thanks for finding and posting it, I had forgotten the names of the two mopes.

[adnoid]

...I notice this article was written in April of this year and it makes reference to a hearing "next week". Do you know what the result was?

As with all things legal it always takes longer - the 9/28 (scheduled) event is all part of this whole process. I've spoken with her about it a little, but I'm sure it's a tough process and I don't want to intrude.

On topic: One trip or two, this is what Laci's family faces as the Scott lovers try everything they can to free their adorable hero.

[Wearing A Halo]

I think it was a one trip deal. Here is a link to a blogspot from Average Jane. I totally agree with her and my thinking was (and still is) exactly as hers, even before I came across her blog.

http://frictionpowered.blogspot.com/2006/02/peterson-case-one-trip-or-two.html

[accordn2me]

I think it was a one trip deal. Here is a link to a blogspot from Average Jane. I totally agree with her and my thinking was (and still is) exactly as hers, even before I came across her blog.

http://frictionpowered.blogspot.com/2006/02/peterson-case-one-trip-or-two.html

I'm jumping on the one trip boat with you. Although, I'm not firmly on deck. I'd need more "evidence" for a two trip launching.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Katie and Jordy were awesome, Katie provided trial updates from the courtroom on a couple of occasions, giving us first hand info long before it was reported on television. Last I heard, Katie was writing for Justice magazine or something like that, but I believe that it is no longer in publication or active.

Katie and Jordy have done an awful lot to advocate for victims. Katie herself dealt with extremely sad and disturbing circumstances, with the savage murder of her sister at the hands of two brothers who I believe are still trying to gain release via the mental illness excuse.

I haven't seen Jordy or Katie on the net in some time. Due to the attention they got during the trial and the fact that they have both received continual abuse regarding their personal lives, some of it so disgusting that I was embarrassed to be a human being, they most likely tried to take a step back into normal life. Obviously, some people harbor resentment that still exists two years after the fact. Perhaps some things are better kept to themselves or simply let go.

A good example of what can happen when one gives out personal information.

[Lavindar]

I'm jumping on the one trip boat with you. Although, I'm not firmly on deck. I'd need more "evidence" for a two trip launching.


Two trip gives him more time. I DO think he killed her that night as she was undressing, I also have a problem with his backing the trailer into a pylon. He had to use a flatbed trailer and maneuver it. A boat trailer would be a piece of cake after that. I Think that's part of his "fairy tale." He could easily have launced from Richmond where there is no fee and no launch ramp. That would put him much closer to Brooks Island at night. Closer to the channel too. Doing it in the night gave him unlimited time, too. Given the time span he had on the 24th, he did not have a lot of time to be out on the water. I'm guessing an hour max and he'd have to boat out to Brooks Island (if he indeed went there and i believe that's a mile or so from the Marina. He only had a hp motor I believe. That's a lot of boat travelling during the daytime. There wuoldn't be much traffic at night on the bay-particularly a small boat like his with no lights.. I believe the channel buoys were also lit at night which would help him considerably.

I am not a criminal. I don't think like one. I believe he did it but am not locked into either scenario.

[cookiewench]

If there weren't two trips, I think it was at least originally planned that way.

It would have been a better plan: go to the bay overnight, and then actually go play golf the next day and be seen on the golf course.

[deputydi]

If there weren't two trips, I think it was at least originally planned that way.

It would have been a better plan: go to the bay overnight, and then actually go play golf the next day and be seen on the golf course.
ITA. This is what I've been saying for 4 yrs. Scott's biggest mistake was in changing his plans. I still believe in the two trips. I think his curiosity got the better of him -- there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation I can think of. I don't know if, as Cadillakin believes, he went without the boat or if, as I believe, he took the boat with him but it really doesn't matter. Either way, he did go back to satisfy himself that Laci had stayed right where he put her. If he had stuck to what I believe was his original plan, he could have proven he was at the Club and many miles away from Laci's burial site. I honestly believe he thought her body would wash out to sea and nothing would ever connect him to her "disappearance".

[cookiewench]

ITA. This is what I've been saying for 4 yrs. Scott's biggest mistake was in changing his plans. I still believe in the two trips. I think his curiosity got the better of him -- there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation I can think of. I don't know if, as Cadillakin believes, he went without the boat or if, as I believe, he took the boat with him but it really doesn't matter. Either way, he did go back to satisfy himself that Laci had stayed right where he put her. If he had stuck to what I believe was his original plan, he could have proven he was at the Club and many miles away from Laci's burial site. I honestly believe he thought her body would wash out to sea and nothing would ever connect him to her "disappearance".


I think that's as good a guess as any.

If he'd actually been seen on the golf course that day, he had every reason to believe (stupidly) that his warehouse wouldn't even be searched.

He could have sold the boat and jumped title, or announced a month later that he'd bought a boat to help him deal with his grief.......sob.

If he got home be 5:00 am and fell asleep on top of the bed til about 8:00 am, he may have jumped up in a panic - mopped the floor, thrown his clothes in the washer, and then gone to the warehouse in panic mode - wavering over what to do - play golf, check the bay.....play golf, check the bay.

[deputydi]

I think that's as good a guess as any.

If he'd actually been seen on the golf course that day, he had every reason to believe (stupidly) that his warehouse wouldn't even be searched.

He could have sold the boat and jumped title, or announced a month later that he'd bought a boat to help him deal with his grief.......sob.

If he got home be 5:00 am and fell asleep on top of the bed til about 8:00 am, he may have jumped up in a panic - mopped the floor, thrown his clothes in the washer, and then gone to the warehouse in panic mode - wavering over what to do - play golf, check the bay.....play golf, check the bay.
I think he probably intended to clean the warehouse at some point but he thought he had some time to do that. He never counted on the Modesto PD being so thorough that night and asking to see it. I also believe that is why he lied about the electricity being off. He thought they would leave and come back in a day or so. They didn't -- too bad for Scott. He never had time to clean up his mess.

I really hadn't thought about how he would explain the boat later, but you could be right. After all, he ordered the hard core channels to help deal with his grief. In Scott's narcissistic mind, he never in a million years thought he would be given more than a cursory glance as a suspect.

ETA: I just noticed that we have 12 lurkers out there. I wish they would join in -- how about it guys?

[cookiewench]

Absolutely, that's why he lied about the electricity.

The boy was in a real panic about his alibi. He never expected them to ask to see the warehouse, but then - oops! he went and confessed about the boat.

I guess he was going to stay with the golf alibi, but then realized that you have to check in at the desk before you play.

I imagine that he was also very, very tired - and his mind was racing in a dozen different directions.

He managed to pull himself together in time to be all cool down at the police station, though.

[deputydi]

Absolutely, that's why he lied about the electricity.

The boy was in a real panic about his alibi. He never expected them to ask to see the warehouse, but then - oops! he went and confessed about the boat.

I guess he was going to stay with the golf alibi, but then realized that you have to check in at the desk before you play.

I imagine that he was also very, very tired - and his mind was racing in a dozen different directions.

He managed to pull himself together in time to be all cool down at the police station, though.
I think he decided to change his alibi on his way back from the Bay (second trip}. He had about 2 hrs to think it through and decided he couldn't prove he was playing golf (no one saw him cause he wasn't there) but he had that ticket from the Marina so it didn't matter whether anyone saw him. If, by chance, someone did see him it would just add icing to the cake. After all, he had already done the deed under cover of darkness and no one could say they saw him doing anything suspicious when he went back in the daylight.

[cookiewench]

I think he decided to change his alibi on his way back from the Bay (second trip}. He had about 2 hrs to think it through and decided he couldn't prove he was playing golf (no one saw him cause he wasn't there) but he had that ticket from the Marina so it didn't matter whether anyone saw him. If, by chance, someone did see him it would just add icing to the cake. After all, he had already done the deed under cover of darkness and no one could say they saw him doing anything suspicious when he went back in the daylight.

I agree.

Scott also had a lifetime of watching people accept his mother's lies just because they didn't want to make her mad, and a lifetime of people believing his own lies.

He grew up in a house where lying was accepted as normal.

He expected everyone to believe him and accept what he said - no matter how weird or illogical.

[Lavindar]

I think that's as good a guess as any.

If he'd actually been seen on the golf course that day, he had every reason to believe (stupidly) that his warehouse wouldn't even be searched.

He could have sold the boat and jumped title, or announced a month later that he'd bought a boat to help him deal with his grief.......sob.

If he got home be 5:00 am and fell asleep on top of the bed til about 8:00 am, he may have jumped up in a panic - mopped the floor, thrown his clothes in the washer, and then gone to the warehouse in panic mode - wavering over what to do - play golf, check the bay.....play golf, check the bay.


I think he planned on sinking the boat and claiming it was stolen. You don't use a freshwater engine in salt water without ruining it. Be so easy to dump it in one of the lakes around Modesto or in a river. He locked himself into his Bay fishing story. That's where he made his mistakes. Didn't clean up the warehouse.

IIRC he didn't need a tee time for golfing at the club.

[cookiewench]

I think he planned on sinking the boat and claiming it was stolen. You don't use a freshwater engine in salt water without ruining it. Be so easy to dump it in one of the lakes around Modesto or in a river. He locked himself into his Bay fishing story. That's where he made his mistakes. Didn't clean up the warehouse.

IIRC he didn't need a tee time for golfing at the club.

Even if you don't need a tee time, don't you have to check in before you play? How else would they keep strangers from coming in off the street and playing for free?

P.S. I'll bet he wishes now that he HAD sunk that boat.

He probably sits in his cell every night, replaying his mistakes and how he could have done it better.

[One2Snoop]

ITA. This is what I've been saying for 4 yrs. Scott's biggest mistake was in changing his plans. I still believe in the two trips. I think his curiosity got the better of him -- there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation I can think of. I don't know if, as Cadillakin believes, he went without the boat or if, as I believe, he took the boat with him but it really doesn't matter. Either way, he did go back to satisfy himself that Laci had stayed right where he put her. If he had stuck to what I believe was his original plan, he could have proven he was at the Club and many miles away from Laci's burial site. I honestly believe he thought her body would wash out to sea and nothing would ever connect him to her "disappearance".

This has always been my belief to deputydi. :beer: It still makes me wonder why the the Prosecution didn't go with a 2 trip theory. :confused: Was anything ever made public regarding the two trip theory or was this just message board speculation for the most part? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

This has always been my belief to deputydi. :beer: It still makes me wonder why the the Prosecution didn't go with a 2 trip theory. :confused: Was anything ever made public regarding the two trip theory or was this just message board speculation for the most part? :shrug:
I believe there were witnesses who might have seen him at the Bay the night before. However, Scott himself handed them the one-trip theory so they went with it.

The facts are that no one saw or talked to Laci after 8:30 on the 23rd. Also, her state of dress or undress (whatever you believe) could easily lead to a two-trip theory. Until Scott talks, we'll never know.

[One2Snoop]

I believe there were witnesses who might have seen him at the Bay the night before. However, Scott himself handed them the one-trip theory so they went with it.

The facts are that no one saw or talked to Laci after 8:30 on the 23rd. Also, her state of dress or undress (whatever you believe) could easily lead to a two-trip theory. Until Scott talks, we'll never know.

Interesting. Thanks Lavindar. I guess that means there was never any proof "cell phone usuage wise" to place him near Brooks Island or the Berkeley Marina for the two trip theory? Surely he wasn't that smart and knew his cell phone could be traced? Ok, answering my own question, thats giving far to much credit to someone who murdered his wife and unborn child. :punch: The answer to my question is, no he wasn't that smart.

[I'mSun]

Until Scott talks, we'll never know.
Unfortunately, we'll never know. :cuss:

[deputydi]

This has always been my belief to deputydi. :beer: It still makes me wonder why the the Prosecution didn't go with a 2 trip theory. :confused: Was anything ever made public regarding the two trip theory or was this just message board speculation for the most part? :shrug:
The pros pretty much left the question of one trip or two alone. I think they didn't push for two trips because it would have been pure speculation on their part. The only evidence they had was Scott's word and that marina ticket. It would have been impossible for them to show he had been there during the night.

[deputydi]

Interesting. Thanks Lavindar. I guess that means there was never any proof "cell phone usuage wise" to place him near Brooks Island or the Berkeley Marina for the two trip theory? Surely he wasn't that smart and knew his cell phone could be traced? Ok, answering my own question, thats giving far to much credit to someone who murdered his wife and unborn child. :punch: The answer to my question is, no he wasn't that smart.
Sorry, Lav -- if they had witnesses who saw him on the first trip, I think the pros would have used them. Anyone seen in a boat without lights on the Bay between midnight and 3 am would have raised major alerts. This, you would definitely remember. As for the cell phone, Snoop -- how many calls do you get at 1, 2 or 3 in the morning? That isn't evidence of Scott being "smart" (LOL) -- no one makes calls at that time unless it's an emergency. Your last sentence is right on the money -- not smart, just lucky.

[accordn2me]

ITA. This is what I've been saying for 4 yrs. Scott's biggest mistake was in changing his plans. I still believe in the two trips. I think his curiosity got the better of him -- there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation I can think of. I don't know if, as Cadillakin believes, he went without the boat or if, as I believe, he took the boat with him but it really doesn't matter. Either way, he did go back to satisfy himself that Laci had stayed right where he put her. If he had stuck to what I believe was his original plan, he could have proven he was at the Club and many miles away from Laci's burial site. I honestly believe he thought her body would wash out to sea and nothing would ever connect him to her "disappearance".IF there was two trips.....why would he go back without the boat? :confused: Do the people who believe the two trip theory contend SLP went back to make sure Laci was submerged? If that's the reason, he wouldn't be able to see that from the shore....and if he could see that from the shore and he saw that she wasn't submerged, what was he to do....go all the way back and get the boat? :no:

[attorneywan2be]

I think he decided to change his alibi on his way back from the Bay (second trip}. He had about 2 hrs to think it through and decided he couldn't prove he was playing golf (no one saw him cause he wasn't there) but he had that ticket from the Marina so it didn't matter whether anyone saw him. If, by chance, someone did see him it would just add icing to the cake. After all, he had already done the deed under cover of darkness and no one could say they saw him doing anything suspicious when he went back in the daylight.

Add icing to the cake?? that the place where he supposedly dumped Laci's body was documented as his alibi??! why in the world would he want to document that? the fact that he was there would make him a suspect if the body would be discovered in that area regardless of when he supposedly dumped her body..during the so called night trip or during his trip on the 24th?? it won't make a bit of a difference...

According to your theory, he changed his plan and went the second trip just to make sure she was still where he supposedly put her??!! what for? Why would he go during daylight time and risk being seen? had he dumped her body under the cover of night as you speculate..then he would have simply gone golfing on the 24th to establish a meaningful alibi ..or better yet, he would have gone fishing at a freshwater lake and took his time to wash off any saltwater residue off his boat..he was at his warehouse up until 11:00 am..there was no news about a body being discovered at the bay..there was no reason that would have compelled him to go to the bay and risk being there as the body floats to surface for example...it's a risk that was not necessary to take...and even if her body was to be discovered later on the 24th...he would have had a perfect alibi had he gone fishing at a nearby lake ..he could have stated that Laci left to walk McKenzie around 9 am and that he left around 10:00 and didn't see her since she left..

Why do you think he bought a fishing license with an Ocean Enhancement stamp on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

Why do you think he bought an ocean fishing rod on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

IMO..neither the "one trip" theory nor the "two trips" theory makes any sense simply because he is innocent..

[Lavindar]

Interesting. Thanks Lavindar. I guess that means there was never any proof "cell phone usuage wise" to place him near Brooks Island or the Berkeley Marina for the two trip theory? Surely he wasn't that smart and knew his cell phone could be traced? Ok, answering my own question, thats giving far to much credit to someone who murdered his wife and unborn child. :punch: The answer to my question is, no he wasn't that smart.


I think it's interesting that there was no cell phone usage when he was on the Bay period.

His last cell phone call was at 5:32 on the 23rd. No calls to get his messages or anything until the next day.

[Lavindar]

Sorry, Lav -- if they had witnesses who saw him on the first trip, I think the pros would have used them. Anyone seen in a boat without lights on the Bay between midnight and 3 am would have raised major alerts. This, you would definitely remember. As for the cell phone, Snoop -- how many calls do you get at 1, 2 or 3 in the morning? That isn't evidence of Scott being "smart" (LOL) -- no one makes calls at that time unless it's an emergency. Your last sentence is right on the money -- not smart, just lucky.

I am talking about people seeing him driving to the Bay in the middle of hte night. I doubt seriously anyone would see him w/o lights on the bay period. Wasn't here a truck driver who allegedly saw him in the area - and who specifically noted it was a Gamefisher boat ? There could have been people who saw him driving home also. It takes roughly half to 3/4 a tank of gas to drive round trip to the Bay Area. He woudl have been ok on the first trip, but needed gas on the second.

[Lavindar]

Add icing to the cake?? that the place where he supposedly dumped Laci's body was documented as his alibi??! why in the world would he want to document that? the fact that he was there would make him a suspect if the body would be discovered in that area regardless of when he supposedly dumped her body..during the so called night trip or during his trip on the 24th?? it won't make a bit of a difference...

According to your theory, he changed his plan and went the second trip just to make sure she was still where he supposedly put her??!! what for? Why would he go during daylight time and risk being seen? had he dumped her body under the cover of night as you speculate..then he would have simply gone golfing on the 24th to establish a meaningful alibi ..or better yet, he would have gone fishing at a freshwater lake and took his time to wash off any saltwater residue off his boat..he was at his warehouse up until 11:00 am..there was no news about a body being discovered at the bay..there was no reason that would have compelled him to go to the bay and risk being there as the body floats to surface for example...it's a risk that was not necessary to take...and even if her body was to be discovered later on the 24th...he would have had a perfect alibi had he gone fishing at a nearby lake ..he could have stated that Laci left to walk McKenzie around 9 am and that he left around 10:00 and didn't see her since she left..

Why do you think he bought a fishing license with an Ocean Enhancement stamp on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

Why do you think he bought an ocean fishing rod on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

IMO..neither the "one trip" theory nor the "two trips" theory makes any sense simply because he is innocent..


The Ocean enhancement stamp means nothing. He did not need it to fish in the Bay although he thought he might. The person who sold him the license was not knowledgable about fishing so that person might have recommended it to him also.

[I'mSun]

..neither the "one trip" theory nor the "two trips" theory makes any sense simply because he is innocent..AW, you continually make this statement. Please provide a link that backs this up. I can provide a link proving he is GUILTY, if you want.

[deputydi]

IF there was two trips.....why would he go back without the boat? :confused: Do the people who believe the two trip theory contend SLP went back to make sure Laci was submerged? If that's the reason, he wouldn't be able to see that from the shore....and if he could see that from the shore and he saw that she wasn't submerged, what was he to do....go all the way back and get the boat? :no:

I agree. It doesn't make any sense to me that he would go back without the boat but that's what Cadillakin believes. He started the discussion "with or without the boat" and I thought it was an interesting point to debate. Unfortunately, he very abruptly told me that he would no longer discuss this.

I think most of us who believe the two trip theory believe he had the boat with him on the second trip.

[deputydi]

<snip>
Why do you think he bought a fishing license with an Ocean Enhancement stamp on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

Why do you think he bought an ocean fishing rod on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?
<snip>
Why do you think he told Amy he was going golfing and volunteered to pick up the fruit basket "since he would be in that area" if his plan all along was to travel 90 miles to the Berkely Marina?

[deputydi]

I am talking about people seeing him driving to the Bay in the middle of hte night. I doubt seriously anyone would see him w/o lights on the bay period. Wasn't here a truck driver who allegedly saw him in the area - and who specifically noted it was a Gamefisher boat ? There could have been people who saw him driving home also. It takes roughly half to 3/4 a tank of gas to drive round trip to the Bay Area. He woudl have been ok on the first trip, but needed gas on the second.
IIRC, there was a truck driver who claimed to have seen him but, honestly, I don't put a whole lot of stock in these eyewitness sightings. If the buoys are lit, he probably could have been seen but I don't know whether they are. If there are no lights there, you're right -- he wouldn't have been seen by anyone.

He did stop for gas on the 24th but I don't think he got enough to fill up the tank -- probably just enough to get him home.

[cookiewench]

Add icing to the cake?? that the place where he supposedly dumped Laci's body was documented as his alibi??! why in the world would he want to document that? the fact that he was there would make him a suspect if the body would be discovered in that area regardless of when he supposedly dumped her body..during the so called night trip or during his trip on the 24th?? it won't make a bit of a difference...

According to your theory, he changed his plan and went the second trip just to make sure she was still where he supposedly put her??!! what for? Why would he go during daylight time and risk being seen? had he dumped her body under the cover of night as you speculate..then he would have simply gone golfing on the 24th to establish a meaningful alibi ..or better yet, he would have gone fishing at a freshwater lake and took his time to wash off any saltwater residue off his boat..he was at his warehouse up until 11:00 am..there was no news about a body being discovered at the bay..there was no reason that would have compelled him to go to the bay and risk being there as the body floats to surface for example...it's a risk that was not necessary to take...and even if her body was to be discovered later on the 24th...he would have had a perfect alibi had he gone fishing at a nearby lake ..he could have stated that Laci left to walk McKenzie around 9 am and that he left around 10:00 and didn't see her since she left..

Why do you think he bought a fishing license with an Ocean Enhancement stamp on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

Why do you think he bought an ocean fishing rod on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

IMO..neither the "one trip" theory nor the "two trips" theory makes any sense simply because he is innocent..

Did you miss Scott's TV interviews? Otherwise, I can't account for why you would expect him to think or act intelligently.

All the things you're stating are probably the things he sits in his cells and plays over in his mind.....kicking himself for fouling up and pondering how he should have done it differently.

[TopGunner]

Add icing to the cake?? that the place where he supposedly dumped Laci's body was documented as his alibi??! why in the world would he want to document that? the fact that he was there would make him a suspect if the body would be discovered in that area regardless of when he supposedly dumped her body..during the so called night trip or during his trip on the 24th?? it won't make a bit of a difference...

According to your theory, he changed his plan and went the second trip just to make sure she was still where he supposedly put her??!! what for? Why would he go during daylight time and risk being seen? had he dumped her body under the cover of night as you speculate..then he would have simply gone golfing on the 24th to establish a meaningful alibi ..or better yet, he would have gone fishing at a freshwater lake and took his time to wash off any saltwater residue off his boat..he was at his warehouse up until 11:00 am..there was no news about a body being discovered at the bay..there was no reason that would have compelled him to go to the bay and risk being there as the body floats to surface for example...it's a risk that was not necessary to take...and even if her body was to be discovered later on the 24th...he would have had a perfect alibi had he gone fishing at a nearby lake ..he could have stated that Laci left to walk McKenzie around 9 am and that he left around 10:00 and didn't see her since she left..

Why do you think he bought a fishing license with an Ocean Enhancement stamp on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

Why do you think he bought an ocean fishing rod on Dec 20th, which took place before the so called change of plan?

IMO..neither the "one trip" theory nor the "two trips" theory makes any sense simply because he is innocent..


ROTFLMAO.......AW2B, clearly he was at the Marina at least once. IMO, it was twice...but who even cares? He was unaccounted for from the time he left Amy at the Salon until almost 24 hours later. Not a single person saw him OR Laci....and right before the holiday's too. That's the time I'm yappin and visiting with everyone in my life 24/7. His fishing "gear" was the wrong kind, the luers never even opened. Why do you think he bought a ticket on the 20th for a MORNING DECISION on the 24th? Why do you think he bought all that fishing gear when, after HE SAID he was fishing for sturgeon, he changed that story and said he just wanted to get the boat WET. Does one really NEED fishing poles and luers to get a boat WET?

His alibi was golfing. Only he knows why he screwed up at the last minute...and I THANK GOD that he did just that. :beer:

[Luke Davis]

<snip>

IMO..neither the "one trip" theory nor the "two trips" theory makes any sense simply because he is innocent..Then very little makes sense.:shrug:

[deputydi]

ROTFLMAO.......AW2B, clearly he was at the Marina at least once. IMO, it was twice...but who even cares? He was unaccounted for from the time he left Amy at the Salon until almost 24 hours later. Not a single person saw him OR Laci....and right before the holiday's too. That's the time I'm yappin and visiting with everyone in my life 24/7. His fishing "gear" was the wrong kind, the luers never even opened. Why do you think he bought a ticket on the 20th for a MORNING DECISION on the 24th? Why do you think he bought all that fishing gear when, after HE SAID he was fishing for sturgeon, he changed that story and said he just wanted to get the boat WET. Does one really NEED fishing poles and luers to get a boat WET?

His alibi was golfing. Only he knows why he screwed up at the last minute...and I THANK GOD that he did just that. :beer:
Exactly! I tried to give you rep points for this post, but apparently I've already given you too many. I have to "spread some around". LOL.

[adnoid]

AW, you continually make this statement. Please provide a link that backs this up. I can provide a link proving he is GUILTY, if you want.

Hey - I've got 3 links that prove he is factually guilty:

Link #1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_1.jpg)

Link #2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_2.jpg)

Link #3 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_3.jpg)

[deputydi]

Hey - I've got 3 links that prove he is factually guilty:

Link #1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_1.jpg)

Link #2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_2.jpg)

Link #3 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_3.jpg)

:beer: Doesn't get much better than that!

[accordn2me]

I agree. It doesn't make any sense to me that he would go back without the boat but that's what Cadillakin believes. He started the discussion "with or without the boat" and I thought it was an interesting point to debate. Unfortunately, he very abruptly told me that he would no longer discuss this.

I think most of us who believe the two trip theory believe he had the boat with him on the second trip.OK.

I'm of the one trip "with the boat" theory. :D

ETA: I think SLP may have planned to go at night, which like the boat would have been a secret. Had he gone at night, I don't think we would have heard about the trip from him. He would have gone golfing the next morning, with no mention of the trip to Berkley. Maybe he thought better of that since he would have immediately been charged were he to have been caught in such a lie.

[I'mSun]

Hey - I've got 3 links that prove he is factually guilty:

Link #1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_1.jpg)

Link #2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_2.jpg)

Link #3 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_3.jpg)Perfect. Thanks, Adnoid :beer:

[deputydi]

OK.

I'm of the one trip "with the boat" theory. :D

ETA: I think SLP may have planned to go at night, which like the boat would have been a secret. Had he gone at night, I don't think we would have heard about the trip from him. He would have gone golfing the next morning, with no mention of the trip to Berkley. Maybe he thought better of that since he would have immediately been charged were he to have been caught in such a lie.
Okay, fair enough. Why do you think his plan changed? There is no question that he made the one daylight trip but, if he killed Laci during the night, do you think he stayed in the house with her body until morning? Can you think of any logical reason he purchased the fishing license on the 20th when his plan, at that time, was to go golfing? This is the one thing I can't make fit under any of the theories I've read -- even the ones that claim he is innocent can't satisfactorily explain this detail.

[cookiewench]

Okay, fair enough. Why do you think his plan changed? There is no question that he made the one daylight trip but, if he killed Laci during the night, do you think he stayed in the house with her body until morning? Can you think of any logical reason he purchased the fishing license on the 20th when his plan, at that time, was to go golfing? This is the one thing I can't make fit under any of the theories I've read -- even the ones that claim he is innocent can't satisfactorily explain this detail.

Who knows what was going on in his warped mind. Maybe he thought he'd do the bay trip early in the morning and then golf in the afternoon, but then once he'd killed her he decided to just go for it right then and then play golf the next day.

I'll always believe that being over-tired caused a lot of his screwups.

[TopGunner]

OK, this is my theory: He killed her that night, we know that for sure...since she hadn't changed her cloths. I believe he took her to the warehouse that night as well, and safely stashed her in the boat that night. The next day he took her to the bay....put the boat in the water, and went out far enough off shore not to be seen but where he could still jump in (I fell off the boat trying to reel a fish in...). He then removed her from the boat while he was still waist deep and towed her the rest of the way. He cut her loose when he got far enough out that he was certain the tide would take her to sea. I certainly don't think it's the ONLY possibility, but I think it's a good one. I don't believe for a minute he was messing around with anything in the warehouse...he used that time to dump her. :mad:

[Wearing A Halo]

Hey - I've got 3 links that prove he is factually guilty:

Link #1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_1.jpg)

Link #2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_2.jpg)

Link #3 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/WS/verdict_3.jpg)

Excellent Adnoid! Proof positive of a factual fact.

[cookiewench]

OK, this is my theory: He killed her that night, we know that for sure...since she hadn't changed her cloths. I believe he took her to the warehouse that night as well, and safely stashed her in the boat that night. The next day he took her to the bay....put the boat in the water, and went out far enough off shore not to be seen but where he could still jump in (I fell off the boat trying to reel a fish in...). He then removed her from the boat while he was still waist deep and towed her the rest of the way. He cut her loose when he got far enough out that he was certain the tide would take her to sea. I certainly don't think it's the ONLY possibility, but I think it's a good one. I don't believe for a minute he was messing around with anything in the warehouse...he used that time to dump her. :mad:


That's certainly a good possibility.

I can also imagine him dumping her in the bay at night with the plan to golf the next day, but then thinking: what if her body surfaced at 9:00 am or shortly after? He wouldn't be able to claim then that she'd been kidnapped while walking the dog. It started preying on his mind badly, so he went back to check.

That might have been what happened, but then again, I might just like the idea of him worrying and panicking, rather than just sitting around feeling smug about it.

[attorneywan2be]

ROTFLMAO.......AW2B, clearly he was at the Marina at least once.

Yep..according to evidence, he went to the bay once, and IMO, the evidence indicates that he went fishing and he was trying his new boat..

IMO, it was twice...but who even cares? He was unaccounted for from the time he left Amy at the Salon until almost 24 hours later. Not a single person saw him OR Laci....and right before the holiday's too. That's the time I'm yappin and visiting with everyone in my life 24/7.

Some people would be yappin and visiting with everyone on Christmas eve..others would be busy preparing for Christmas, doing some last minute shopping...cooking..baking..etc..etc....the fact that no one saw him is not evidence he killed his wife...he was at his warehouse from around 10:00 am to 11:00 am...he went to the bay during broad daylight...he stored his boat at his warehouse...IMO he certainly didn't take any action that would indicate he was avoiding being seen..his actions before, during and after paint a picture of someone who had nothing to hide except possibly his affair with Amber..

His fishing "gear" was the wrong kind, the luers never even opened. Why do you think he bought a ticket on the 20th for a MORNING DECISION on the 24th?

1-He forgot the new lures in his truck..however, he had saltwater and freshwater lures in his tackle box that he took with him on the boat...both the ocean rod he had with him and the diving lure that was in his tackle box were suitable for fishing for striped bass..that's according to testimony which I posted several times..

2-IMO, he bought a two-day fishing license and left the valid dates blank..I think he was not sure what day he would go fishing and try his new boat..let's say for example, he planned to go fishing on the 23rd, he changed his mind for whatever reason...he didn't invest that much money even if the fishing license would have expired, he would have only wasted $11 or $12.. I don't see anything sinister, I have changed my mind and rescheduled going shopping letting a 50% off sale expire which is much more than a mere $11 ..it happens!

Why do you think he bought all that fishing gear when, after HE SAID he was fishing for sturgeon, he changed that story and said he just wanted to get the boat WET.

1-IMO, he bought the fishing license...the fishing rod..and the lures to go fishing..do you think he needed them to dump his wife's body?

2-It's the other way around..he told Brocchini in his first interview with the MPD that he went there to mainly try his boat in the water..and that he also trolled..when Grogan interviewed him on the 25th, Scott went into more details regarding his fishing trip..that's when he talked about fishing for sturgeons and striped bass..

Does one really NEED fishing poles and luers to get a boat WET?

Well, does one NEED fishing poles..fishing license ..and lures to dump a body? and why do you think on Dec 20th he needed to create a paper trail by buying those items?..was he documenting in advance his so called trip to dump his wife's body in the bay?

His alibi was golfing. Only he knows why he screwed up at the last minute...and I THANK GOD that he did just that. :beer:

Let me put it this way..IMO, if "golfing" was his planned alibi, he would have done so, there was no reason for him to change his plan...he simply thought he was going to go golfing on the 24th..he changed his plan..BIG DEAL!..when things don't make any sense, I noticed the fallback answers are "he's stupid..he messed up..he is probably kicking himself..etc..etc.." again, IMO, none of this makes any sense because he is innocent..

[Trixy]

Wow, you missed the verdict too? AW2B. Here, read all about it. He was convicted in the court of law where it counts.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/12/peterson.verdict/index.html

Stating he's innocent is a a lie.

Fact: No mumbo jumbo by you nor anyone else will free Scott.

mho

:D Another grand day knowing that monster won't be going free ever.

[JustMyOpinion]

Yep..according to evidence, he went to the bay once, and IMO, the evidence indicates that he went fishing and he was trying his new boat..



Some people would be yappin and visiting with everyone on Christmas eve..others would be busy preparing for Christmas, doing some last minute shopping...cooking..baking..etc..etc....the fact that no one saw him is not evidence he killed his wife...he was at his warehouse from around 10:00 am to 11:00 am...he went to the bay during broad daylight...he stored his boat at his warehouse...IMO he certainly didn't take any action that would indicate he was avoiding being seen..his actions before, during and after paint a picture of someone who had nothing to hide except possibly his affair with Amber..



1-He forgot the new lures in his truck..however, he had saltwater and freshwater lures in his tackle box that he took with him on the boat...both the ocean rod he had with him and the diving lure that was in his tackle box were suitable for fishing for striped bass..that's according to testimony which I posted several times..

2-IMO, he bought a two-day fishing license and left the valid dates blank..I think he was not sure what day he would go fishing and try his new boat..let's say for example, he planned to go fishing on the 23rd, he changed his mind for whatever reason...he didn't invest that much money even if the fishing license would have expired, he would have only wasted $11 or $12.. I don't see anything sinister, I have changed my mind and rescheduled going shopping letting a 50% off sale expire which is much more than a mere $11 ..it happens!



1-IMO, he bought the fishing license...the fishing rod..and the lures to go fishing..do you think he needed them to dump his wife's body?

2-It's the other way around..he told Brocchini in his first interview with the MPD that he went there to mainly try his boat in the water..and that he also trolled..when Grogan interviewed him on the 25th, Scott went into more details regarding his fishing trip..that's when he talked about fishing for sturgeons and striped bass..



Well, does one NEED fishing poles..fishing license ..and lures to dump a body? and why do you think on Dec 20th he needed to create a paper trail by buying those items?..was he documenting in advance his so called trip to dump his wife's body in the bay?



Let me put it this way..IMO, if "golfing" was his planned alibi, he would have done so, there was no reason for him to change his plan...he simply thought he was going to go golfing on the 24th..he changed his plan..BIG DEAL!..when things don't make any sense, I noticed the fallback answers are "he's stupid..he messed up..he is probably kicking himself..etc..etc.." again, IMO, none of this makes any sense because he is innocent..


I think SP began planning to dispose of Laci in the Bay after Shawn Sibley confronted him about being married, and he told her he had lost his wife, and begged her to let him tell Amber. Evidence shows he purchased the boat, did computer searches of the Bay around the same time ( Dec 8, 9 ) he told the two women he had been married but had lost his wife.
Yes, I think he purchased the fishing license with ocean stamp and lures to shore up a fishing alibi if needed, JMO. ( yet, when initially asked what kind of fish he was seeking, Scott couldn't answer. then he told Brocchini he just went to put the boat in the water and fishing was a last minute decision because it was too cold to golf, and the next day he shifted again, giving detailed information about sturgeon, etc.)
I don't think Scott anticipated the immediate and focused response of MPD on Christmas Eve, I doubt very much he had envisioned a CAP detective showing up and asking to see the warehouse. He consented to appear cooperative, but lied about the electricity, IMO.
Scott gave inconsistent statements/explanations for many things which continued to shift & evolve over time, IMO. He's calculating, conning, manipulative, and was likely accustomed to others believing him, IMO.
Why are you stating he's innocent when you know he's been convicted?

[cookiewench]

when things don't make any sense, I noticed the fallback answers are "he's stupid..he messed up..he is probably kicking himself..etc..etc.." again, IMO, none of this makes any sense because he is innocent..



Really? Then how do you explain the other really stupid things he did and said?

You don't think it was "stupid and messed" up to be calling Amber with his Paris story from his wife's vigil, acting all happy and excited?

None of the things he did made sense, so what is the purpose of applying the statement of "if he wanted to do this, it would make no sense for him to do that" about a person who doesn't behave logically?

[cookiewench]

We have two separate photos of Scott smiling with different people at Laci's vigil. If he was photo'd twice, just imagine how many times he was smiling thoughout the vigil. He was also seen to be "giggling" by several people.

When someone is that silly, what is the sense in defending him by saying, "he would have done x,y, or z", or "it would have been easier for him to do it this way" or "it doesn't make sense that he would do this or that".


For cripes sake, he even confessed to Amber when he said "you guessed all the answers".

The man is guilty as sin, and defending him by talking about what a logical, rational person would do in his situation is backwards thinking: a rational person wouldn't do what he did (murder) in the first place.

[Lavindar]

Yep..according to evidence, he went to the bay once, and IMO, the evidence indicates that he went fishing and he was trying his new boat..



Some people would be yappin and visiting with everyone on Christmas eve..others would be busy preparing for Christmas, doing some last minute shopping...cooking..baking..etc..etc....the fact that no one saw him is not evidence he killed his wife]...he was at his warehouse from around 10:00 am to 11:00 am...he went to the bay during broad daylight...he stored his boat at his warehouse...IMO he certainly didn't take any action that would indicate he was avoiding being seen..his actions before, during and after paint a picture of someone who had nothing to hide except possibly his affair with Amber..[/COLOR]



1-He forgot the new lures in his truck..however, he had saltwater and freshwater lures in his tackle box that he took with him on the boat...both the ocean rod he had with him and the diving lure that was in his tackle box were suitable for fishing for striped bass..that's according to testimony which I posted several times..

2-IMO, he bought a two-day fishing license and left the valid dates blank..I think he was not sure what day he would go fishing and try his new boat..let's say for example, he planned to go fishing on the 23rd, he changed his mind for whatever reason...he didn't invest that much money even if the fishing license would have expired, he would have only wasted $11 or $12.. I don't see anything sinister, I have changed my mind and rescheduled going shopping letting a 50% off sale expire which is much more than a mere $11 ..it happens!



1-IMO, he bought the fishing license...the fishing rod..and the lures to go fishing..do you think he needed them to dump his wife's body?

2-It's the other way around..he told Brocchini in his first interview with the MPD that he went there to mainly try his boat in the water..and that he also trolled..when Grogan interviewed him on the 25th, Scott went into more details regarding his fishing trip..that's when he talked about fishing for sturgeons and striped bass..



Well, does one NEED fishing poles..fishing license ..and lures to dump a body? and why do you think on Dec 20th he needed to create a paper trail by buying those items?..was he documenting in advance his so called trip to dump his wife's body in the bay?



Let me put it this way..IMO, if "golfing" was his planned alibi, he would have done so, there was no reason for him to change his plan...he simply thought he was going to go golfing on the 24th..he changed his plan..BIG DEAL!..when things don't make any sense, I noticed the fallback answers are "he's stupid..he messed up..he is probably kicking himself..etc..etc.." again, IMO, none of this makes any sense because he is innocent..



You cannot prove it was at his warehouse from 10 to 11am. It may have bgeen daylight, but there was no sun. HE signed on his computer at the warehouse at 10:26. That is more AROUND 10:30 than "around 10" He was on his cell phone within a mile of his home at 10:08 and it did NOT switch to the Woodland cell tower (which was the one by his work - it switched to the 10th & D street tower from the Bright on tower - which shows he was on the move in his truck from his house through downtown. So don't state lies as facts, please. I will NOT post this testimony because it has been posted time and time again. YOur refusal to face FACTS is why you believe in his innocence imo

It was also foggy in parts of Modesto that morning. Depending on the location, the fog makes it impossible to see 10 feet in front of you. So the fact he was not seen means nothing. On a foggy morning, I couldn't see what the neighbors across the street were doing, let alone, next door. So if it were really foggy at his warehouse, no one could have made out what he was doing at all. There was no sun in that "daylight" that morning in Modesto.

[cookiewench]

This has been going on from the very beginning - before Scott was even arrested, actually.

"Why would he do THIS, when it would have been easier or made more sense to do THAT?"

You might as well ask why he would lie on TV about having told LE about his affair with Amber, when he would KNOW he was going to be busted on the lie and made to look even more guilty.

[cookiewench]

Why would he, immediately after his wife had been "kidnapped", take the cover to his boat and spill gasoline all over it and then put it in a shed UNDERNEATH a leaf blower?

This was while even strangers were frantically looking for his wife.

I think we need a new thread titled "Why Would He?" or something like that.

[frydaddy]

Yep..according to evidence, he went to the bay once, and IMO, the evidence indicates that he went fishing and he was trying his new boat..



Some people would be yappin and visiting with everyone on Christmas eve..others would be busy preparing for Christmas, doing some last minute shopping...cooking..baking..etc..etc....the fact that no one saw him is not evidence he killed his wife...he was at his warehouse from around 10:00 am to 11:00 am...he went to the bay during broad daylight...he stored his boat at his warehouse...IMO he certainly didn't take any action that would indicate he was avoiding being seen..his actions before, during and after paint a picture of someone who had nothing to hide except possibly his affair with Amber..



1-He forgot the new lures in his truck..however, he had saltwater and freshwater lures in his tackle box that he took with him on the boat...both the ocean rod he had with him and the diving lure that was in his tackle box were suitable for fishing for striped bass..that's according to testimony which I posted several times..

2-IMO, he bought a two-day fishing license and left the valid dates blank..I think he was not sure what day he would go fishing and try his new boat..let's say for example, he planned to go fishing on the 23rd, he changed his mind for whatever reason...he didn't invest that much money even if the fishing license would have expired, he would have only wasted $11 or $12.. I don't see anything sinister, I have changed my mind and rescheduled going shopping letting a 50% off sale expire which is much more than a mere $11 ..it happens!



1-IMO, he bought the fishing license...the fishing rod..and the lures to go fishing..do you think he needed them to dump his wife's body?

2-It's the other way around..he told Brocchini in his first interview with the MPD that he went there to mainly try his boat in the water..and that he also trolled..when Grogan interviewed him on the 25th, Scott went into more details regarding his fishing trip..that's when he talked about fishing for sturgeons and striped bass..



Well, does one NEED fishing poles..fishing license ..and lures to dump a body? and why do you think on Dec 20th he needed to create a paper trail by buying those items?..was he documenting in advance his so called trip to dump his wife's body in the bay?



Let me put it this way..IMO, if "golfing" was his planned alibi, he would have done so, there was no reason for him to change his plan...he simply thought he was going to go golfing on the 24th..he changed his plan..BIG DEAL!..when things don't make any sense, I noticed the fallback answers are "he's stupid..he messed up..he is probably kicking himself..etc..etc.." again, IMO, none of this makes any sense because he is innocent..


He first told Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock fishing (even though he couldn't tell them what bait he was using or what he was fishing for), THEN told Brocchini he wanted to get the boat in the water, THEN told Grogan fishing details.

He also told Evers he left at 9:30, when we know he left at 10:05.

He said he got the the marina at noontime, when we know he arrived there at 12:54.

He said he got home at 4:30, when we know that he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm.

We know he called Sharon at 5:45pm. According to Scott, he thought Laci was running errands or something (even though her car was still home, even though the house wasn't locked and was dark, even though the dog was outside with a leash on, from a walk Laci was gettin' ready to go on when he left seven hours earlier). He's talked to no one from the time he got home until the time he calls Sharon, now suddenly there's a sense of urgency when Laci isn't there. What happened to the errand running?

He said he was fishing "all day", he also said he fished for two hours, when he know he didn't have his boat in the water for even a full hour.

He said he noticed the umbrellas in the truck when he locked the door to the warehouse. He was there over an hour, he loaded the umbrellas that morning for the sole purpose of putting them in the warehouse, yet he doesn't delay his trip to put the umbrellas in the warehouse before leaving for the bay. He doesn't unload them after his trip to the bay. He "forgot" a couple times, but he has instant recall of the parking receipt being in the ashtray? He remembers a sign on Brooks Isle and what it says?

He also mentions nothing about the 1-1.5 hours at the warehouse to any of the first responders. He simply mentions going to his shop.

You say Scott doesn't mind blowing $11-12 dollars on a wasted fishing license he'd never use, but he makes his own anchor to save roughly that much?

The FACT is that Scott was inaccurate on nearly every detail about his "fishing" trip timeline. The FACT is that Scott's story when he got home makes not one damn bit of sense. Also a FACT is that you come here attempting to stretch the truth to fit some incoherent belief that he's innocent, even though you can't explain any of the above with FACT. So, why should we listen to any more of your nonsense? In fact, why do you even bother responding to G posts with such obtuse meanderings of flawed logic?

[Lavindar]

He first told Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock fishing (even though he couldn't tell them what bait he was using or what he was fishing for), THEN told Brocchini he wanted to get the boat in the water, THEN told Grogan fishing details.

He also told Evers he left at 9:30, when we know he left at 10:05.

He said he got the the marina at noontime, when we know he arrived there at 12:54.

He said he got home at 4:30, when we know that he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm.

We know he called Sharon at 5:45pm. According to Scott, he thought Laci was running errands or something (even though her car was still home, even though the house wasn't locked and was dark, even though the dog was outside with a leash on, from a walk Laci was gettin' ready to go on when he left seven hours earlier). He's talked to no one from the time he got home until the time he calls Sharon, now suddenly there's a sense of urgency when Laci isn't there. What happened to the errand running?

He said he was fishing "all day", he also said he fished for two hours, when he know he didn't have his boat in the water for even a full hour.

He said he noticed the umbrellas in the truck when he locked the door to the warehouse. He was there over an hour, he loaded the umbrellas that morning for the sole purpose of putting them in the warehouse, yet he doesn't delay his trip to put the umbrellas in the warehouse before leaving for the bay. He doesn't unload them after his trip to the bay. He "forgot" a couple times, but he has instant recall of the parking receipt being in the ashtray? He remembers a sign on Brooks Isle and what it says?

He also mentions nothing about the 1-1.5 hours at the warehouse to any of the first responders. He simply mentions going to his shop.

You say Scott doesn't mind blowing $11-12 dollars on a wasted fishing license he'd never use, but he makes his own anchor to save roughly that much?

The FACT is that Scott was inaccurate on nearly every detail about his "fishing" trip timeline. The FACT is that Scott's story when he got home makes not one damn bit of sense. Also a FACT is that you come here attempting to stretch the truth to fit some incoherent belief that he's innocent, even though you can't explain any of the above with FACT. So, why should we listen to any more of your nonsense? In fact, why do you even bother responding to G posts with such obtuse meanderings of flawed logic?

Dohn't forget that he told Amie and Tara that he'd been GOLFING, not fishing. This was AFTER he had talked to Sharon. Seems he couldn't even get his alibi straight. And you are correct that he remembered the Marina receipt, but he didn't remember the umbrellas, which would be staring him in the face when he unhooked the boat from his truck. He would have had to have seen them when he hooked up the boat, when he launched the boat, when he loaded the boat back on the trailer, and again, when he unhooked the trailer - that's at least an additional FOUR times after loading them. He would have had to notice them BEFORE he locked the warehouse door as he had to unhook the trailer from his truck and then lock the warehouse.

[TopGunner]

He first told Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock fishing (even though he couldn't tell them what bait he was using or what he was fishing for), THEN told Brocchini he wanted to get the boat in the water, THEN told Grogan fishing details.

He also told Evers he left at 9:30, when we know he left at 10:05.

He said he got the the marina at noontime, when we know he arrived there at 12:54.

He said he got home at 4:30, when we know that he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm.

We know he called Sharon at 5:45pm. According to Scott, he thought Laci was running errands or something (even though her car was still home, even though the house wasn't locked and was dark, even though the dog was outside with a leash on, from a walk Laci was gettin' ready to go on when he left seven hours earlier). He's talked to no one from the time he got home until the time he calls Sharon, now suddenly there's a sense of urgency when Laci isn't there. What happened to the errand running?

He said he was fishing "all day", he also said he fished for two hours, when he know he didn't have his boat in the water for even a full hour.

He said he noticed the umbrellas in the truck when he locked the door to the warehouse. He was there over an hour, he loaded the umbrellas that morning for the sole purpose of putting them in the warehouse, yet he doesn't delay his trip to put the umbrellas in the warehouse before leaving for the bay. He doesn't unload them after his trip to the bay. He "forgot" a couple times, but he has instant recall of the parking receipt being in the ashtray? He remembers a sign on Brooks Isle and what it says?

He also mentions nothing about the 1-1.5 hours at the warehouse to any of the first responders. He simply mentions going to his shop.

You say Scott doesn't mind blowing $11-12 dollars on a wasted fishing license he'd never use, but he makes his own anchor to save roughly that much?

The FACT is that Scott was inaccurate on nearly every detail about his "fishing" trip timeline. The FACT is that Scott's story when he got home makes not one damn bit of sense. Also a FACT is that you come here attempting to stretch the truth to fit some incoherent belief that he's innocent, even though you can't explain any of the above with FACT. So, why should we listen to any more of your nonsense? In fact, why do you even bother responding to G posts with such obtuse meanderings of flawed logic?

FD, this posts rocks, and I completely agree with everything you've said. As for the anchor(s), unless you're on welfare and you trash picked the boat, WHO WOULD MAKE A HOMEMADE ANCHOR? Who would take the time and deal with the mess to make a lousy anchor just to save a few dollars? The reason he made the anchor(s) is so obvious, I would have convicted him on that alone.

[Lavindar]

FD, this posts rocks, and I completely agree with everything you've said. As for the anchor(s), unless you're on welfare and you trash picked the boat, WHO WOULD MAKE A HOMEMADE ANCHOR? Who would take the time and deal with the mess to make a lousy anchor just to save a few dollars? The reason he made the anchor(s) is so obvious, I would have convicted him on that alone.
I have yet to see an anchor that is not attached to a boat via a rope or a chain. His sure wasn't. It was sitting there loose in the boat. Wouldn't anchor anything like that.

[attorneywan2be]

He first told Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock fishing (even though he couldn't tell them what bait he was using or what he was fishing for),

1-That was the police interpretation of his reaction to the question..he didn't respond to the question..IMO, it's more likely than not, he was frustrated that they were focusing on his fishing trip rather than looking for his wife..they were searching his home..asking questions about his fishing trip..etc...AND..

2-According to testimony, in early December he visited websites looking for info about fishing for Striped Bass and Sturgeons so he had plenty to talk about had he wanted to respond to that question.. so IMO, Scott being non-responsive to that particular question doesn't mean he didn't know what to say about the bait or what he was fishing for since he was well informed due to his internet search..

THEN told Brocchini he wanted to get the boat in the water, THEN told Grogan fishing details.

Then told Brocchini.... Then told Grogan?? You need to read the TS...he told them the same thing..he simply went into more details with Grogan most likely because he asked the question..Brocchini didn't ask about the type of fish:

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit.I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.


He also told Evers he left at 9:30, when we know he left at 10:05.

IMO, 9:30 = Faulty memory..if his intention was to expand the time frame to support a Laci's abduction theory..he could have simply said that she left before he left..however, he said that she was mopping the floor as he was leaving narrowing the window of time for Laci to have been abducted..

He said he got the the marina at noontime, when we know he arrived there at 12:54.

"When we know he arrived there at 12:54??" and how do we know that may I ask? well, it was Scott who provided the receipt that reflects the exact time he reached the Marina..he had nothing to hide regarding the time he arrived at the Marina evidenced by the fact that he kept the Marina receipt and turned it over to the police when requested...

He said he got home at 4:30, when we know that he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm.

We know he called Sharon at 5:45pm. According to Scott, he thought Laci was running errands or something (even though her car was still home, even though the house wasn't locked and was dark, even though the dog was outside with a leash on, from a walk Laci was gettin' ready to go on when he left seven hours earlier). He's talked to no one from the time he got home until the time he calls Sharon, now suddenly there's a sense of urgency when Laci isn't there. What happened to the errand running?

Again..you need to read the TS.. what do you mean by "he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm"??

1-Scott said he got to his office at 4:30..and arrived at his house at 4:45

Mark Geragos: That's right. I'm sorry. Looking at your notes, it's like you put 4:30, office, then 4:45, home?
Doug Mansfield: Right.

Amy Krigbaum testified that she first saw Scott's truck at 4:45 pm..that confirmed what Scott said..

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then the, what time did you see, or did you see his truck first?
Amie Krigbaum: That was the second time I had come back from the store. So if I, maybe 4:45? Between, yeah, 4:00, if I left to go to the store at, like, 4:30, actually, hold on. I never really had to figure out a time frame before, so I got home at, like, 4:15, unpacked all my stuff, did the fruit, went back to Save-Mart, so probably saw his truck at, like, 4:45 maybe?

2-He called Sharon around 5:15 not at 5:45 as you stated...he took a shower..etc..he listened to his messages immediately before calling Sharon..IMO, he assumed Laci was at her mom's house..he was only there for 30 minutes...

Birgit Fladager: In that phone conversation with Sharon Rocha, did she tell you that she had been thinking about the first telephone calls that occurred on December 24th between her and Scott Peterson?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: Did she tell you that the first call she received from Scott was at 5:15 p.m.?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

He said he was fishing "all day", he also said he fished for two hours, when he know he didn't have his boat in the water for even a full hour.

What's your source for this----> "he said he was fishing all day"

If he intended to lie about the time he spent fishing, he would have thrown away the Marina receipt...you cannot have it both ways..he gave the police the receipt that proved what time he arrived at the Marina...he also told the detectives that he arrived at his office at 4:30 pm...according to Scott, he had 3 hours and 36 minutes to fish + drive back to his office...he told Brocchini that he fished for an hour or an hour and a half..he was not sure...!

BROCCHINI: Okay so if you got the, ‘bout 5 minutes to one, you got your boat in, how long you think you stayed in the water?
PETERSON: Ah felt like an hour and a half or so, but like I said, I didn’t have any lunch or anything, but see if I was getting home at 4:30, quarter to, I don’t know an hour an hour and a half I guess , probably be accurate.


He said he noticed the umbrellas in the truck when he locked the door to the warehouse. He was there over an hour, he loaded the umbrellas that morning for the sole purpose of putting them in the warehouse, yet he doesn't delay his trip to put the umbrellas in the warehouse before leaving for the bay. He doesn't unload them after his trip to the bay. He "forgot" a couple times, but he has instant recall of the parking receipt being in the ashtray? He remembers a sign on Brooks Isle and what it says?

IMO, one can forget to unload something due to a variety of reasons..being distracted..being in a hurry..etc...it is not necessarily due to lack of memory....so your argument is totally flawed...!

He also mentions nothing about the 1-1.5 hours at the warehouse to any of the first responders. He simply mentions going to his shop.

According to evidence presented in court, he was at his warehouse for an hour or even less...he did mention to Brocchini and Grogan that he did some work at his warehouse before leaving to the bay...

You say Scott doesn't mind blowing $11-12 dollars on a wasted fishing license he'd never use, but he makes his own anchor to save roughly that much?

Making his own anchor doesn't mean he was trying to save the cost of buying an anchor..some men enjoy making stuff around the house...build a table..paint their own house...make an anchor...repair their driveway...etc...etc..

The FACT is that Scott was inaccurate on nearly every detail about his "fishing" trip timeline. The FACT is that Scott's story when he got home makes not one damn bit of sense. Also a FACT is that you come here attempting to stretch the truth to fit some incoherent belief that he's innocent, even though you can't explain any of the above with FACT. So, why should we listen to any more of your nonsense? In fact, why do you even bother responding to G posts with such obtuse meanderings of flawed logic?

Fact? what fact....you need to read the TS..

Your posts are good examples of what flawed logic is..!

[Lavindar]

1-That was the police interpretation of his reaction to the question..he didn't respond to the question..IMO, it's more likely than not, he was frustrated that they were focusing on his fishing trip rather than looking for his wife..they were searching his home..asking questions about his fishing trip..etc...AND..

2-According to testimony, in early December he visited websites looking for info about fishing for Striped Bass and Sturgeons so he had plenty to talk about had he wanted to respond to that question.. so IMO, Scott being non-responsive to that particular question doesn't mean he didn't know what to say about the bait or what he was fishing for since he was well informed due to his internet search..



Then told Brocchini.... Then told Grogan?? You need to read the TS...he told them the same thing..he simply went into more details with Grogan most likely because he asked the question..Brocchini didn't ask about the type of fish:

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit.I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Guess Scoitt in his research didn't notice that TROLLING WAS AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!



IMO, 9:30 = Faulty memory..if his intention was to expand the time frame to support a Laci's abduction theory..he could have simply said that she left before he left..however, he said that she was mopping the floor as he was leaving narrowing the window of time for Laci to have been abducted..



"When we know he arrived there at 12:54??" and how do we know that may I ask? well, it was Scott who provided the receipt that reflects the exact time he reached the Marina..he had nothing to hide regarding the time he arrived at the Marina evidenced by the fact that he kept the Marina receipt and turned it over to the police when requested...
Towing a boat from the warehouse to Berkeley Marina could not have gotten him there any earlier than that - certainly NOT at noon, IT's about 90 miles, and Scott had to drive through some non-freeway areas to get to the Marina. It's an hour and a half drive at best, not to mention that he would have had to take 880, not 580 because you cannot use 580 towing anything. 880 is very busy with truck traffic. Mapquest estimates one hour and 27 minutes and that's driving WITYHOUT towing anything. He could not have left his warehouse earlier than (I think) 10:56 when he signed off his computer. Then he had to pull the boat out of the warehouse, then lock up the warehouse, so he probably did not get underway until at least 11a. He would have taken 132 to 580 - and the speed limit on 132 is not 70 - it runs though slower areas - a long way to get to the Bay Area, but closest to his warehouse.


Again..you need to read the TS.. what do you mean by "he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm"??

1-Scott said he got to his office at 4:30..and arrived at his house at 4:45

Mark Geragos: That's right. I'm sorry. Looking at your notes, it's like you put 4:30, office, then 4:45, home?
Doug Mansfield: Right.

Amy Krigbaum testified that she first saw Scott's truck at 4:45 pm..that confirmed what Scott said..

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then the, what time did you see, or did you see his truck first?
Amie Krigbaum: That was the second time I had come back from the store. So if I, maybe 4:45? Between, yeah, 4:00, if I left to go to the store at, like, 4:30, actually, hold on. I never really had to figure out a time frame before, so I got home at, like, 4:15, unpacked all my stuff, did the fruit, went back to Save-Mart, so probably saw his truck at, like, 4:45 maybe?

2-He called Sharon around 5:15 not at 5:45 as you stated...he took a shower..etc..he listened to his messages immediately before calling Sharon..IMO, he assumed Laci was at her mom's house..he was only there for 30 minutes...
[quote] You should never assume. He "assumed she was running errands. Most places close before 5 on Christmas Eve. Her car was in the driveway. If he assumed she was at Sharon's, why didn't he call and ask to talk to her - why did he tell Sharon Laci was "missing."? Because he KNEW she wasn't at Sharon's. Period.

[quote]
Birgit Fladager: In that phone conversation with Sharon Rocha, did she tell you that she had been thinking about the first telephone calls that occurred on December 24th between her and Scott Peterson?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: Did she tell you that the first call she received from Scott was at 5:15 p.m.?
Craig Grogan: Yes.



What's your source for this----> "he said he was fishing all day"

If he intended to lie about the time he spent fishing, he would have thrown away the Marina receipt...you cannot have it both ways..he gave the police the receipt that proved what time he arrived at the Marina...he also told the detectives that he arrived at his office at 4:30 pm...according to Scott, he had 3 hours and 36 minutes to fish + drive back to his office...he told Brocchini that he fished for an hour or an hour and a half..he was not sure...! What crap. He did lie when he said he arrived at noon. That's a physical impossibility to get from Modesto to Berkeley in an hour without getting stopped for speeding - the Livermore Valley is a known speed trap - patrolled by air.

BROCCHINI: Okay so if you got the, ‘bout 5 minutes to one, you got your boat in, how long you think you stayed in the water?
PETERSON: Ah felt like an hour and a half or so, but like I said, I didn’t have any lunch or anything, but see if I was getting home at 4:30, quarter to, I don’t know an hour an hour and a half I guess , probably be accurate.
Yet Scott never looked at his phone to see what time he called his dad or Greg Reed to verify his time. How long do you think it would take to motor 2 miles with a 15hp engine? It's not a hop, skip and a jump from Berkeley Marina to Brooks Island. It's a bit of a distance and he wasn't in a speed boat. Just motoring there and back would leave him little time for ILLEGAL trolling or fishing.

[Lavindar]

According to evidence presented in court, he was at his warehouse for an hour or even less...he did mention to Brocchini and Grogan that he did some work at his warehouse before leaving to the bay...

He signed on his computer at 1026ish and off at 10:56ish. He was still within a mile of his house at 10:08. HOW DID HE SPEND AN HOUR AT HIS WAREHOUSE. This information has been provided to you in testimony multiple times, but you choose to ignore the facts and give him more time than he could possibly have to make your story make any sense. It's a good 15 minute drive ACROSS town from his house to the warehouse. He was still in the area of his home at 10:08 so how was he there from 10-11 like you want to believe?

Making his own anchor doesn't mean he was trying to save the cost of buying an anchor..some men enjoy making stuff around the house...build a table..paint their own house...make an anchor...repair their driveway...etc...etc.. Where is the proof he repaired his own driveway? That was no anchor. An anchor is attached to a boat in some manner - that was a weight as it was NOT attached to his boat in any way shape or form.



Fact? what fact....you need to read the TS..

I suggest you redo your math. You have added time to everythign that was testified to just to prove your point. You can't do that. Work with the EVIDENCE, not your distortion of the same.

Your posts are good examples of what flawed logic is..![/QUOTE] And yours is a distortion of the FACTS pure and simple. Maybe reading the FACTS would make you a little less snippy when confronted.

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8988472]He first told Evers, Letsinger, and Spurlock fishing (even though he couldn't tell them what bait he was using or what he was fishing for), THEN told Brocchini he wanted to get the boat in the water, THEN told Grogan fishing details. snipped


He also Told Mansfield on December 25th that he went fishing.

HARRIS: What did the defendant tell you had gone on with regards to purchases at Big 5?

MANSFIELD: He had indicated that he had purchased a rod and a reel and a two-day fishing license so he could go fishing.HARRIS: Did he tell you where he was going to go fishing?

MANSFIELD: He indicated that he was going to the San Francisco Bay.

HARRIS: Did you ever ask him, or did he ever comment on whether he had been fishing in The Bay before?

MANSFIELD: He indicated he had not.

HARRIS: He had not?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GERAGOS: The interview took place, this would be on Christmas Day?

MANSFIELD: Yes, it would.

GERAGOS: Approximately what time?

MANSFIELD: Approximately 1:30 in the afternoon.

GERAGOS: In the afternoon?

MANSFIELD: Yes.



MANSFIELD: Had not been fishing in the Bay.

[TopGunner]

1-That was the police interpretation of his reaction to the question..he didn't respond to the question..IMO, it's more likely than not, he was frustrated that they were focusing on his fishing trip rather than looking for his wife..they were searching his home..asking questions about his fishing trip..etc...AND..
The police are TRAINED to interpret responses AW2B.
2-According to testimony, in early December he visited websites looking for info about fishing for Striped Bass and Sturgeons so he had plenty to talk about had he wanted to respond to that question.. so IMO, Scott being non-responsive to that particular question doesn't mean he didn't know what to say about the bait or what he was fishing for since he was well informed due to his internet search..
ISP had no business deciding what he did or did not want to talk about. His pregnant wife was MISSING...you tell someone what color underwear you're wearing if they ask, WITHOUT QUESTION .. ! As Lavindar already said, while he was researching on the internet about Stiped Bass and Sturgeons, surely he would have not only noticed it was against the law to troll for them, but I'd have to guess he would have learned that salt water fishing gear would be needed, not freshwater still wrapped up in the packaging ...! And while we're conversing about the internet, how interesting that he wanted to know the tide information and how to pass a lie detector test simply to get a freshwater boat wet, 90 miles away in salt water. He's a character that one ...!:rolleyes:


Then told Brocchini.... Then told Grogan?? You need to read the TS...he told them the same thing..he simply went into more details with Grogan most likely because he asked the question..Brocchini didn't ask about the type of fish:

Yes AW2B, told and then told. He did not tell them the same thing. He couldn't answer when asked what he was fishing for. THEN he said he went out for stiped bass and sturgeon, THEN he said he just wanted to get the boat wet. He didn't tell the same story adding more detail at a later date. In FACT AW2B, his FIRST story was he went GOLFING ...
!
BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit.I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.




IMO, 9:30 = Faulty memory..if his intention was to expand the time frame to support a Laci's abduction theory..he could have simply said that she left before he left..however, he said that she was mopping the floor as he was leaving narrowing the window of time for Laci to have been abducted..

Ha.........he COULD HAVE said that she left before he did. He COULD HAVE filed for divorce too. But obviously, HE'S AN IDOT![/B]


"When we know he arrived there at 12:54??" and how do we know that may I ask? well, it was Scott who provided the receipt that reflects the exact time he reached the Marina..he had nothing to hide regarding the time he arrived at the Marina evidenced by the fact that he kept the Marina receipt and turned it over to the police when requested...

[B]That little receipt you keep harping on as proof of innocence AW2B was merely because he thought someone saw him, and no doubt with the anchor weights he tied around Laci, he believed she'd never surface ...! But while talking about that little golden nuget, the receipt - tell me, WHY did he purchase that receipt on the 20th for a MORNING DECISION on the 24th??? Psychic?



Again..you need to read the TS.. what do you mean by "he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm"??

1-Scott said he got to his office at 4:30..and arrived at his house at 4:45

Mark Geragos: That's right. I'm sorry. Looking at your notes, it's like you put 4:30, office, then 4:45, home?
Doug Mansfield: Right.

Amy Krigbaum testified that she first saw Scott's truck at 4:45 pm..that confirmed what Scott said..

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then the, what time did you see, or did you see his truck first?
Amie Krigbaum: That was the second time I had come back from the store. So if I, maybe 4:45? Between, yeah, 4:00, if I left to go to the store at, like, 4:30, actually, hold on. I never really had to figure out a time frame before, so I got home at, like, 4:15, unpacked all my stuff, did the fruit, went back to Save-Mart, so probably saw his truck at, like, 4:45 maybe?

2-He called Sharon around 5:15 not at 5:45 as you stated...he took a shower..etc..he listened to his messages immediately before calling Sharon..IMO, he assumed Laci was at her mom's house..he was only there for 30 minutes...

Birgit Fladager: In that phone conversation with Sharon Rocha, did she tell you that she had been thinking about the first telephone calls that occurred on December 24th between her and Scott Peterson?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: Did she tell you that the first call she received from Scott was at 5:15 p.m.?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

Thanks for bringing this up AW2B. I have always been SHOCKED that ISP never called the police or any hospitals. He called his in-laws at 5:15, and then called Sharon back at 5:30 saying nobody saw Laci. Now tell me, do you believe 15 minutes of searching is appropriate? Logical? Acceptable? Obviously he KNEW where she was, so why waste his time, huh?


What's your source for this----> "he said he was fishing all day"

If he intended to lie about the time he spent fishing, he would have thrown away the Marina receipt...you cannot have it both ways..he gave the police the receipt that proved what time he arrived at the Marina...he also told the detectives that he arrived at his office at 4:30 pm...according to Scott, he had 3 hours and 36 minutes to fish + drive back to his office...he told Brocchini that he fished for an hour or an hour and a half..he was not sure...!

BROCCHINI: Okay so if you got the, ‘bout 5 minutes to one, you got your boat in, how long you think you stayed in the water?
PETERSON: Ah felt like an hour and a half or so, but like I said, I didn’t have any lunch or anything, but see if I was getting home at 4:30, quarter to, I don’t know an hour an hour and a half I guess , probably be accurate.




IMO, one can forget to unload something due to a variety of reasons..being distracted..being in a hurry..etc...it is not necessarily due to lack of memory....so your argument is totally flawed...! I agree with you here AW2B. If I just murdered my family, I'm pretty sure I'd forget to unload some umbrella's that I've hauled all over creation for 2 days as well.



According to evidence presented in court, he was at his warehouse for an hour or even less...he did mention to Brocchini and Grogan that he did some work at his warehouse before leaving to the bay...



Making his own anchor doesn't mean he was trying to save the cost of buying an anchor..some men enjoy making stuff around the house...build a table..paint their own house...make an anchor...repair their driveway...etc...etc..

Sure, sure...and have affairs, vacation in Paris, fill duffle bags with Champane, Roses and Viagra. Busy, busy bee!

Fact? what fact....you need to read the TS..

Your posts are good examples of what flawed logic is..!
Ditto.:patriot:

[frydaddy]

1-That was the police interpretation of his reaction to the question..he didn't respond to the question..IMO, it's more likely than not, he was frustrated that they were focusing on his fishing trip rather than looking for his wife..they were searching his home..asking questions about his fishing trip..etc...AND..

2-According to testimony, in early December he visited websites looking for info about fishing for Striped Bass and Sturgeons so he had plenty to talk about had he wanted to respond to that question.. so IMO, Scott being non-responsive to that particular question doesn't mean he didn't know what to say about the bait or what he was fishing for since he was well informed due to his internet search..

Your post is a load of what Scott used to sell. The only FACT is that when asked what he fished for and what he used for bait, he did not have a reply. Surely an avid fisherman would know what they were fishing for and what they were using to catch them. Any supposition on his frustration or what he knew is the usual wishful thinking on your part. Unless of course, the jury shares your mindreading skills.

Then told Brocchini.... Then told Grogan?? You need to read the TS...he told them the same thing..he simply went into more details with Grogan most likely because he asked the question..Brocchini didn't ask about the type of fish:

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit.I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

I paraphrased info you supplied..."he told Brocchini in his first interview with the MPD that he went there to mainly try his boat in the water..and that he also trolled..when Grogan interviewed him on the 25th, Scott went into more details regarding his fishing trip..that's when he talked about fishing for sturgeons and striped bass." The info in quotes is from YOUR post. Please, stop the spin and post your thoughts clearly. No one likes flip flopping, you seem to want to argue against your very own thoughts. You can do that elsewhere and without me.

IMO, 9:30 = Faulty memory..if his intention was to expand the time frame to support a Laci's abduction theory..he could have simply said that she left before he left..however, he said that she was mopping the floor as he was leaving narrowing the window of time for Laci to have been abducted.

Faulty memory, eh? That's real convenient! Of course, for a guy who loved his wife, he sure put forth a lot of effort into securing his timeline! At any rate, FACT is he was wrong about the leave time and again, your supposition is useless here!

"When we know he arrived there at 12:54??" and how do we know that may I ask? well, it was Scott who provided the receipt that reflects the exact time he reached the Marina..he had nothing to hide regarding the time he arrived at the Marina evidenced by the fact that he kept the Marina receipt and turned it over to the police when requested...

Big deal, his wife that he loved was in peril. He gave the wrong info to LE. Had he known that he had proof of the time, a caring husband concerned about this missing wife and baby would have gone to get the receipt pronto to give LE exact data. Obviously, he didn't care. One could assume that he only provided the receipt to try and show up the police, once he knew they were above his BS stories. FACT is, he gave the wrong time.

[frydaddy]

Again..you need to read the TS.. what do you mean by "he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm"??

1-Scott said he got to his office at 4:30..and arrived at his house at 4:45

Mark Geragos: That's right. I'm sorry. Looking at your notes, it's like you put 4:30, office, then 4:45, home?
Doug Mansfield: Right.

Amy Krigbaum testified that she first saw Scott's truck at 4:45 pm..that confirmed what Scott said..

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then the, what time did you see, or did you see his truck first?
Amie Krigbaum: That was the second time I had come back from the store. So if I, maybe 4:45? Between, yeah, 4:00, if I left to go to the store at, like, 4:30, actually, hold on. I never really had to figure out a time frame before, so I got home at, like, 4:15, unpacked all my stuff, did the fruit, went back to Save-Mart, so probably saw his truck at, like, 4:45 maybe?

2-He called Sharon around 5:15 not at 5:45 as you stated...he took a shower..etc..he listened to his messages immediately before calling Sharon..IMO, he assumed Laci was at her mom's house..he was only there for 30 minutes...

Birgit Fladager: In that phone conversation with Sharon Rocha, did she tell you that she had been thinking about the first telephone calls that occurred on December 24th between her and Scott Peterson?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: Did she tell you that the first call she received from Scott was at 5:15 p.m.?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

Phone records show the first call to Sharon via Scott's cell phone was at 5:45pm. We also know that he made a cell call from the tower at Southfront Rd. in Livermore at 3:52pm. From Livermore to Covena is 50.5 miles when stopping at the warehouse. With all that traffic and pulling a boat no faster than 55mph, there's no reasonable way he dropped off the boat and made that trip in less than an hour and eight minutes. He certainly couldn't have unleashed the dog, dumped the water, ate pizza and milk, took a shower, dressed, started a load of laundry, AND made the trip from Livermore and drop off the boat in an hour and 23 minutes, especially when he thought Laci was running errands and seemed to be pretty blase about coming home to a dark house, an unlocked door, and the dog with the leash on. So, I'll rely on what is fact and on paper and common sense rather than eyewitness testimony. Perhaps if you can explain or post testimony in regards to the 30 minutes between his 5:15 call to Sharon and his 5:45 one, I might conisder it. Right now though, seems to me the witnesses may have been mistaken.

What's your source for this----> "he said he was fishing all day"

EVERS: Well, in a nutshell, Scott told me that he had been fishing all day in the Bay Area. I asked him, well, when is the last time you saw your wife? He said this morning before he left, and that she was getting ready to walk the dog. And she generally walked, she went to the park, and that's where she was going. He said that when he got home, she wasn't there.

If he intended to lie about the time he spent fishing, he would have thrown away the Marina receipt...you cannot have it both ways..he gave the police the receipt that proved what time he arrived at the Marina...he also told the detectives that he arrived at his office at 4:30 pm...according to Scott, he had 3 hours and 36 minutes to fish + drive back to his office...he told Brocchini that he fished for an hour or an hour and a half..he was not sure...!

BROCCHINI: Okay so if you got the, ‘bout 5 minutes to one, you got your boat in, how long you think you stayed in the water?
PETERSON: Ah felt like an hour and a half or so, but like I said, I didn’t have any lunch or anything, but see if I was getting home at 4:30, quarter to, I don’t know an hour an hour and a half I guess , probably be accurate.

FACTS please! What's an hour and a half "feel" like on a boat in the bay? Fact is, marina receipt said 12:54 and he had to launch his boat. His cell call to Laci was at 2:12 and he had to park his boat, get his truck, load his boat and secure it. I'm being generous with "less than an hour", could have been a half hour or 45 minutes. And that is if he actually used his boat during daylight hours. Do you have any facts to support your opinion? Fact is, he estimated wrong to look like he was on the water longer than he was, knowing full well that driving all that way for 30-45 minutes in the water made no sense.

IMO, one can forget to unload something due to a variety of reasons..being distracted..being in a hurry..etc...it is not necessarily due to lack of memory....so your argument is totally flawed...!

LMAO - How can one be distracted when his purpose was to take the umbrellas to the warehouse and he looked right at them and acknowledged looking at them? And when was he in a hurry before he left for fishing? My argument is totally flawed...he forgot to unload them four times! He walked past them in and out of the truck twice and you expect us to believe that my argument is flawed. I'll take my stance on this each and every time, especially when it's you taking the opposite.

According to evidence presented in court, he was at his warehouse for an hour or even less...he did mention to Brocchini and Grogan that he did some work at his warehouse before leaving to the bay...

I stated 1-1.5 hours, an average of 1:15. He left Covena at 10:05, meaning he likely arrived at the warehouse at 10:15. He left the warehouse at around 11:30. FACT is he mentioned nothing about a timeframe he was there initially. I'll leave it up to you to tell us how he made breakneck time from Livermore to Covena coming home, but was Miss Daisy on his way there. Whatever is convenient to your illogical assumptions, I suppose.

Making his own anchor doesn't mean he was trying to save the cost of buying an anchor..some men enjoy making stuff around the house...build a table..paint their own house...make an anchor...repair their driveway...etc...etc..

Some men kill their wives too. Fact is, the homemade anchor served no purpose without a rope attached and Scottie didn't seem to be Mr. Frugal or that handy, to be honest.



Fact? what fact....you need to read the TS..Your posts are good examples of what flawed logic is..!

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the backside. You use supposition and opinion only when it suits you, then want to state the blah, blah trannies when they suit you. Face it, you pick and choose what you want and just figure everyone will jump on board with the Scott is Innocent nonsense. You support a murderer and look rather foolish in doing so...maybe that's all you have? Sad!

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8993012]snipped

I stated 1-1.5 hours, an average of 1:15. He left Covena at 10:05, meaning he likely arrived at the warehouse at 10:15. He left the warehouse at around 11:30. FACT is he mentioned nothing about a timeframe he was there initially. I'll leave it up to you to tell us how he made breakneck time from Livermore to Covena coming home, but was Miss Daisy on his way there. Whatever is convenient to your illogical assumptions, I suppose.


snipped

The trip from Livermore to to Covena is the slowest part of the trip as he had to travel over Altamont Pass (the highest point between the Bay Area and Modesto. Haven't checked the weather for that day, but it's entirely possible it was foggy and that also would have slowed him down. He also had to drive from 580 and 132 - tghe speed limit changes frequently and there are stop signs and it's two lane road most of the way. Scott could not have gone the speeds you think he went without losing control of his trailer or possibly losing the boat. 132 is known as a death route in Modesto.

[TopGunner]

Phone records show the first call to Sharon via Scott's cell phone was at 5:45pm. We also know that he made a cell call from the tower at Southfront Rd. in Livermore at 3:52pm. From Livermore to Covena is 50.5 miles when stopping at the warehouse. With all that traffic and pulling a boat no faster than 55mph, there's no reasonable way he dropped off the boat and made that trip in less than an hour and eight minutes. He certainly couldn't have unleashed the dog, dumped the water, ate pizza and milk, took a shower, dressed, started a load of laundry, AND made the trip from Livermore and drop off the boat in an hour and 23 minutes, especially when he thought Laci was running errands and seemed to be pretty blase about coming home to a dark house, an unlocked door, and the dog with the leash on. So, I'll rely on what is fact and on paper and common sense rather than eyewitness testimony. Perhaps if you can explain or post testimony in regards to the 30 minutes between his 5:15 call to Sharon and his 5:45 one, I might conisder it. Right now though, seems to me the witnesses may have been mistaken.



EVERS: Well, in a nutshell, Scott told me that he had been fishing all day in the Bay Area. I asked him, well, when is the last time you saw your wife? He said this morning before he left, and that she was getting ready to walk the dog. And she generally walked, she went to the park, and that's where she was going. He said that when he got home, she wasn't there.



FACTS please! What's an hour and a half "feel" like on a boat in the bay? Fact is, marina receipt said 12:54 and he had to launch his boat. His cell call to Laci was at 2:12 and he had to park his boat, get his truck, load his boat and secure it. I'm being generous with "less than an hour", could have been a half hour or 45 minutes. And that is if he actually used his boat during daylight hours. Do you have any facts to support your opinion? Fact is, he estimated wrong to look like he was on the water longer than he was, knowing full well that driving all that way for 30-45 minutes in the water made no sense.



LMAO - How can one be distracted when his purpose was to take the umbrellas to the warehouse and he looked right at them and acknowledged looking at them? And when was he in a hurry before he left for fishing? My argument is totally flawed...he forgot to unload them four times! He walked past them in and out of the truck twice and you expect us to believe that my argument is flawed. I'll take my stance on this each and every time, especially when it's you taking the opposite.



I stated 1-1.5 hours, an average of 1:15. He left Covena at 10:05, meaning he likely arrived at the warehouse at 10:15. He left the warehouse at around 11:30. FACT is he mentioned nothing about a timeframe he was there initially. I'll leave it up to you to tell us how he made breakneck time from Livermore to Covena coming home, but was Miss Daisy on his way there. Whatever is convenient to your illogical assumptions, I suppose.



Some men kill their wives too. Fact is, the homemade anchor served no purpose without a rope attached and Scottie didn't seem to be Mr. Frugal or that handy, to be honest.





You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the backside. You use supposition and opinion only when it suits you, then want to state the blah, blah trannies when they suit you. Face it, you pick and choose what you want and just figure everyone will jump on board with the Scott is Innocent nonsense. You support a murderer and look rather foolish in doing so...maybe that's all you have? Sad!

FD, I tried giving you rep points for this post, but evidently I've given you TO many, LOL!!!! :patriot: You said a lot of what I was trying to spit out, but my computer at work is a dog....and it didn't help that my boss was 2 feet away from me. I'm home now, so THANK YOU! I was talking to a friend of mine today. He works with a guy and his son. The son unfortunately has a drug problem, and Dad is in denial. My friend told me today that the son was fired for stealing an expensive item. The son broke down crying and confessed btw. So I asked my friend how his Dad took the news and my friend said "he's in total denial. He's saying "Joe" borrowed the item to use for some work related thing", which is competely untrue, but it's how he copes. It's what he tells himself. He won't/can't admit that his son steals to feed his drug problem. My point is, sometimes I read the posts here and think WTH? They make no sense, go against the facts entirely, and mean absoluetely nothing. They don't shed a shread of doubt on ISP guilt, but now I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't what people NEED to tell themselves. Rather than just accept that he's a killer, they twist these neat little senerios to convince themselves otherwise..believing they're able to convince others as well. Just a thought.

[frydaddy]

[QUOTE=frydaddy;8993012]snipped

I stated 1-1.5 hours, an average of 1:15. He left Covena at 10:05, meaning he likely arrived at the warehouse at 10:15. He left the warehouse at around 11:30. FACT is he mentioned nothing about a timeframe he was there initially. I'll leave it up to you to tell us how he made breakneck time from Livermore to Covena coming home, but was Miss Daisy on his way there. Whatever is convenient to your illogical assumptions, I suppose.


snipped

The trip from Livermore to to Covena is the slowest part of the trip as he had to travel over Altamont Pass (the highest point between the Bay Area and Modesto. Haven't checked the weather for that day, but it's entirely possible it was foggy and that also would have slowed him down. He also had to drive from 580 and 132 - tghe speed limit changes frequently and there are stop signs and it's two lane road most of the way. Scott could not have gone the speeds you think he went without losing control of his trailer or possibly losing the boat. 132 is known as a death route in Modesto.

G'morning Lav! You are absolutely right, I have no idea what the area is like and what delays or potential pitfalls Scott encountered. Having said that, the key for me is consistency with his travel times, based on what we know, the information provided by Scott, and why he may have lied about or withheld info from LE. Unless one is prone to fitting the story around their beliefs, which we know one individual is, you can't have all these times logically align themselves to help Scott. The key is, no matter what times we use, Scott got them ALL wrong. And there's some question to whether or not he took the boat to the bay, based on travel times. When I have more time, I can elaborate.

[frydaddy]

FD, I tried giving you rep points for this post, but evidently I've given you TO many, LOL!!!! :patriot: You said a lot of what I was trying to spit out, but my computer at work is a dog....and it didn't help that my boss was 2 feet away from me. I'm home now, so THANK YOU! I was talking to a friend of mine today. He works with a guy and his son. The son unfortunately has a drug problem, and Dad is in denial. My friend told me today that the son was fired for stealing an expensive item. The son broke down crying and confessed btw. So I asked my friend how his Dad took the news and my friend said "he's in total denial. He's saying "Joe" borrowed the item to use for some work related thing", which is competely untrue, but it's how he copes. It's what he tells himself. He won't/can't admit that his son steals to feed his drug problem. My point is, sometimes I read the posts here and think WTH? They make no sense, go against the facts entirely, and mean absoluetely nothing. They don't shed a shread of doubt on ISP guilt, but now I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't what people NEED to tell themselves. Rather than just accept that he's a killer, they twist these neat little senerios to convince themselves otherwise..believing they're able to convince others as well. Just a thought.

I appreciate the thought, maybe they are trying to hinder favoritism here? LOL

I agree with your thought, denial combined with folks not willing to scrutinize their own beliefs or that they may be wrong usually is the case.

[accordn2me]

<snipped>...... I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't what people NEED to tell themselves. Rather than just accept that he's a killer,....<snipped>Hey TG :seeya:

I need to spread some rep around so I'll do that for you and FD :rose:

First, I want to say.....or ponder....were most of us not in that category of, let me say....ALMOST needing to believe SLP was innocent? I mean, if a beautiful, intelligent person like Laci could fall for and marry a monster like SLP, it could happen to you, or to me, or our best friends, daughters, neighbors....ANY woman we know! That's the horror of this story!

I have a real hard time accepting someone that....to paraphrase TNprofiler, "looks normal, talks normal, acts normal (before the murder) etc." can commit the most horrific betrayal of all time - to kill your wife and unborn child! It's almost to hard to speak, TG! It devastated Laci's family, not to mention the killer's own (innocent) family. (For whatever the Ps knew/know after the murder, I don't believe they had knowledge of it in the planning stage).

When one allows themselves to look at all the circumstantial evidence together, it is allowing a view of hell itself to violate the conscience. For me, it is understandable to a degree, when people refuse to allow this reality to invade their view of life. To do so requires a total tossing away of optimism and cheerful, positive thinking that we are taught should be a part of our everyday lives....you know, the law of attraction and all.

Don't flame me too badly for playing "devil's advocate." :chicken:

[Lili007]

1-That was the police interpretation of his reaction to the question..he didn't respond to the question..IMO, it's more likely than not, he was frustrated that they were focusing on his fishing trip rather than looking for his wife..they were searching his home..asking questions about his fishing trip..etc...AND..

2-According to testimony, in early December he visited websites looking for info about fishing for Striped Bass and Sturgeons so he had plenty to talk about had he wanted to respond to that question.. so IMO, Scott being non-responsive to that particular question doesn't mean he didn't know what to say about the bait or what he was fishing for since he was well informed due to his internet search..



Then told Brocchini.... Then told Grogan?? You need to read the TS...he told them the same thing..he simply went into more details with Grogan most likely because he asked the question..Brocchini didn't ask about the type of fish:

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?
PETERSON: Little bit.I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.
BROCCHINI: Yeah.

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

Mark Geragos: That he primarily went to try out the boat, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And that he drove the boat from the marina toward the island, stayed in the water about an hour, had no problems with the boat, never anchored it, and trolled using the heavier of the two poles, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.




IMO, 9:30 = Faulty memory..if his intention was to expand the time frame to support a Laci's abduction theory..he could have simply said that she left before he left..however, he said that she was mopping the floor as he was leaving narrowing the window of time for Laci to have been abducted..



"When we know he arrived there at 12:54??" and how do we know that may I ask? well, it was Scott who provided the receipt that reflects the exact time he reached the Marina..he had nothing to hide regarding the time he arrived at the Marina evidenced by the fact that he kept the Marina receipt and turned it over to the police when requested...



Again..you need to read the TS.. what do you mean by "he couldn't have arrived there before 5:00pm"??

1-Scott said he got to his office at 4:30..and arrived at his house at 4:45

Mark Geragos: That's right. I'm sorry. Looking at your notes, it's like you put 4:30, office, then 4:45, home?
Doug Mansfield: Right.

Amy Krigbaum testified that she first saw Scott's truck at 4:45 pm..that confirmed what Scott said..

Mark Geragos: Okay. And then the, what time did you see, or did you see his truck first?
Amie Krigbaum: That was the second time I had come back from the store. So if I, maybe 4:45? Between, yeah, 4:00, if I left to go to the store at, like, 4:30, actually, hold on. I never really had to figure out a time frame before, so I got home at, like, 4:15, unpacked all my stuff, did the fruit, went back to Save-Mart, so probably saw his truck at, like, 4:45 maybe?

2-He called Sharon around 5:15 not at 5:45 as you stated...he took a shower..etc..he listened to his messages immediately before calling Sharon..IMO, he assumed Laci was at her mom's house..he was only there for 30 minutes...

Birgit Fladager: In that phone conversation with Sharon Rocha, did she tell you that she had been thinking about the first telephone calls that occurred on December 24th between her and Scott Peterson?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Birgit Fladager: Did she tell you that the first call she received from Scott was at 5:15 p.m.?
Craig Grogan: Yes.



What's your source for this----> "he said he was fishing all day"

If he intended to lie about the time he spent fishing, he would have thrown away the Marina receipt...you cannot have it both ways..he gave the police the receipt that proved what time he arrived at the Marina...he also told the detectives that he arrived at his office at 4:30 pm...according to Scott, he had 3 hours and 36 minutes to fish + drive back to his office...he told Brocchini that he fished for an hour or an hour and a half..he was not sure...!

BROCCHINI: Okay so if you got the, ‘bout 5 minutes to one, you got your boat in, how long you think you stayed in the water?
PETERSON: Ah felt like an hour and a half or so, but like I said, I didn’t have any lunch or anything, but see if I was getting home at 4:30, quarter to, I don’t know an hour an hour and a half I guess , probably be accurate.




IMO, one can forget to unload something due to a variety of reasons..being distracted..being in a hurry..etc...it is not necessarily due to lack of memory....so your argument is totally flawed...!



According to evidence presented in court, he was at his warehouse for an hour or even less...he did mention to Brocchini and Grogan that he did some work at his warehouse before leaving to the bay...



Making his own anchor doesn't mean he was trying to save the cost of buying an anchor..some men enjoy making stuff around the house...build a table..paint their own house...make an anchor...repair their driveway...etc...etc..



Fact? what fact....you need to read the TS..

Your posts are good examples of what flawed logic is..!

according to Scott, he had 3 hours and 36 minutes to fish + drive back to his office...

3 hours and thirty-six minutes... Right. Everyone who goes fishing for sturgeon the day their wife "disappears" would time it to the minute. Of course.

JMO

[Lili007]

Hey TG :seeya:

I need to spread some rep around so I'll do that for you and FD :rose:

First, I want to say.....or ponder....were most of us not in that category of, let me say....ALMOST needing to believe SLP was innocent? I mean, if a beautiful, intelligent person like Laci could fall for and marry a monster like SLP, it could happen to you, or to me, or our best friends, daughters, neighbors....ANY woman we know! That's the horror of this story!

I have a real hard time accepting someone that....to paraphrase TNprofiler, "looks normal, talks normal, acts normal (before the murder) etc." can commit the most horrific betrayal of all time - to kill your wife and unborn child! It's almost to hard to speak, TG! It devastated Laci's family, not to mention the killer's own (innocent) family. (For whatever the Ps knew/know after the murder, I don't believe they had knowledge of it in the planning stage).

When one allows themselves to look at all the circumstantial evidence together, it is allowing a view of hell itself to violate the conscience. For me, it is understandable to a degree, when people refuse to allow this reality to invade their view of life. To do so requires a total tossing away of optimism and cheerful, positive thinking that we are taught should be a part of our everyday lives....you know, the law of attraction and all.

Don't flame me too badly for playing "devil's advocate." :chicken:

If I may answer your post... Conscience cannot be violated, except by self.

I don't think the Petersons had any knowledge, but they got involved. They are parents protecting. But so are the Rochas, and IMOP - the Rochas are much more entitled, IMO.

Unfortunately, Laci was robbed of her right to be protected and loved and to be a mother. She was robbed of her life, and her child with her.

Her husband decided it, IMO. Even after all this time and all the reading and research, I just cannot understand why, or how someone could do anything like it. It's beyond me.

JMO

[TopGunner]

If I may answer your post... Conscience cannot be violated, except by self.

I don't think the Petersons had any knowledge, but they got involved. They are parents protecting. But so are the Rochas, and IMOP - the Rochas are much more entitled, IMO.

Unfortunately, Laci was robbed of her right to be protected and loved and to be a mother. She was robbed of her life, and her child with her.

Her husband decided it, IMO. Even after all this time and all the reading and research, I just cannot understand why, or how someone could do anything like it. It's beyond me.

JMO

The fact that you can't understand is, in fact, the answer Lili. I'm grateful I can't wrap my mind around what ISP did, or why. I'm grateful I can't understand WHY the P's blamed Sharon, OF ALL PEOPLE for what their own son did. How do you explain "oh, yes, my son killed my daughter-in-law and grandson, so we're responding by attacking, everywhichway, our daughter-in-laws family. We'll get her!" Because you know, that's what they did. That's exactly what they did.......they went after the Rocha's. Keeping Laci's things from them, asking them to WAIT for the burial, putting up and KEEPING up that CCADP website with ISP digs at Sharon.

If I could understand how their minds and hearts work Lili, I'd shoot myself. I would not want to be me. Fortunately, I can't fathom it...and that makes me happy.

:D

[Lili007]

The fact that you can't understand is, in fact, the answer Lili. I'm grateful I can't wrap my mind around what ISP did, or why. I'm grateful I can't understand WHY the P's blamed Sharon, OF ALL PEOPLE for what their own son did. How do you explain "oh, yes, my son killed my daughter-in-law and grandson, so we're responding by attacking, everywhichway, our daughter-in-laws family. We'll get her!" Because you know, that's what they did. That's exactly what they did.......they went after the Rocha's. Keeping Laci's things from them, asking them to WAIT for the burial, putting up and KEEPING up that CCADP website with ISP digs at Sharon.

If I could understand how their minds and hearts work Lili, I'd shoot myself. I would not want to be me. Fortunately, I can't fathom it...and that makes me happy.

:D


I know. It's nice to know I'm not alone in feeling this. It's man's inhumanity to our own that gets me every time. You'd think we were still living in forests and scavaging for food. But it's much sadder. Also a lot more beautiful. People chose their own, most times. The other times don't count.

JMO

[TopGunner]

I know. It's nice to know I'm not alone in feeling this. It's man's inhumanity to our own that gets me every time. You'd think we were still living in forests and scavaging for food. But it's much sadder. Also a lot more beautiful. People chose their own, most times. The other times don't count.

JMO

ITA Lili, it can be a strange and heartbreaking/confusing world...but it can also be beautiful and kind. Our little Acorn :seeya: mentioned the Law of Attraction (of which I am a full time student), and it's so true. Like attracts like. Barflies hang w/barflies and succes w/success, etc.

Just imagine if ISP had the b*lls to simply get a divorce. No doubt Laci would be remarried by now, Conner might be in kindergarden, with another brother or sister at home... It could have been so much different, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN so much different.

If he ever got out, he'd kill again. His family has totally given the green light on this. Supporting someone you love is one thing, supporting what they did is a whole other thing...:no:

[frydaddy]

Lily, good catch on the 3:36 nonsense!

And since you brought it up...that post...that contains the "Scott said he arrived at the warehouse at 4:30", which I overlooked...

46.33 miles from Livermore cell tower that carried the 3:52 phone call to Laci, to 1027 N. Emerald, the warehouse. He did this in 38 minutes pulling a boat? Not in a million...makes me wonder how anyone could believe such a thing! It's why advocates never make any headway, fuzzy math and the expectation to believe the unbelievable!

[TopGunner]

Lily, good catch on the 3:36 nonsense!

And since you brought it up...that post...that contains the "Scott said he arrived at the warehouse at 4:30", which I overlooked...

46.33 miles from Livermore cell tower that carried the 3:52 phone call to Laci, to 1027 N. Emerald, the warehouse. He did this in 38 minutes pulling a boat? Not in a million...makes me wonder how anyone could believe such a thing! It's why advocates never make any headway, fuzzy math and the expectation to believe the unbelievable!

Speaking of fuzzy math and the expectation to believe the unbelieveable. Can someone tell me what "factually" innocent means? Is that innocent with exceptions?

:D :tongue:

[Lavindar]

If I may answer your post... Conscience cannot be violated, except by self.

I don't think the Petersons had any knowledge, but they got involved. They are parents protecting. But so are the Rochas, and IMOP - the Rochas are much more entitled, IMO.

Unfortunately, Laci was robbed of her right to be protected and loved and to be a mother. She was robbed of her life, and her child with her.

Her husband decided it, IMO. Even after all this time and all the reading and research, I just cannot understand why, or how someone could do anything like it. It's beyond me.

JMO

I agree about the betrayal factor. Unfortunately, there are many women out tvhere who want to "save" or "help" men with problems. My sister married a man to "help" him. I worry daily that she might wind up like Laci. On the surface, he appears as normal as can by, but he is not "wired" right. And of course, she is in denial. Laci's first serious boyfriend was verbally abusive to her. There's a good chance that Scott was also - just never in front of anyone.

[Otter]

Hmmph, the last thread that had an advocate. Being insulting because the facts don't support the SII position.

I will say this, I wish and I had hoped against hope that SP did not do this. He did. Irrefutable, and his supporters gave their best.

It didn't work for them. There were no facts for innocense. And more's the pity. :( Conner and Laci were the innocents. Face it, he did it, cruel coward that he is. All my opinion.

[I'mSun]

Speaking of fuzzy math and the expectation to believe the unbelievable. Can someone tell me what "factually" innocent means? Is that innocent with exceptions?

:D :tongue:Factually innocent: "Facts" that the NGs make up or twist so they can prove to themselves that Scott is innocent.

[Lavindar]

Factually innocent: "Facts" that the NGs make up or twist so they can prove to themselves that Scott is innocent. IT's a made up term to sound profound. There is no such thing as "factually innocent." The court proclaimed him guilty and so he cannot be factually innocent - he cannot be innocent in any way shape or form unless Jackie confesses to the crime.

They have imaginations but no facts.

[adnoid]

IT's a made up term to sound profound...

If indeed that is its purpose, it fails. Miserably.

[Wearing A Halo]

IT's a made up term to sound profound. There is no such thing as "factually innocent." The court proclaimed him guilty and so he cannot be factually innocent - he cannot be innocent in any way shape or form unless Jackie confesses to the crime.

They have imaginations but no facts.

ITA!

The NGs like to use misnomers such as "wrongful conviction(s)" and misappropriations such as "junk science" to manipulate and brain wash the minions that form a legion of fools for DRISP.

[accordn2me]

ITA!

The NGs like to use misnomers such as "wrongful conviction(s)" and misappropriations such as "junk science" to manipulate and brain wash the minions that form a legion of fools for DRISP.

How many is a legion? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

How many is a legion? :shrug:
Are we including Marlene in that count? If so, multiply the actual numbers of NGs by 10 for her alone. Does Weight make Right?

[Wearing A Halo]

How many is a legion? :shrug:

You are right accordn2me! A legion is many; a multitude. And yes Marlene is the head-cheese amongst them all (figuratively & literally.)

[Luke Davis]

How many is a legion? :shrug:5,500 or so.

[Wearing A Halo]

5,500 or so.

That is true when talking about military units. :patriot:

[accordn2me]

That is true when talking about military units. :patriot:Well, thanks Luke and Wearing a Halo...I learned something new today! :patriot:

Do y'all think we could even use the term "many" (I guess it's relative) when describing the number of SLP supporters?

[Luke Davis]

Well, thanks Luke and Wearing a Halo...I learned something new today! :patriot:

Do y'all think we could even use the term "many" (I guess it's relative) when describing the number of SLP supporters?I prefer plethora. In common usage, it means more than needed. I think that is the case.

[Wearing A Halo]

Well, thanks Luke and Wearing a Halo...I learned something new today! :patriot:

Do y'all think we could even use the term "many" (I guess it's relative) when describing the number of SLP supporters?

Yes. There are always newbies at CCRRAAPP, err, I mean, CCADP and the COs always give the same lame misinformation and one in particular is touted as the know-it-all, even though it knows nothing and has no credibility. There are many NGs from the very beginning of this ordeal who have their own websites and who have never crossed over from the dark side. They have all the information, the transcripts, the evidence files and they still don't grasp reality. Maybe when DRISP gasps his last breath will they finally understand the evilness of the person they idolize. Then again maybe not since the NGs let themselves be indoctrinatated into falsehoods, foolishness and fantastical theories. There are many, but not one too many.

[CalInsomniac]

First of all, i'd like to apolgize in advance if this post offends anyone. I hope i'm not commiting a faux-pas.

I'm sorry if this makes me seem like a stupid newbie lol. I'm new here. Trying to learn the acronyms, but couldn't find this in the list. I know SLP is Scott Lee Peterson, but some of you use DRISP. Aside from the last two letters, i've been racking my brain to think of what that could be. Some things that come to mind:

Dumb Ruthless Idiot Scott Peterson
Darn Recalcitrant Imbicle S.P.

and my favorite (this is where I got it ftp://ftp.cirr.com/pub/SCRIBE/Stage/Toinsult.Txt)

Dankish Rump-fed Idle-headed Swag-bellied Pignut

[deputydi]

First of all, i'd like to apolgize in advance if this post offends anyone. I hope i'm not commiting a faux-pas.

I'm sorry if this makes me seem like a stupid newbie lol. I'm new here. Trying to learn the acronyms, but couldn't find this in the list. I know SLP is Scott Lee Peterson, but some of you use DRISP. Aside from the last two letters, i've been racking my brain to think of what that could be. Some things that come to mind:

Dumb Ruthless Idiot Scott Peterson
Darn Recalcitrant Imbicle S.P.

and my favorite (this is where I got it ftp://ftp.cirr.com/pub/SCRIBE/Stage/Toinsult.Txt)

Dankish Rump-fed Idle-headed Swag-bellied Pignut
Although all of the above fit, my personal favorite is the last one. LOL.

To answer your question ---- Death Row Inmate Scott Peterson.

[Heyes]

First of all, i'd like to apolgize in advance if this post offends anyone. I hope i'm not commiting a faux-pas.

I'm sorry if this makes me seem like a stupid newbie lol. I'm new here. Trying to learn the acronyms, but couldn't find this in the list. I know SLP is Scott Lee Peterson, but some of you use DRISP. Aside from the last two letters, i've been racking my brain to think of what that could be. Some things that come to mind:

Dumb Ruthless Idiot Scott Peterson
Darn Recalcitrant Imbicle S.P.

and my favorite (this is where I got it ftp://ftp.cirr.com/pub/SCRIBE/Stage/Toinsult.Txt)

Dankish Rump-fed Idle-headed Swag-bellied Pignut

Welcome.
And thanks for the laugh!
That was hysterical!
I'm with Deputydi,
when it comes to peterson, all of those apply! Including the mix and match list!
lol

[attorneywan2be]

[/B]

3 hours and thirty-six minutes... Right. Everyone who goes fishing for sturgeon the day their wife "disappears" would time it to the minute. Of course.

JMO

It's clear you failed to understand the point I was making..and the person who told you "it's a good catch" also failed to understand the point..

Scott provided the Marina Ticket = he provided the exact time he arrived at the Marina

Scott told Mansfield that he returned to his warehouse at 4:30 pm...

Based on those 2 pieces of information that Scott provided.. he only had 3 hours and 36 minutes to: unhook and launch his boat..park his truck..fish..go back to the marina ..back down the trailer..hook up his boat..drive back to his warehouse..a drive that could take 2 hours leaving him with 1 hour and 36 minutes to do everything else...that indicates to me that he had no intention to expand the time he spent fishing as someone suggested, otherwise, he would not have given the police those pieces of information...

[Lavindar]

It's clear you failed to understand the point I was making..and the person who told you "it's a good catch" also failed to understand the point..

Scott provided the Marina Ticket = he provided the exact time he arrived at the Marina

Scott told Mansfield that he returned to his warehouse at 4:30 pm...

Based on those 2 pieces of information that Scott provided.. he only had 3 hours and 36 minutes to: unhook and launch his boat..park his truck..fish..go back to the marina ..back down the trailer..hook up his boat..drive back to his warehouse..a drive that could take 2 hours leaving him with 1 hour and 36 minutes to do everything else...that indicates to me that he had no intention to expand the time he spent fishing as someone suggested, otherwise, he would not have given the police those pieces of information...

Let's see. He got the ticket at 6 minutes before 10pm. He arrived at the warehouse at 4:30. It's a MINIMUM of an hour and a half trip from Modesto to Berkeley (that's NOT towing a boat) and it took him two hours to get there. He would be running into more traffic on his return to Modesto also.

Many people work on Christmas Eve. It's NOT a holiday. Traffic from the Bay Area to the Central valley becomes heavy at about 3 at the latest. utes and that does NOT include time to launch the boat off the trailer or time to put it back on.

Considering Scott's affinity for lying (even when he doesn't have to), taking his word for anything is beyond ridiculousness

[Cadillakin]

It's clear you failed to understand the point I was making..and the person who told you "it's a good catch" also failed to understand the point..

Scott provided the Marina Ticket = he provided the exact time he arrived at the Marina

Scott told Mansfield that he returned to his warehouse at 4:30 pm...

Based on those 2 pieces of information that Scott provided.. he only had 3 hours and 36 minutes to: unhook and launch his boat..park his truck..fish..go back to the marina ..back down the trailer..hook up his boat..drive back to his warehouse..a drive that could take 2 hours leaving him with 1 hour and 36 minutes to do everything else...that indicates to me that he had no intention to expand the time he spent fishing as someone suggested, otherwise, he would not have given the police those pieces of information...There is no evidence that Scott fished on the 24th or that he backed down his trailer, hooked or unhooked his boat.. You base your statement that Scott fished and launched his boat on what specific evidence?

It's not so unbelievable to me that you would believe what Scott says.. that's what you do in these forums.. you defend Scott. But it is unbelievable to me that those who know Scott is guilty would have any faith at all in his statements about fishing or launching his boat. Not one single soul got a glimpse of him that day or can vouch for anything he says after he left his warehouse. A parking ticket and phone towers. That's it. The rest of the story is all based on Scott's telling.

IMO, as it relates to those of us who know Scott is guilty, believing the word of a pathetic liar to find an understanding of the events on Dec 24 is not a particularly sound way to approach it.

[TopGunner]

It's clear you failed to understand the point I was making..and the person who told you "it's a good catch" also failed to understand the point..

Scott provided the Marina Ticket = he provided the exact time he arrived at the Marina

Scott told Mansfield that he returned to his warehouse at 4:30 pm...

Based on those 2 pieces of information that Scott provided.. he only had 3 hours and 36 minutes to: unhook and launch his boat..park his truck..fish..go back to the marina ..back down the trailer..hook up his boat..drive back to his warehouse..a drive that could take 2 hours leaving him with 1 hour and 36 minutes to do everything else...that indicates to me that he had no intention to expand the time he spent fishing as someone suggested, otherwise, he would not have given the police those pieces of information...

He presented the ticket AW2B, for the very same reason he changed his alibi at the last minute: He thought people saw him.

You've never answered me when I've asked several times: Why did he purchase the ticket on the 20th for a "MORNING DECISION" on the 24th?

[Lavindar]

snipped

Why did he purchase the ticket on the 20th for a "MORNING DECISION" on the 24th?

That's the BEST question of all.

[Otter]

Lol, cut her some slack. She signed up with the devil and has to make some comment thinking she's keeping y'all on your toes.

Bless her little heart. :rolleyes:

[attorneywan2be]

There is no evidence that Scott fished on the 24th or that he backed down his trailer, hooked or unhooked his boat.. You base your statement that Scott fished and launched his boat on what specific evidence?

It's not so unbelievable to me that you would believe what Scott says.. that's what you do in these forums.. you defend Scott. But it is unbelievable to me that those who know Scott is guilty would have any faith at all in his statements about fishing or launching his boat. Not one single soul got a glimpse of him that day or can vouch for anything he says after he left his warehouse. A parking ticket and phone towers. That's it. The rest of the story is all based on Scott's telling.

IMO, as it relates to those of us who know Scott is guilty, believing the word of a pathetic liar to find an understanding of the events on Dec 24 is not a particularly sound way to approach it.

The prosecution didn't dispute his input as it pertains to: taking his boat to the Berkeley Marina arriving there at 12:54 pm..launching it..going to Brooks Island..returning to the warehouse at 4:30 pm...in fact, it is considered unchallenged evidence in this case..

[attorneywan2be]

He presented the ticket AW2B, for the very same reason he changed his alibi at the last minute: He thought people saw him.

You've never answered me when I've asked several times: Why did he purchase the ticket on the 20th for a "MORNING DECISION" on the 24th?

He changed his alibi because he thought people saw him???? so why did he buy a fishing license and an OCEAN ENHANCEMENT STAMP on the 20th, that happened before the so called event that compelled him to change his alibi???...was he documenting his alibi where he supposedly planned to dump his wife's body???

As far as I remember, I addressed that question several times..you might not agree with my explanation.. but addressing it I did..

IMO, when he purchased the fishing license on the 20th..he left the valid dates blank because he had no idea what day he was going to go fishing..he was probably thinking to go fishing in the following days..in other words, he had everything ready so he can go at the spur of the moment..with that said, that fishing license was for 2003, so he had an entire year to use it anyway..
There is no evidence that contradicts this theory..!

[Lavindar]

He changed his alibi because he thought people saw him???? so why did he buy a fishing license and an OCEAN ENHANCEMENT STAMP on the 20th, that happened before the so called event that compelled him to change his alibi???...was he documenting his alibi where he supposedly planned to dump his wife's body???

As far as I remember, I addressed that question several times..you might not agree with my explanation.. but addressing it I did..

IMO, when he purchased the fishing license on the 20th..he left the valid dates blank because he had no idea what day he was going to go fishing..he was probably thinking to go fishing in the following days..in other words, he had everything ready so he can go at the spur of the moment..with that said, that fishing license was for 2003, so he had an entire year to use it anyway..
There is no evidence that contradicts this theory..!

I believe the clerk is the one who puts the dates on the license. Do you have a link to Scott putting the dates on it the morning of his last-minute fishing trip? That still does not NEGATE the fact that he bought a license well in advance of his "last minute fishing trip."

[thinkaboutit]

I believe the clerk is the one who puts the dates on the license. Do you have a link to Scott putting the dates on it the morning of his last-minute fishing trip? That still does not NEGATE the fact that he bought a license well in advance of his "last minute fishing trip."

The next question is.....if Scott intended to use golfing as his alibi - why would he need a fishing license? You don't need a fishing license to take a boat out on the bay.

The G's theory, as I understand it is...

He bought a fishing license to dump his wife's body - even though he didn't need it to dump her body - so he would have proof that he was fishing but he intended to tell everyone he was golfing.

He bought a fishing license, rod and lures all of which he paid by credit card and purchased a boat using his real name and address - but he intended to tell everyone he was going golfing and the boat was a secret. Yet he kept the boat at his warehouse where we know Laci visited him on occasion.

Scott was lying when he said fishing was a morning decision because he had purchased this fishing license 4 days earlier because it is absolutely not possible that someone might decide on the 20th that on his day off - 4 days in the future that he might go fishing, then sometime in those few days change his mind and decide he wants to play golf, then on that morning decide he'd go with the original plan and go fishing.

He changed his alibi from golfing to fishing when and because he was spotted at the bay (even though he bought a fishing license 4 days prior to the 24th and wrote or had someone write in the 24th on the license) THEN supposedly told two people (who absolutely could not have been lying or mistaken) that he was golfing that day AFTER he bought that fishing license AND AFTER he paid for parking at the marina and kept the receipt.

I'm sorry.....what was the purpose of this fishing license again??

Now one of you will come back and say the golfing statements were made to Amie Krigbaum and Harvey Kemple because Scott was frazzled and he messed up - but sorry - that doesn't fly - since he told other people in between these supposed statements that he was fishing. Or that Scott is a pathological liar who can't tell the truth - even though his statements to the police were consistent.

Whew - and you criticize the NG's logic??

And let's not forget Wearing A Halo's statement that the Croton watch was found, and as support for this statement provides testimony from an officer that a watch with diamonds was found in Laci's jewelry box. That may convince people not familiar with this case - but those of us who are familiar with it know that there were numerous people who said that Laci had more than one gold watch with diamonds and that Grogan testified that the Croton watch was NOT found.

WE are the ones that spread misinformation?????? Who is trying to mislead people?

Oh yes - and let's also not forget - that the bodies turning up at the bay - absolutely ties Scott to the murder - because burglars and drug addicts don't murder people, perps don't move bodies, cops don't plant evidence and labs don't falsify dna results. And husbands with no history of violence and no criminal history murder their wives and their unborn children with their own bare hands every day.

:shrug:

[Wearing A Halo]

The next question is.....if Scott intended to use golfing as his alibi - why would he need a fishing license? You don't need a fishing license to take a boat out on the bay.

The G's theory, as I understand it is...

He bought a fishing license to dump his wife's body - even though he didn't need it to dump her body - so he would have proof that he was fishing but he intended to tell everyone he was golfing.

He bought a fishing license, rod and lures all of which he paid by credit card and purchased a boat using his real name and address - but he intended to tell everyone he was going golfing and the boat was a secret. Yet he kept the boat at his warehouse where we know Laci visited him on occasion.

Scott was lying when he said fishing was a morning decision because he had purchased this fishing license 4 days earlier because it is absolutely not possible that someone might decide on the 20th that on his day off - 4 days in the future that he might go fishing, then sometime in those few days change his mind and decide he wants to play golf, then on that morning decide he'd go with the original plan and go fishing.

He changed his alibi from golfing to fishing when and because he was spotted at the bay (even though he bought a fishing license 4 days prior to the 24th and wrote or had someone write in the 24th on the license) THEN supposedly told two people (who absolutely could not have been lying or mistaken) that he was golfing that day AFTER he bought that fishing license AND AFTER he paid for parking at the marina and kept the receipt.

I'm sorry.....what was the purpose of this fishing license again??

Now one of you will come back and say the golfing statements were made to Amie Krigbaum and Harvey Kemple because Scott was frazzled and he messed up - but sorry - that doesn't fly - since he told other people in between these supposed statements that he was fishing. Or that Scott is a pathological liar who can't tell the truth - even though his statements to the police were consistent.

Whew - and you criticize the NG's logic??

And let's not forget Wearing A Halo's statement that the Croton watch was found, and as support for this statement provides testimony from an officer that a watch with diamonds was found in Laci's jewelry box. That may convince people not familiar with this case - but those of us who are familiar with it know that there were numerous people who said that Laci had more than one gold watch with diamonds and that Grogan testified that the Croton watch was NOT found.

WE are the ones that spread misinformation?????? Who is trying to mislead people?

Oh yes - and let's also not forget - that the bodies turning up at the bay - absolutely ties Scott to the murder - because burglars and drug addicts don't murder people, perps don't move bodies, cops don't plant evidence and labs don't falsify dna results. And husbands with no history of violence and no criminal history murder their wives and their unborn children with their own bare hands every day.

:shrug:

It is not me who is misleading people. It is DRISP himself who has misled everyone, including you TAI. My reference to the watch was that it was DRISP who mentions jewelry and watch to Grogan and Mansfield and never mentions that it is a Croton watch. Yet, again, DRISP never mentioned to Brocchini that she was wearing any jewelry. Read the transcripts (you know where to find them) and you will find out that he tells Mansfield that he was worried about a the bums in the park because of the jewelry Laci was "wearing", but told Brocchini that they are only a nuisance and they wouldn't hurt Laci. The watch that DRISP himself "described" was found. Furthermore, all of the "witnesses" who "saw" Laci in "black pants, white top and a dog on a leash", left out the diamond jewelry Laci was to be showing off. Laci never wore the Croton watch (or any watch for that matter) and she never walked that morning of 12/24/02. It is very obvious that DRISP keeps filling you up with his BS and you keep drinking the NG kool-aid. After all you aren't misanthropic at all TAI, are you?

[Lavindar]

Now one of you will come back and say the golfing statements were made to Amie Krigbaum and Harvey Kemple because Scott was frazzled and he messed up - but sorry - that doesn't fly - since he told other people in between these supposed statements that he was fishing. Or that Scott is a pathological liar who can't tell the truth - even though his statements to the police were consistent. yes, consistent LIES


Can you provide a link to all the people he allegedly told IN BETWEEN Krigbaum and Kemple. We KNOW it wasn't Krigbaum, because he told her BEFORE the police arrived on the scene. Please show a link to WHEN he told Kemple>
Whew - and you criticize the NG's logic??

And let's not forget Wearing A Halo's statement that the Croton watch was found, and as support for this statement provides testimony from an officer that a watch with diamonds was found in Laci's jewelry box. That may convince people not familiar with this case - but those of us who are familiar with it know that there were numerous people who said that Laci had more than one gold watch with diamonds and that Grogan testified that the Croton watch was NOT found.

WE are the ones that spread misinformation?????? Who is trying to mislead people?

Oh yes - and let's also not forget - that the bodies turning up at the bay - absolutely ties Scott to the murder - because burglars and drug addicts don't murder people, perps don't move bodies, cops don't plant evidence and labs don't falsify dna results. And husbands with no history of violence and no criminal history murder their wives and their unborn children with their own bare hands every day.

Burglars and drug addicts do NOT hold a body until they know EXACTLY where a poor fertilizer salesman went fishing and then go to the trouble to get a car and a boat to travel 90 miles to incriminate him. If you do ANY researdh, you will find that most bodies murdered in the Central Valley wind up in the orchards or the canals - not 90 miles away from where they disappeared. That is what is truly ILLOGICAL. That these criminals would risk holding a body (imagine the smell) until they could FRAME the husband. Do not forget that the Marina was being patrolled from the 25th so anyone attempting to dump TWO bodies would risk a terrible chance of being observed dumping the bodies there. Not to mention that most burglars and drug addicts do not have hte means or the wherewithall to procure the equipment needed, nor the expertise in launching or running a boat to even attempt to dump a body in the Bay. Your theory is extremely flawed in my opinion.

In December of 2006, a list of dead, missing people update was published in the Bee. NOT ONE of them were found in the Bay I seriously doubt that the burglars or alleged drug addicts that you mention even knew HOW TO GET TO THE BERKELEY MARINA.

:shrug:[/QUOTE]

[TopGunner]

yes, consistent LIES


Can you provide a link to all the people he allegedly told IN BETWEEN Krigbaum and Kemple. We KNOW it wasn't Krigbaum, because he told her BEFORE the police arrived on the scene. Please show a link to WHEN he told Kemple>
Whew - and you criticize the NG's logic??

And let's not forget Wearing A Halo's statement that the Croton watch was found, and as support for this statement provides testimony from an officer that a watch with diamonds was found in Laci's jewelry box. That may convince people not familiar with this case - but those of us who are familiar with it know that there were numerous people who said that Laci had more than one gold watch with diamonds and that Grogan testified that the Croton watch was NOT found.

WE are the ones that spread misinformation?????? Who is trying to mislead people?

Burglars and drug addicts do NOT hold a body until they know EXACTLY where a poor fertilizer salesman went fishing and then go to the trouble to get a car and a boat to travel 90 miles to incriminate him. If you do ANY researdh, you will find that most bodies murdered in the Central Valley wind up in the orchards or the canals - not 90 miles away from where they disappeared. That is what is truly ILLOGICAL. That these criminals would risk holding a body (imagine the smell) until they could FRAME the husband. Do not forget that the Marina was being patrolled from the 25th so anyone attempting to dump TWO bodies would risk a terrible chance of being observed dumping the bodies there. Not to mention that most burglars and drug addicts do not have hte means or the wherewithall to procure the equipment needed, nor the expertise in launching or running a boat to even attempt to dump a body in the Bay. Your theory is extremely flawed in my opinion.

In December of 2006, a list of dead, missing people update was published in the Bee. NOT ONE of them were found in the Bay I seriously doubt that the burglars or alleged drug addicts that you mention even knew HOW TO GET TO THE BERKELEY MARINA.

:shrug:


La de da, hiya Lav!

The last night anyone saw Laci alive, when they were at Amy's salon, ISP said he was going GOLFING. He didn't say, GOLFING OR FISHING. He said GOLFING. He never opened the FRESH water luers, never assembled the rod and reel...hmmm, yup, he's innocent.:read:

[deputydi]

<snip>Burglars and drug addicts do NOT hold a body until they know EXACTLY where a poor fertilizer salesman went fishing and then go to the trouble to get a car and a boat to travel 90 miles to incriminate him. If you do ANY researdh, you will find that most bodies murdered in the Central Valley wind up in the orchards or the canals - not 90 miles away from where they disappeared. That is what is truly ILLOGICAL. That these criminals would risk holding a body (imagine the smell) until they could FRAME the husband. Do not forget that the Marina was being patrolled from the 25th so anyone attempting to dump TWO bodies would risk a terrible chance of being observed dumping the bodies there. Not to mention that most burglars and drug addicts do not have hte means or the wherewithall to procure the equipment needed, nor the expertise in launching or running a boat to even attempt to dump a body in the Bay. Your theory is extremely flawed in my opinion.<snip:shrug:

You are absolutely, positively, exactly correct. And, in my mind, this is what makes it almost impossible for anyone other than Scott to have murdered Laci and Conner.

Also -- to believe that the cops somehow planted evidence you would first have to believe that they found Laci's body, held it somewhere for a couple of months, then at some point dumped it in the bay just to frame her husband. Why on earth would they do that? Sure, Furman may or may not have planted a glove but this requires way more planning and deception than just dropping a glove in some bushes.

Good Grief! :rolleyes:

[I'mSun]

The next question is.....if Scott intended to use golfing as his alibi - why would he need a fishing license?

Why did he tell people he was playing golf, when he was actually at the Berkeley Marina?

He bought a fishing license to dump his wife's body

This is true.

He changed his alibi from golfing to fishing when and because he was spotted at the bay (even though he bought a fishing license 4 days prior to the 24th and wrote or had someone write in the 24th on the license) THEN supposedly told two people (who absolutely could not have been lying or mistaken) that he was golfing that day AFTER he bought that fishing license AND AFTER he paid for parking at the marina and kept the receipt. Yes. This is what he did. Don't forget, on December 23rd, he also to Amy he had plans to play golf on the 24th. So why did he have the fishing license for that same day?

Now one of you will come back and say *snipped* that Scott is a pathological liar who can't tell the truth - even though his statements to the police were consistent. You just said it yourself - Scott is a liar and was consistent with his lies to the police.


WE are the ones that spread misinformation?????? Yep

[I'mSun]

La de da, hiya Lav!

The last night anyone saw Laci alive, when they were at Amy's salon, ISP said he was going GOLFING. He didn't say, GOLFING OR FISHING. He said GOLFING. He never opened the FRESH water luers, never assembled the rod and reel...hmmm, yup, he's innocent.:read:LMAO!!! This reminds me of Morri's logic: He never opened the lures, therefore he is innocent!

[I'mSun]

Burglars and drug addicts do NOT hold a body until they know EXACTLY where a poor fertilizer salesman went fishing and then go to the trouble to get a car and a boat to travel 90 miles to incriminate him. If you do ANY researdh, you will find that most bodies murdered in the Central Valley wind up in the orchards or the canals - not 90 miles away from where they disappeared. That is what is truly ILLOGICAL. That these criminals would risk holding a body (imagine the smell) until they could FRAME the husband. Do not forget that the Marina was being patrolled from the 25th so anyone attempting to dump TWO bodies would risk a terrible chance of being observed dumping the bodies there. Not to mention that most burglars and drug addicts do not have hte means or the wherewithall to procure the equipment needed, nor the expertise in launching or running a boat to even attempt to dump a body in the Bay. Your theory is extremely flawed in my opinion.

:shrug:Well said, Lavindar, and you are correct. TAI's theory is flawed and makes no sense whatsoever. :beer:

[Lavindar]

Well said, Lavindar, and you are correct. TAI's theory is flawed and makes no sense whatsoever. :beer:

I just thought of another one. If it is attempted to say that the bodies were dumped on the shoreline, not in the Bay, anyone doing so would have to park a car and WALK CARRYING THE BODIES to the shoreline to deposit them. In a dog walking area, they would be seen. To attempt to do it after dark is folly - rough terrain. You can't just drive up to the shoreline and throw the bodies out the van door.

[Wearing A Halo]

I just thought of another one. If it is attempted to say that the bodies were dumped on the shoreline, not in the Bay, anyone doing so would have to park a car and WALK CARRYING THE BODIES to the shoreline to deposit them. In a dog walking area, they would be seen. To attempt to do it after dark is folly - rough terrain. You can't just drive up to the shoreline and throw the bodies out the van door.

ITA Lavindar.

What gets my ire is the malicious attack by Marlene on Dr. Cheng's expertise and honesty. Marlene's only hope to save DRISP was to totally make up that Dr. Cheng didn't know what he was talking about. Marlene wanted so desperately to find any evidence that Conner was planted and when she couldn't find any, she set out to prove that Conner could not have washed ashore. That was a backhanded way to prove a "dumping/planting" and she wasn't successful at that either. The NGs believe everything that Marlene throws up to them.

[TopGunner]

ITA Lavindar.

What gets my ire is the malicious attack by Marlene on Dr. Cheng's expertise and honesty. Marlene's only hope to save DRISP was to totally make up that Dr. Cheng didn't know what he was talking about. Marlene wanted so desperately to find any evidence that Conner was planted and when she couldn't find any, she set out to prove that Conner could not have washed ashore. That was a backhanded way to prove a "dumping/planting" and she wasn't successful at that either. The NGs believe everything that Marlene throws up to them.

Hey there Halo!

I think Marlene's professional credentials speak for themselves. How hilarious to just wake up one day, jump on a machine, and vote yourself an expert, LOL! Marlene or Cheng, Cheng or Marlene....? Maybe we should ask Kermit ...! :tongue:

[TopGunner]

He changed his alibi because he thought people saw him???? so why did he buy a fishing license and an OCEAN ENHANCEMENT STAMP on the 20th, that happened before the so called event that compelled him to change his alibi???...was he documenting his alibi where he supposedly planned to dump his wife's body???

As far as I remember, I addressed that question several times..you might not agree with my explanation.. but addressing it I did..

IMO, when he purchased the fishing license on the 20th..he left the valid dates blank because he had no idea what day he was going to go fishing..he was probably thinking to go fishing in the following days..in other words, he had everything ready so he can go at the spur of the moment..with that said, that fishing license was for 2003, so he had an entire year to use it anyway..
There is no evidence that contradicts this theory..!

He purchased the fishing licence on the 20th because he MIGHT go fishing someday? What a proactive little devil he is. He even knew on the 9th that he would lose his wife and it'd be his first holiday WITHOUT her. Geez, what a gifted little murderer he is.:flamemad:

[Lavindar]

He purchased the fishing licence on the 20th because he MIGHT go fishing someday? What a proactive little devil he is. He even knew on the 9th that he would lose his wife and it'd be his first holiday WITHOUT her. Geez, what a gifted little murderer he is.:flamemad:


If you read Shawn Sibley's testimony, you will see that he told her in OCTOBER at the conference that he had lost his soul mate. That man can't keep track of anyone!!!



HARRIS: And so as that would occur, did the conversation kind of switch to something about relationships?

SIBLEY: Yeah. I was talking about how my fiancé is my soul mate. And Scott told me that, he said that at one point in his life he had found a woman that he thought was his soul mate, but then he lost her. And he asked me, did that mean I thought that this was going to mean that he was going the to spend the rest of his life alone. I told him, I said, No, I don't believe that. I believe there is a thousand people out there in this world who can be your soul mate, but because of circumstances, or whatever, you are not going to meet all thousand of those people. And, you know, you may, they may already have someone else, or whatever. But, you know,

HARRIS: You can always tell when the judge turns his head, I need to ask another question. You are having this conversation talking about soul mates. Is it, the defendant that says he's lost his soul mate?

SIBLEY: Yes.

HARRIS: Then you were explaining the rest of that conversation.

SIBLEY: Yes.

HARRIS: When you have this soul mate conversation, does he indicate what he's attempting to do about finding another soul mate?

SIBLEY: He was talking about, he said that he had dated, had a lot of one-night-stands, and he was sick of having one-night-stands. And he was sick of, seemed like all the women he met were just these bimbos with no brains. And he was really interested in finding someone who had intelligence, and didn't I have any single friends, I could hook him up with. That,

HARRIS: Stop you there. So during that conversation, he asked you if you have any single friends?

SIBLEY: Yes.

HARRIS: Does he indicate why he wanted to know if you have single friends?

SIBLEY: Because he hasn't been successful in finding anyone for himself. And he wants to have a long-term relationship with someone, is what he was saying.

That testimony was on June 30.

I guess he didn't consider his marriage a long-term relationship. It's pretty obvious that Scott NEVER considered himself a married man.

[Otter]

Yikes! You all are good! And off they go with their tails between their legs. Stating the facts from sworn testimony as opposed to making up outlandish, IMO, theories to help the devil. At least the few advocates on this board, or in the entire world don't blame Mrs. Rocha. Not anymore they did at one time, but they were shamed. As well they should be.

Don't want to be them when judgment comes. There will be no appeals. :seeya:

[attorneywan2be]

I believe the clerk is the one who puts the dates on the license. Do you have a link to Scott putting the dates on it the morning of his last-minute fishing trip? That still does not NEGATE the fact that he bought a license well in advance of his "last minute fishing trip."


What is so difficult to understand about someone getting everything ready to go fishing so he can do it at the spur of the moment...!!

[attorneywan2be]

He purchased the fishing licence on the 20th because he MIGHT go fishing someday? What a proactive little devil he is. He even knew on the 9th that he would lose his wife and it'd be his first holiday WITHOUT her. Geez, what a gifted little murderer he is.:flamemad:

TopGunner..you have yet to address my question:

You stated that when Scott realized that someone saw him at the Berkeley Marina on the 24th.. he changed his planned alibi from golfing to fishing...

My Question: why then did he buy a fishing license and an ocean enhancement stamp on the 20th?

[accordn2me]

TopGunner..you have yet to address my question:

You stated that when Scott realized that someone saw him at the Berkeley Marina on the 24th.. he changed his planned alibi from golfing to fishing...

My Question: why then did he buy a fishing license and an ocean enhancement stamp on the 20th?IMO, he bought the license and ocean enhancement stamp because he planned on dumping Laci/Conner out further in the bay (nearer the ocean) and believed he may need those two things in case he was stopped during the deed.

Possibly, SLP was intending for those who did not know he owned a boat (i.e. Laci's family, his family, neighbors......etc.) to believe he was in/near Modesto playing golf on Christmas Eve. IMO, he made a "morning decision" that it would be better if everyone believed he was 90 miles away from where Laci was last seen alive...and he believed he had done such a good job of disposing of her....that she would remain submerged until she washed out to sea.....that he decided to provide the fishing alibi instead. I truly believe the ALIBI was the "morning decision." In retrospect....but SLP had noway of knowing....noone was going to come forward to say they saw him at the marina....but how bad would it have looked if they had and he had taken the chance with the golfing alibi.....much riskier than the one he went with.

[I'mSun]

What is so difficult to understand about someone getting everything ready to go fishing so he can do it at the spur of the moment...!!What is difficult to understand is why a grown man couldn't remember what he did all day. To some, he said he was playing golf, and to others, he said he was fishing. Then he changed the fishing story to just wanting to get the boat in the water.

[I'mSun]

My Question: why then did he buy a fishing license and an ocean enhancement stamp on the 20th?I always thought that interesting. Being the "avid fisherman" some claim Scott was, he didn't even know the ocean enhancement stamp wasn't needed. Then, too, he had the wrong lures so... :shrug:

[Wearing A Halo]

What is so difficult to understand about someone getting everything ready to go fishing so he can do it at the spur of the moment...!!

What do you mean by "spur of the moment"? What is your understanding of "spur of the moment"? What is your definition of "spur of the moment"?

[I'mSun]

What do you mean by "spur of the moment"? What is your understanding of "spur of the moment"? What is your definition of "spur of the moment"?This really made me laugh! :biggrin:

[adnoid]

The prosecution didn't dispute his input as it pertains to: taking his boat to the Berkeley Marina arriving there at 12:54 pm..launching it..going to Brooks Island..returning to the warehouse at 4:30 pm...in fact, it is considered unchallenged evidence in this case..

No, it's not. You are wrong. It's argument. Scott never testified to being on the water and no witnesses testified that they saw him on the water. Anyone who wants to be an attorney would need to understand the fundamental difference between argument and evidence if they want to be taken seriously. It's OK for forum posts, though, because nobody takes those seriously.

[adnoid]

yes, consistent LIES...

Great catch!

[adnoid]

...He didn't say, GOLFING OR FISHING. He said GOLFING...

Great catch!

[adnoid]

...Also -- to believe that the cops somehow planted evidence you would first have to believe that they found Laci's body, held it somewhere for a couple of months, then at some point dumped it in the bay just to frame her husband...

Great catch!

[adnoid]

Why did he tell people he was playing golf, when he was actually at the Berkeley Marina?...

Great catch!

[adnoid]

I just thought of another one. If it is attempted to say that the bodies were dumped on the shoreline, not in the Bay, anyone doing so would have to park a car and WALK CARRYING THE BODIES to the shoreline to deposit them. In a dog walking area, they would be seen. To attempt to do it after dark is folly - rough terrain. You can't just drive up to the shoreline and throw the bodies out the van door.

Great catch!

[adnoid]

...Marlene wanted so desperately to find any evidence that Conner was planted and when she couldn't find any, she set out to prove that Conner could not have washed ashore...

Great catch! Also, her test (based on her conditions) showed that Conner certainly COULD have ended up EXACTLY where he was found (NOT PLACED) on the shore.

[adnoid]

...At least the few advocates on this board, or in the entire world don't blame Mrs. Rocha...

Oh yes they do. You've got to know where to look, but they blame Laci's family big time. It's just sick.

[adnoid]

IMO, he bought the license and ocean enhancement stamp because he planned on dumping Laci/Conner out further in the bay (nearer the ocean) and believed he may need those two things in case he was stopped during the deed...

Great catch!

[I'mSun]

No, it's not. You are wrong. It's argument. Scott never testified to being on the water and no witnesses testified that they saw him on the water. Anyone who wants to be an attorney would need to understand the fundamental difference between argument and evidence if they want to be taken seriously. It's OK for forum posts, though, because nobody takes those seriously.
LMAO!!! Good point. :beer:

[Lavindar]

What is so difficult to understand about someone getting everything ready to go fishing so he can do it at the spur of the moment...!!


He buys a fishing licenst on December 20th. The clerk mistakenly sold him a licence with 2003 on it. Fishing licenses don't last forever. If he bought it on December 20, he would have to buy it with the intention of using it before the end of the year. I have friends who are avid fishermen. Most fishermen who go fishing on the "spur of the moment" buy their licenses the day before or the morning they go fishing - not four days earlier, and then put a date on it that he knows he would be working and taking his wife to the doctor as one of the days he is going.

[Lavindar]

He changed his alibi because he thought people saw him???? so why did he buy a fishing license and an OCEAN ENHANCEMENT STAMP on the 20th, that happened before the so called event that compelled him to change his alibi???...was he documenting his alibi where he supposedly planned to dump his wife's body???

As far as I remember, I addressed that question several times..you might not agree with my explanation.. but addressing it I did..

IMO, when he purchased the fishing license on the 20th..he left the valid dates blank because he had no idea what day he was going to go fishing..he was probably thinking to go fishing in the following days..in other words, he had everything ready so he can go at the spur of the moment..with that said, that fishing license was for 2003, so he had an entire year to use it anyway..
There is no evidence that contradicts this theory..!

Dan you please post the testimony where Scott filled in the dates. Most places require that the clerk fill it in or so I am told by other fishing advocates. And please explain why he put in the 23rd and the 24th on it when he KNEW he would be busy on the 23rd. Why not the 24th and 25th? If it was a spur of the moment trip, why predate it by one day?

Why not just get a one day license.

As for the Ocean enhancement, when he bought the license, I don't think he was positive WHERE he was going to dump the body. HE could also have thought he needed it for the Bay which is saltwater. There are one-day fishing licenses. It would sure make more sense for him to get a one-day license rather than a two day one.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/fishing/fishdescrip.html

[attorneywan2be]

No, it's not. You are wrong. It's argument. Scott never testified to being on the water and no witnesses testified that they saw him on the water. Anyone who wants to be an attorney would need to understand the fundamental difference between argument and evidence if they want to be taken seriously. It's OK for forum posts, though, because nobody takes those seriously.

<*R>

Nope..you are wrong..it is evidence, his interview with Brocchini was admitted into evidence..Brocchini testified that his description of the Island was correct..the prosecution based their entire case including the trajectory done by Dr. Cheng on that very fact---> that he launched his boat at Berkeley Marina and headed to Brooks Island..his statement to Brocchini on that very point was not disputed by the prosecution...so it is an UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE..

[Lavindar]

<*R>

Nope..you are wrong..it is evidence, his interview with Brocchini was admitted into evidence..Brocchini testified that his description of the Island was correct..the prosecution based their entire case including the trajectory done by Dr. Cheng on that very fact---> that he launched his boat at Berkeley Marina and headed to Brooks Island..his statement to Brocchini on that very point was not disputed by the prosecution...so it is an UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE..


Again the words of the pathological liar are taken as the truth. The description of Brooks Island was correct, but there is nothing that proves Scott was even there that day.

BTW where is that testimony that SCOTT filled in the dates on the fishing license, and not the clerk?

[TopGunner]

<*R>
Nope..you are wrong..it is evidence, his interview with Brocchini was admitted into evidence..Brocchini testified that his description of the Island was correct..the prosecution based their entire case including the trajectory done by Dr. Cheng on that very fact---> that he launched his boat at Berkeley Marina and headed to Brooks Island..his statement to Brocchini on that very point was not disputed by the prosecution...so it is an UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE..

AW2B, it is so NOT undisputed evidence, geez ....! His INTERVIEW was admitted into evidence, his "story" isn't evidence, it's just his "story". I can describe a gazillion places I've never been to, and even more that I've been to in the past - weeks, months, years.......it was "proof" of zip, zero, NADA!:no:

[TopGunner]

Again the words of the pathological liar are taken as the truth. The description of Brooks Island was correct, but there is nothing that proves Scott was even there that day.

BTW where is that testimony that SCOTT filled in the dates on the fishing license, and not the clerk?

Err...Lav, you're not gonna get that testimony link, you know that don't you?
:seeya: :biggrin:

[Otter]

Don't forget a.... good wine..........! ....Otter! A nice Cab.. or a Chardonnay.........!
Heck, even a :beer: would be nice... driving home from the Berkeley Marina! :biggrin:

Not chard ...! Remember ...! Milk ...! And leftover pizza ...! He was "damn hungry" ...!

Oh I bet he misses pizza, too bad he didn't divorce Laci. He could still call in an order. Oh well, that's a sociopath...!

How awful Laci and Conner are dead at his evil hands. :flamemad:

[Lavindar]

Not chard ...! Remember ...! Milk ...! And leftover pizza ...! He was "damn hungry" ...!

Oh I bet he misses pizza, too bad he didn't divorce Laci. He could still call in an order. Oh well, that's a sociopath...!

How awful Laci and Conner are dead at his evil hands. :flamemad:


If Scott was sooooo hungry, why didn't he stop at the tons of fast food places just off the freeway on his way home? Did he need to get rid of the pizza or something?

[I'mSun]

If Scott was sooooo hungry, why didn't he stop at the tons of fast food places just off the freeway on his way home? Did he need to get rid of the pizza or something?What size pizza was it? Do you know how much was left over from the night before?

[I'mSun]

Not chard ...! Remember ...! Milk ...! And leftover pizza ...! He was "damn hungry" ...!

Oh I bet he misses pizza, too bad he didn't divorce Laci. He could still call in an order. Oh well, that's a sociopath...!

How awful Laci and Conner are dead at his evil hands. :flamemad:

I'll bet he misses pizza, too...! But you have to remember, he does get all of his meals delivered....!!

It will forever make me sad to know he killed Laci and Conner. I wonder if he has any remorse, other than the fact he got caught?

[cookiewench]

He changed his alibi because he thought people saw him???? so why did he buy a fishing license and an OCEAN ENHANCEMENT STAMP on the 20th, that happened before the so called event that compelled him to change his alibi???...was he documenting his alibi where he supposedly planned to dump his wife's body???

As far as I remember, I addressed that question several times..you might not agree with my explanation.. but addressing it I did..

IMO, when he purchased the fishing license on the 20th..he left the valid dates blank because he had no idea what day he was going to go fishing..he was probably thinking to go fishing in the following days..in other words, he had everything ready so he can go at the spur of the moment..with that said, that fishing license was for 2003, so he had an entire year to use it anyway..
There is no evidence that contradicts this theory..!

He did not leave the dates blank.

What is the big deal here? Scott obviously changed his mind, and his story, quite often. He kept changing his plans.

So he got a fishing license. Maybe (probably) be wanted to be on the bay by 5:00am, be home by 8:00am, and then go fishing. He needed a license in case he was seen.


As for Brooks Island - he could have been there any time. He could have seen photos of it on the internet. I've never been to the bay, but I can give descriptions of Brooks Island.

[Lili007]

There are so many people here who know so much about Laci's case that it's almost scary. But in another sense, I like to think of this discussion as a memorial to Laci and Conner, and their families.

I have no famillial connection with anyone involved, not even a passing acquaintanship - far from it.

My only connection is that when Laci "disappeared" it touched me in a way I never looked for, or expected. I am a daughter of a Mother who loves me very much and I guess that might have had something to do with it. I cannot imagine, EVER having my Mother cope with that kind of loss. My Father would lose it altogether! LOL

But it's not funny at all.

A young, vibrant, life-loving woman was killed for no reason that makes any sense to me, and maybe (hopefully!) most people.

And for what?

A great coat, a rose, a bottle of champagne, pretending to be a swinging bachelor, a starry sky display and a Come With Me CD - was it really worth the life of a woman and her unborn child?

I cannot write 'LOSER' forever, so I'll just stop now.

Just My Opinion

[Lili007]

Before patronizing people...you need to educate yourself about this case and read the TS...so you can debate in a meaningful manner...!

Nope..you are wrong..it is evidence, his interview with Brocchini was admitted into evidence..Brocchini testified that his description of the Island was correct..the prosecution based their entire case including the trajectory done by Dr. Cheng on that very fact---> that he launched his boat at Berkeley Marina and headed to Brooks Island..his statement to Brocchini on that very point was not disputed by the prosecution...so it is an UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE..

A2B... I'm sorry to point out that you are wrong here, because adnoid has been there from the start, and he doesn't need "educating". If you had any knowledge of Laci's case, you would know that to be true.

As for myself? I took a special interest in Laci's case in it for my own reasons. Want to dispute that? Fine. I'm here. Court transcripts, media interviews, bring them all to the table so we can discuss and debate. In My Opinion, Scott Peterson is guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn child. I cannot imagine a worse crime because it was carried out by her husband on his wife and her infant child. That's just so wrong, so hurtful.

I just had to add this as I started crying - not that I expect you or anyone else to care about that. But I just wanted to say that life is precious, and children are the most precious of all.

What Peterson did was, IMO, inexcusable. I think it's poetic justice that when he gets to look out of his cell or compound, he sees the bay where he dumped his wife and child, IMO.

Kind regards.

[Lavindar]

The ONLY way that anyone can claim Scott's fishing trip was a spur of the moment is if He and ONLY HE filled in the dates on the fishing license. Still it makes you wonder why he would post date it to the 23rd.

If Scott did NOT fill in the dates, as I strongly suspect - he would have had to TELL THE CLERK on the 20th that he was planning to use it on the 23rd and 24th. Which PROVES premeditation.

[Trixy]

There are so many people here who know so much about Laci's case that it's almost scary. But in another sense, I like to think of this discussion as a memorial to Laci and Conner, and their families.

I have no famillial connection with anyone involved, not even a passing acquaintanship - far from it.

My only connection is that when Laci "disappeared" it touched me in a way I never looked for, or expected. I am a daughter of a Mother who loves me very much and I guess that might have had something to do with it. I cannot imagine, EVER having my Mother cope with that kind of loss. My Father would lose it altogether! LOL

But it's not funny at all.

A young, vibrant, life-loving woman was killed for no reason that makes any sense to me, and maybe (hopefully!) most people.

And for what?

A great coat, a rose, a bottle of champagne, pretending to be a swinging bachelor, a starry sky display and a Come With Me CD - was it really worth the life of a woman and her unborn child?

I cannot write 'LOSER' forever, so I'll just stop now.

Just My Opinion

You can write "murderer" in replacement or my favorite "sociopath".

:seeya:

[TopGunner]

A2B... I'm sorry to point out that you are wrong here, because adnoid has been there from the start, and he doesn't need "educating". If you had any knowledge of Laci's case, you would know that to be true.

As for myself? I took a special interest in Laci's case in it for my own reasons. Want to dispute that? Fine. I'm here. Court transcripts, media interviews, bring them all to the table so we can discuss and debate. In My Opinion, Scott Peterson is guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn child. I cannot imagine a worse crime because it was carried out by her husband on his wife and her infant child. That's just so wrong, so hurtful.

I just had to add this as I started crying - not that I expect you or anyone else to care about that. But I just wanted to say that life is precious, and children are the most precious of all.

What Peterson did was, IMO, inexcusable. I think it's poetic justice that when he gets to look out of his cell or compound, he sees the bay where he dumped his wife and child, IMO.

Kind regards.

Excellent Post Lili, *standing ovation*, what you've said here, is what it's always been about, for me.:patriot: :rose:

[Lili007]

Excellent Post Lili, *standing ovation*, what you've said here, is what it's always been about, for me.:patriot: :rose:

Me too, TopGunner. It's about Laci and Conner :rose: not Scott. He only cared for one thing and one person - himself.

JMO

[Wudge]

<*R>

Nope..you are wrong..it is evidence, his interview with Brocchini was admitted into evidence..Brocchini testified that his description of the Island was correct..the prosecution based their entire case including the trajectory done by Dr. Cheng on that very fact---> that he launched his boat at Berkeley Marina and headed to Brooks Island..his statement to Brocchini on that very point was not disputed by the prosecution...so it is an UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE..


A total lack of evidence to support a theory doesn't matter. Two-trip supporters represent a prime example of the Nancy Grace rollover into the Twi-light Zone effect.

Larry King Live
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.


[and people wonder why I advocate for professional jurors]

[Lavindar]

A total lack of evidence to support a theory doesn't matter. Two-trip supporters represent a prime example of the Nancy Grace rollover into the Twi-light Zone effect.

Larry King Live
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.


[and people wonder why I advocate for professional jurors]

Wudge, I am ashamed of you. You are quoted something said on a TALK show to prove what point? YOu should know better than that.

Maybe you can show me IN THE TESTIMONY where it says that Scott filled in the dates on his fishing license. If not, then he DID PREMEDITATE this murder because he would have given those dates to an independent party.

[enlightenme]

A total lack of evidence to support a theory doesn't matter. Two-trip supporters represent a prime example of the Nancy Grace rollover into the Twi-light Zone effect.

Larry King Live
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.


[and people wonder why I advocate for professional jurors]

People wonder a lot of things about you Wudge, IMO.
Please, flesh out this "professional jurors" system. How many would be needed? What would the qualifications be? How could you be sure that none have been tainted or bought off or fair? It seems a system that could be ripe for corruption, IMO.

[Wudge]

People wonder a lot of things about you Wudge, IMO.
Please, flesh out this "professional jurors" system. How many would be needed? What would the qualifications be? How could you be sure that none have been tainted or bought off or fair? It seems a system that could be ripe for corruption, IMO.




Twelve jurors, no change.

Regarding corruption, high-profile jury pools suffer that now (stealth jurors).

In lieu of professional jurors, I would accept a process whereby all juror candidates would be required to pass (80%, "C" grade or better) an applied logic test prior to being given a seat for voir dire.

[I'mSun]

In lieu of professional jurors, I would accept a process whereby all juror candidates would be required to pass (80%, "C" grade or better) an applied logic test prior to being given a seat for voir dire.
I think that would be considered discrimination. And, since the majority of criminals are not very bright, how would they have a jury of their peers?

[caphill]

Twelve jurors, no change.

Regarding corruption, high-profile jury pools suffer that now (stealth jurors).

In lieu of professional jurors, I would accept a process whereby all juror candidates would be required to pass (80%, "C" grade or better) an applied logic test prior to being given a seat for voir dire.


I agree! LOL. That would certainly considerably narrow the jury pool. A better idea, IMO, would be a gag on the media regarding any pending cases until they are heard in court.

[TopGunner]

I agree! LOL. That would certainly considerably narrow the jury pool. A better idea, IMO, would be a gag on the media regarding any pending cases until they are heard in court.

Although I don't agree with a "professional" jury as that opens a whole other can of worms, in this particular case, it wouldn't have mattered. Toss in a professional jury, take out the media, and he still would have been found guilty, for the simple reason that he is. IMO of course.

:D

[Lavindar]

Although I don't agree with a "professional" jury as that opens a whole other can of worms, in this particular case, it wouldn't have mattered. Toss in a professional jury, take out the media, and he still would have been found guilty, for the simple reason that he is. IMO of course.

:D

If we had a professional jury, would we even need lawyers or a judge?

[TopGunner]

If we had a professional jury, would we even need lawyers or a judge?

Ummm, ask Wudge. He's the one redesigning the whole system (since the regular one didn't work, LOL!).
:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

Ummm, ask Wudge. He's the one redesigning the whole system (since the regular one didn't work, LOL!).
:biggrin: I would agree that the regular one doesn't work in celebrity cases (OJ, Michael Jackson & Phil Spectre) but who is to say that a professisonal jury would not also be "blinded by the light"

[Otter]

Hmmph, been there done that with Wudge. This is what she wants:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/317467

Four pages or so of nonsense ... no wonder she's on ignore based on the intellectual level. She just tries to show smarts by using "big words". :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, that pesky "jury of your peers". But Wudge knows all. Easy fix, not a problem, except changing the Constitution.

[cookiewench]

A total lack of evidence to support a theory doesn't matter. Two-trip supporters represent a prime example of the Nancy Grace rollover into the Twi-light Zone effect.

Larry King Live
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.


[and people wonder why I advocate for professional jurors]

So Nancy Grace wasn't familiar with that particular marina or that particular area of the bay.

What's that supposed to mean? She wasn't a juror.

[enlightenme]

Twelve jurors, no change.

Regarding corruption, high-profile jury pools suffer that now (stealth jurors).

In lieu of professional jurors, I would accept a process whereby all juror candidates would be required to pass (80%, "C" grade or better) an applied logic test prior to being given a seat for voir dire.

12 jurors, well duh! No, I mean REALLY discuss how professional jurors would work. You would need alternates. Would they only be for criminal court case or specifically murder cases or DP cases? How many would you need for each courthouse? Would they move around from county to county or even state to state? What disciplines would they have to be educated in? Forensics, Constitutional law, LE procedures, appeallate law, medical, science, etc.? Or would they just have to have passed your applied logic test? Who would pay their salaries, benefits, health care? If it's the state (the taxpayers) and they all voted against something the public (or you) thought was right, would they be accused or "working for the state"?

I know a few people with high IQ's who don't have a lick of common sense.

My point is you can't keep harping on "professional jurors" without discussing how it would/could work. Well, I guess you can but I won't take it seriously.

JMO

[cookiewench]

I hardly see what difference it would make. The jurors picked from the public didn't have any agenda going in.

Professional jurors would have found Scott just as guilty, because he is guilty.

[I'mSun]

Ummm, ask Wudge. He's the one redesigning the whole system (since the regular one didn't work, LOL!).
:biggrin:Good post, TG! Having professional jurors wouldn't fix the problem, and would most likely add to it. :patriot:

[Lavindar]

Good post, TG! Having professional jurors wouldn't fix the problem, and would most likely add to it. :patriot:

Tee Hee. And they'd have to have a union too. I can see it now. Nothing happening in any court because of a juror strike.

[I'mSun]

Tee Hee. And they'd have to have a union too. I can see it now. Nothing happening in any court because of a juror strike.ROFL!!! Actually, that is a very good point, Lavindar.

[attorneywan2be]

Twelve jurors, no change.

Regarding corruption, high-profile jury pools suffer that now (stealth jurors).

In lieu of professional jurors, I would accept a process whereby all juror candidates would be required to pass (80%, "C" grade or better) an applied logic test prior to being given a seat for voir dire.


Good to see you Wudge..:seeya:

I totally agree..!!

[Invrdv8]

I think that would be considered discrimination. And, since the majority of criminals are not very bright, how would they have a jury of their peers?
How would "that be considered discrimination"? If, as you say "criminals are not very bright" how do they have a "jury of their peers" NOW? Are you saying the jurors should not be "very bright" also?:eek:

[TopGunner]

Good to see you Wudge..:seeya:

I totally agree..!!


AW2B, what is it that you're agreeing to? A "C" or above average jury? Do you REALLY think ISP would be free if those were the guidelines? LOL - I know some people with 4.0 averages, but couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. ZERO common sense. A "C" average or above wouldn't change a blessed thing. What a funny thing to say. :patriot:

[adnoid]

AW2B, what is it that you're agreeing to? A "C" or above average jury? Do you REALLY think ISP would be free if those were the guidelines?...

Yeah, there were times in the history of this nation when "tests" were used to keep certain groups off of juries. You know, so the wrong sort of people would "know their place". Now we pull juries from a wide pool to make sure they represent the population as much as possible.

Seems like some of the posters here want to go back to the "good old days" where juries were made up of white male landowners only - there's as good a case to be made for that as passing some "logic tests". Hand them a sheet and send them to the South, that's a good place for them to start. Let's see how they do.

[Wearing A Halo]

A total lack of evidence to support a theory doesn't matter. Two-trip supporters represent a prime example of the Nancy Grace rollover into the Twi-light Zone effect.

Larry King Live
CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.


[and people wonder why I advocate for professional jurors]

There is already a professional jurist on each criminal court case, it is called a judge. Also, the convicted have the right to an appeals court, which are professional jurists. The court system does not need to change just because you, Wudge, do not agree with DRISP's verdict. Due process was given to DRISP just as it is given to any other accused person. In DRISP's case, the prosecution never adopted the two-trip theory. MPD and LE may have thought about it, but never went with it. As well, the jury never heard about it to give it any merit.

(The waterbearer *chuckles*)

[I'mSun]

There is already a professional jurist on each criminal court case, it is called a judge. Also, the convicted have the right to an appeals court, which are professional jurists. The court system does not need to change just because you, Wudge, do not agree with DRISP's verdict. Due process was given to DRISP just as it is given to any other accused person. In DRISP's case, the prosecution never adopted the two-trip theory. MPD and LE may have thought about it, but never went with it. As well, the jury never heard about it to give it any merit.

(The waterbearer *chuckles*)

Well said, WAH :beer:

[accordn2me]

Yeah, there were times in the history of this nation when "tests" were used to keep certain groups off of juries. You know, so the wrong sort of people would "know their place". Now we pull juries from a wide pool to make sure they represent the population as much as possible.

Seems like some of the posters here want to go back to the "good old days" where juries were made up of white male landowners only - there's as good a case to be made for that as passing some "logic tests". Hand them a sheet and send them to the South, that's a good place for them to start. Let's see how they do.:no:

Are you dissing the South?

:punch:

[adnoid]

:no:

Are you dissing the South?

:punch:

Of course not. You know me better than that.

[attorneywan2be]

Seems like some of the posters here want to go back to the "good old days" where juries were made up of white male landowners only - there's as good a case to be made for that as passing some "logic tests". Hand them a sheet and send them to the South, that's a good place for them to start. Let's see how they do.

I'm simply baffled by what you wrote in this post!!

What exactly are you saying here?..are you saying that white male landowners would score better than others in logic tests? are you saying that people in the south would do poorly in logic tests????

I hope you would agree that the ability to apply logic has nothing to do with color..gender.. south or north..rich or poor...etc...

[accordn2me]

Of course not. You know me better than that.OK then. Sometimes people diss us and I'm kind of cranky and sensitive about it. Especially since they let Wilbert Rideau out of Angola. The technicality doesn't change the fact one iota that he's guilty.

[adnoid]

I'm simply baffled by what you wrote in this post...

I apologize. Next time I'll use a simpler example.