What would it take to change your mind?

[adnoid]

I conclude that Scott is guilty based on my analysis of all the evidence presented. However, I would never say things like "You will never convince me that Scott is innocent", as that sort of statement only comes from ignorance.

If I could see evidence that someone else was responsible I would change my mind.

If I could see evidence that Laci was alive after Scott got home in the evening of 12/24 I would change my mind.

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by adnoid

I conclude that Scott is guilty based on my analysis of all the evidence presented. However, I would never say things like "You will never convince me that Scott is innocent", as that sort of statement only comes from ignorance.

If I could see evidence that someone else was responsible I would change my mind.

If I could see evidence that Laci was alive after Scott got home in the evening of 12/24 I would change my mind.

I'd need pretty damning evidence it was someone else and it would be nice if that information came from a SIG or a SNG as far as the trial was concerned, but who was adamant that Scott killed her. Since the latter does not exist (that I have seen), I'm waiting for one of us to see something that really sways us. I do wait for an advocate to come up with something that gives me pause, but thus far, nothing meaningful has been presented that makes near as much sense from start to finish as Scott killing Laci.

[Mysteri]

Originally Posted by adnoid

I conclude that Scott is guilty based on my analysis of all the evidence presented. However, I would never say things like "You will never convince me that Scott is innocent", as that sort of statement only comes from ignorance.

If I could see evidence that someone else was responsible I would change my mind.

If I could see evidence that Laci was alive after Scott got home in the evening of 12/24 I would change my mind.

Maybe Lee will confess ? j/k

I agree with you. Albeit no one else had a valid or even invalid motive and no one would wish to frame SLP who was a nonetity before he became a person of interest in a callous double murder.

He fullfils the old maxim that it is usually the spouse.


imo

[Mysteri]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

I'd need pretty damning evidence it was someone else and it would be nice if that information came from a SIG or a SNG as far as the trial was concerned, but who was adamant that Scott killed her. Since the latter does not exist (that I have seen), I'm waiting for one of us to see something that really sways us. I do wait for an advocate to come up with something that gives me pause, but thus far, nothing meaningful has been presented that makes near as much sense from start to finish as Scott killing Laci.

I appreciate your multiple links to the reasons Mark Geragos said Scott was Guilty. They remain unchallenged.

imo

[USAHICK]

The only thing that would convince me that ISP was innocent would be finding the "real" killer, which will never happen. It CAN'T happen, unfortunately. It is so incredibly clear, no matter which way you look at it, that he's the murderer, it's very sad actually.

Remember this?

http://www.rense.com/general37/llc.htm

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally Posted by USAHICK

The only thing that would convince me that ISP was innocent would be finding the "real" killer, which will never happen. It CAN'T happen, unfortunately. It is so incredibly clear, no matter which way you look at it, that he's the murderer, it's very sad actually.

Remember this?

http://www.rense.com/general37/llc.htm

ITA If the real murderer came forward with a convincing confession, I would change my mind.

imo

[rachelslaw]

The only thing that would change my mind is this. A PLAUSABLE explanation as to how Laci and Conner's bodies got into the Bay, in the same area that Scott went fishing the day she went missing. That's it.

"Some Other Dude" could not possibly have kidnapped Laci, held her until she gave birth, waited until Scott revealed where he went fishing, then transported the dead bodies to the Bay to frame the fertilizer salesman. The logistics of all that transpiring makes no sense. If it doesn't make sense, it didn't happen. (Quoting Judge Judy...lol)



IMO

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by Sturgeon_Moon

ITA If the real murderer came forward with a convincing confession, I would change my mind.

imo

It would have to be terribly convincing to exhonerate Scott imo. It would have to be someone with access to a car and a boat and who could have mimicked Scott's actions. I don't think there's anyone out there that would be that stupid. Still, if someone else did it, something will leak out. Criminals can't keep quiet about their exploits. They talk. I just don't think that the real killer, Scott Lee Peterson will ever confess.

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by rachelslaw

The only thing that would change my mind is this. A PLAUSABLE explanation as to how Laci and Conner's bodies got into the Bay, in the same area that Scott went fishing the day she went missing. That's it.

"Some Other Dude" could not possibly have kidnapped Laci, held her until she gave birth, waited until Scott revealed where he went fishing, then transported the dead bodies to the Bay to frame the fertilizer salesman. The logistics of all that transpiring makes no sense. If it doesn't make sense, it didn't happen. (Quoting Judge Judy...lol)



IMO

Can always could on Ms. Slaw to cut to the chase! Just wanted to say hello!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by adnoid

I conclude that Scott is guilty based on my analysis of all the evidence presented. However, I would never say things like "You will never convince me that Scott is innocent", as that sort of statement only comes from ignorance.

If I could see evidence that someone else was responsible I would change my mind.

If I could see evidence that Laci was alive after Scott got home in the evening of 12/24 I would change my mind.

I've been on vacation for the last week and am still trying to catch up. This thread caught my eye (even though it has been tried before) because I would really like for someone to change my mind.

The "evidence" you talk about has to be REASONABLE, however. All the excuses and theories I've seen so far have been anything but reasonable.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I've been on vacation for the last week and am still trying to catch up. This thread caught my eye (even though it has been tried before) because I would really like for someone to change my mind.

The "evidence" you talk about has to be REASONABLE, however. All the excuses and theories I've seen so far have been anything but reasonable.

Welcome back DD!!! I was wondering where you were, hope you had a GREAT time!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Welcome back DD!!! I was wondering where you were, hope you had a GREAT time!

Thanks, TG. I spent the week with my kids in Jacksonville and had a wonderful time.

[Pampster]

What would it take to change my mind about Scott's guilt? If Laci showed up at Sharon's door holding little Conner and said, "Just kidding!", I'd believe that Scott is innocent.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Thanks, TG. I spent the week with my kids in Jacksonville and had a wonderful time.

Oh, that sounds like a blast! I was going to say "I bet it was really hot", but I'm way up North from there, and it's thick. Hot, sticky, thick....soup.....gross.

Are they asking for a puppy yet? I know it's really soon, but you know kids...and TG's!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Oh, that sounds like a blast! I was going to say "I bet it was really hot", but I'm way up North from there, and it's thick. Hot, sticky, thick....soup.....gross.

Are they asking for a puppy yet? I know it's really soon, but you know kids...and TG's!

LOL. My "kids" are comprised of an adult son and an adult daughter who live in Jacksonville. I spent the week visiting them and my four grandchildren. It wasn't much hotter there than it was in PA when I left.

I can't even think about getting a puppy. I miss Pierre more than I can tell you and nothing can possibly replace him. His "sister", Shadow, is doing her best to help fill the void, but she's happy 'cause ALL the attention is for her now. No sharing. Maybe one of these days -- just not yet. Thanks for asking.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by deputydi

LOL. My "kids" are comprised of an adult son and an adult daughter who live in Jacksonville. I spent the week visiting them and my four grandchildren. It wasn't much hotter there than it was in PA when I left.

I can't even think about getting a puppy. I miss Pierre more than I can tell you and nothing can possibly replace him. His "sister", Shadow, is doing her best to help fill the void, but she's happy 'cause ALL the attention is for her now. No sharing. Maybe one of these days -- just not yet. Thanks for asking.

YOU ARE A GRANDMOTHER! NO!!!!!!!! I had no idea!!! LOL - anyhow, scoot up to the thread at the top here, I forget what it's called, but it's the one we get to chat about anything on...I have a little story to tell you.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Pampster

What would it take to change my mind about Scott's guilt? If Laci showed up at Sharon's door holding little Conner and said, "Just kidding!", I'd believe that Scott is innocent.

Pampster, good post, sad too. In reality, Conner would probably be walking up to the door holding his Mom's hand. He'd be 4 1/2 now, no longer a baby, a real little boy.

[accordn2me]

How could there be any evidence to ever show SLP is innocent? There's no DNA or anything that can prove it wasn't SLP. And not only because it was him....but because of the conditions of the bodies and time between the murders and when they were found. This conviction is one of the more sound ones, IMO.

The people who should be asking themselves this question are those of you who blame LE, MG, burglars, satanists, neighbors, Laci's family

What would it take for you SII's/SNG's to realize that no one but SLP had means, motive, and opportunity to commit this heinous crime?

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

How could there be any evidence to ever show SLP is innocent? There's no DNA or anything that can prove it wasn't SLP. And not only because it was him....but because of the conditions of the bodies and time between the murders and when they were found. This conviction is one of the more sound ones, IMO.

The people who should be asking themselves this question are those of you who blame LE, MG, burglars, satanists, neighbors, Laci's family

What would it take for you SII's/SNG's to realize that no one but SLP had means, motive, and opportunity to commit this heinous crime?

I've always believed the LACK of DNA evidence was one of the biggest things that pointed to Scott's guilt. If Laci had been kidnapped in her home by strangers, there would have been something (a fingerprint, a strand of hair -- something that didn't belong there). If she had been snatched off the street in broad daylight, someone would have heard her screams. Does anyone believe she would have gone quietly? Not only do I NOT believe there is any REASONABLE doubt, I do not believe there is ANY doubt that Scott Lee Peterson is guilty.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I've always believed the LACK of DNA evidence was one of the biggest things that pointed to Scott's guilt. If Laci had been kidnapped in her home by strangers, there would have been something (a fingerprint, a strand of hair -- something that didn't belong there). If she had been snatched off the street in broad daylight, someone would have heard her screams. Does anyone believe she would have gone quietly? Not only do I NOT believe there is any REASONABLE doubt, I do not believe there is ANY doubt that Scott Lee Peterson is guilty.

I TOTALLY agree

[Mysteri]

YES !! The absense of something, such as DNA is very telling !

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

imo

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Mysteri

YES !! The absense of something, such as DNA is very telling !

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

imo

Now that is VERY CLEVER.

The dog did nothing in the night time and that was the curious incident...

By all accounts, MacKenzie was a tame, but also protective dog. But if he did nothing in the night time, did he do something in the morning? Supposedly, the morning or early afternoon is when Laci "disappeared". AFTER he was put back in the yard by Karen Servas?

[packy]

If I could see the police notes and reports of all the people they talked to and ruled out, and also the information on the Evelyn Hernandez case I might think about changing my mind.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Lili007

Now that is VERY CLEVER.

The dog did nothing in the night time and that was the curious incident...

By all accounts, MacKenzie was a tame, but also protective dog. But if he did nothing in the night time, did he do something in the morning? Supposedly, the morning or early afternoon is when Laci "disappeared". AFTER he was put back in the yard by Karen Servas?

Ummm.........Mysteri isn't talking about McKenzie.

[Buckethead]

Short of someone confessing to the crime and providing VIDEO evidence that they actually did it, there isn't much that will change my mind. I am satisfied the guilty party is on DR awaiting his appeal.

[Buckethead]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I've always believed the LACK of DNA evidence was one of the biggest things that pointed to Scott's guilt. If Laci had been kidnapped in her home by strangers, there would have been something (a fingerprint, a strand of hair -- something that didn't belong there). If she had been snatched off the street in broad daylight, someone would have heard her screams. Does anyone believe she would have gone quietly? Not only do I NOT believe there is any REASONABLE doubt, I do not believe there is ANY doubt that Scott Lee Peterson is guilty.

ITA

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by packy

If I could see the police notes and reports of all the people they talked to and ruled out, and also the information on the Evelyn Hernandez case I might think about changing my mind.

Evelyn Hernandez is an on-going case. I doubt we will see any information on that until after a trial. It was the SF police that wanted that kept secret, not MPD iirc. Her autopsy was allowed in and that can be viewed on CTV site

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by packy

*Snipped

also the information on the Evelyn Hernandez case I might think about changing my mind.

*Snipped

Have to say, I am confused on this one.

[Miss Bootsie]

If someone else came forward and confessed to the crime - and could provide evidence they were involved in Laci's disappearance and murder.

[frydaddy]

If I were to change my mind, I'd need to rewind some of the happenings in this case and have them redone.

From the time Scott arrived home from "golfishtrollgettingtheboatinthewater", until his second call to Sharon, the whole thing will have to be changed.

I'll skip the more widely discussed points of this time period, but focus on an exchange between Scott & Sharon.

Sharon: "Call her friends to see if anyone had talked to her that day"

Not "yesterday or today"...just today Scott!

After calling Greg Reed, who Scott had talked to for five minutes just more than three hours previous, and Guy Miligi, calls that took place one minute apart, that appear to both be voice messages, Scott calls Sharon back one minute after the call to Mr. Miligi...

Scott: "None of her friends had seen her."

Which of her friends were called and who did Scott actually talk to? Seem a little staged? Do the math!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

If I were to change my mind, I'd need to rewind some of the happenings in this case and have them redone.

From the time Scott arrived home from "golfishtrollgettingtheboatinthewater", until his second call to Sharon, the whole thing will have to be changed.

I'll skip the more widely discussed points of this time period, but focus on an exchange between Scott & Sharon.

Sharon: "Call her friends to see if anyone had talked to her that day"

Not "yesterday or today"...just today Scott!

After calling Greg Reed, who Scott had talked to for five minutes just more than three hours previous, and Guy Miligi, calls that took place one minute apart, that appear to both be voice messages, Scott calls Sharon back one minute after the call to Mr. Miligi...

Scott: "None of her friends had seen her."

Which of her friends were called and who did Scott actually talk to? Seem a little staged? Do the math!

Didn't he ask one of these friends if they had seen Laci "yesterday or today"? That may be what you are referring to and I always found that question to be very odd. Supposedly Scott had seen his wife THAT MORNING so why would he care if her friends had talked to her the day before?

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Didn't he ask one of these friends if they had seen Laci "yesterday or today"? That may be what you are referring to and I always found that question to be very odd. Supposedly Scott had seen his wife THAT MORNING so why would he care if her friends had talked to her the day before?

IIRC he left that message on Greg Reed's phone.

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Didn't he ask one of these friends if they had seen Laci "yesterday or today"? That may be what you are referring to and I always found that question to be very odd. Supposedly Scott had seen his wife THAT MORNING so why would he care if her friends had talked to her the day before?

Yes and Lav has it correct...message left for Greg and Kristen Reed...the first call by Scott after the initial call to Sharon. One wonders why he didn't call Rene, Lori, Renee, Stacey, or Heather FIRST, since they appeared to be her friends. Makes no sense.

[USAHICK]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

Yes and Lav has it correct...message left for Greg and Kristen Reed...the first call by Scott after the initial call to Sharon. One wonders why he didn't call Rene, Lori, Renee, Stacey, or Heather FIRST, since they appeared to be her friends. Makes no sense.

Or....Amy, Brent, Dennis, the hospitals, Laci's doctor, or the police.

Sharon and Ron left a message for Laci to bring whipping cream when they came for dinner, but DRISP says he thought Laci was at their house. Go figure.

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by USAHICK

Or....Amy, Brent, Dennis, the hospitals, Laci's doctor, or the police.

Sharon and Ron left a message for Laci to bring whipping cream when they came for dinner, but DRISP says he thought Laci was at their house. Go figure.

Excellent points...ones I'm sure the advocates simply dismiss as no big deal. Scott goes into a panic only after not hearing from Laci all day, arriving home to find the dog with a muddy leash on, a dark house, no evidence she had been there all day, a little laundry, a little cold pizza, a relaxing shower, a little tidying up around the house, along with what we know about who he didn't call, plus the messages. And people think this is perfectly normal?

Are they freakin' kidding me?

[Barnacle]

Originally Posted by Buckethead

Short of someone confessing to the crime and providing VIDEO evidence that they actually did it, there isn't much that will change my mind. I am satisfied the guilty party is on DR awaiting his appeal.

I agree with you. I think the right person was convicted.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Ummm.........Mysteri isn't talking about McKenzie.

I realise that, TopGunner

I just took it to be a metaphor for what may have happened as far as the dog's behaviour was on that night/morning as opposed to his usual behaviour patterns, IF there was anything different or unusual.

It could also be a metaphor for Scott's behaviour, of course. The absence of something, like DNA. Why would DNA be "absent" from places where Scott obviously had to have been and touched - such as the tarp stuffed under a leaking leaf-blower whose leaking fuel conveniently destroyed DNA and other evidence.

JMO

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Lili007

I realise that, TopGunner

I just took it to be a metaphor for what may have happened as far as the dog's behaviour was on that night/morning as opposed to his usual behaviour patterns, IF there was anything different or unusual.

It could also be a metaphor for Scott's behaviour, of course. The absence of something, like DNA. Why would DNA be "absent" from places where Scott obviously had to have been and touched - such as the tarp stuffed under a leaking leaf-blower whose leaking fuel conveniently destroyed DNA and other evidence.

JMO

Lili, good question. I don't know if it ever came up either way about ISP DNA on the tarp. It would be expected to be there, just like it would be expected to be all over the house, boat, warehouse, and truck. I don't see why they'd even test for HIS DNA in those places. They needed it only to identify his son. The one he denied.

[Rachel Cory]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

What would it take for you SII's/SNG's to realize that no one but SLP had means, motive, and opportunity to commit this heinous crime?

That 'thingy' they used on the people in "Men in Black" to make them forget what they know is the truth, maybe? That's all that comes to my mind right now.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Rachel Cory

That 'thingy' they used on the people in "Men in Black" to make them forget what they know is the truth, maybe? That's all that comes to my mind right now.

That thingy....................... ?