Amazingly

[Cadillakin]

Some of you may not realize that on the day of Laci's disappearance, not a single person testified to sighting Scott. Until he showed up that evening at Amy and Tara's home inquiring about Laci, Scott, like his wife, from the previous night onward, literally fell out of sight.

Oddly, in the trial, attorney Geragos did not attempt in any way to substantiate Scott's word or alibi on the day Laci disappeared. Other than what came from Scott's own mouth, introduced thru his interviews with police, not one second of his day is accounted for in trial testimony, The prosecution introduced Scott's parking stub, the gas receipt, and the phone calls made to Greg and Scott's parents late in the afternoon, but the defense introduced none of Scott's activities on that day after he left his warehouse.

In statements to police, well before the trial started, Scott did attempt to substantiate his day. He told a story about bumping his truck into a pylon and talking to some city workers. But when the city workers on-duty that day were called upon by the prosecutors, not a single employee recalled seeing or speaking with Scott. Nor did they see him boating, though the area was nearly deserted.

AMAZINGLY, Geragos and his team did not even ask those same employees if they saw or talked to Scott when it was their turn to question the witnesses. They should have been pressing those witnesses hard to recall meeting Scott ...to show that Scott was just acting normally.. that no body was concealed in his boat, and that Scott was doing exactly what he claimed. Any confirmation at all that Scott was acting in a normal manner could have been exonerating.. But not a single, solitary word on the subject. They only asked vague questions about how big the area was, how many people lived on the boats, etc.. suggesting that Scott was there, but nobody saw him.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Some of you may not realize that on the day of Laci's disappearance, not a single person testified to sighting Scott. Until he showed up that evening at Amy and Tara's home inquiring about Laci, Scott, like his wife, from the previous night onward, literally fell out of sight.

Oddly, in the trial, attorney Geragos did not attempt in any way to substantiate Scott's word or alibi on the day Laci disappeared. Other than what came from Scott's own mouth, introduced thru his interviews with police, not one second of his day is accounted for in trial testimony, The prosecution introduced Scott's parking stub, the gas receipt, and the phone calls made to Greg and Scott's parents late in the afternoon, but the defense introduced none of Scott's activities on that day after he left his warehouse.

In statements to police, well before the trial started, Scott did attempt to substantiate his day. He told a story about bumping his truck into a pylon and talking to some city workers. But when the city workers on-duty that day were called upon by the prosecutors, not a single employee recalled seeing or speaking with Scott. Nor did they see him boating, though the area was nearly deserted.

AMAZINGLY, Geragos and his team did not even ask those same employees if they saw or talked to Scott when it was their turn to question the witnesses. They should have been pressing those witnesses hard to recall meeting Scott ...to show that Scott was just acting normally.. that no body was concealed in his boat, and that Scott was doing exactly what he claimed. Any confirmation at all that Scott was acting in a normal manner could have been exonerating.. But not a single, solitary word on the subject. They only asked vague questions about how big the area was, how many people lived on the boats, etc.. suggesting that Scott was there, but nobody saw him.

Cadi, GREAT POST and so weird (jaws music), as I was just thinking myself today how BOTH Scott and Laci went missing from 8:30 PM on the evening of the 23rd, until 5:00 PM on the evening of the 24th. What are the chances??? And especially what are the chances of NOT A SINGLE SOUL hearing from Laci (jabber jaws) for that amount of time, during the Christmas holiday???

[adnoid]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

...AMAZINGLY, Geragos and his team did not even ask those same employees if they saw or talked to Scott when it was their turn to question the witnesses. They should have been pressing those witnesses hard to recall meeting Scott ...to show that Scott was just acting normally.. that no body was concealed in his boat, and that Scott was doing exactly what he claimed...

Only if that's what those guys would have said. Lawyers never ask a witness a question unless they already know the answer, and if the answer won't help the question is never asked.

In reality nobody at the marina was able to say anything to help Scott, and Geragos knew it.

[Cadillakin]

Originally Posted by adnoid

Only if that's what those guys would have said. Lawyers never ask a witness a question unless they already know the answer, and if the answer won't help the question is never asked.

Perhaps that is so.. as a rule of thumb.. but there are many circumstances that justify an effort to contradict or impeach a seemingly credible witness.. As an example; If a trial hinges on eyewitness testimony (as many times it does) and the main eyewitness testifies; "That guy, the defendant, did it", a defense lawyer shouldn't give up and roll over just because the prosecutor elicited a clear identification. His client would be dead in the water, convicted for certain, if he leaves the witnesses conclusions unchallenged. A good lawyer must challenge the conclusions of that eyewitness, his prejudice, eyesight, sanity, an anything else he can in an effort to at least give the jury an alternative to consider... After all, the witness might be wrong, but without a challenge, the identification will most likely stand as fact in the deliberations.

In this case, the jury had already heard testimony indicating that Scott said he interacted with the city workers. When Geragos did not at least try to impeach the city workers for their faulty memory or smoking too much pot on the job, he left the jury with only one viable conclusion.. that Scott made up the story out of thin air.

Lying about Paris to his girlfriend is one thing, a juror or two might forgive him for that.. but lying about his actions on the day his wife disappeared, at the same location that her body is later found, is another.

[TopGunner]

[quote=Cadillakin;8949880]Perhaps that is so.. as a rule of thumb.. but there are many circumstances that justify an effort to contradict or impeach a seemingly credible witness.. As an example; If a trial hinges on eyewitness testimony (as many times it does) and the main eyewitness testifies; "That guy, the defendant, did it", a defense lawyer shouldn't give up and roll over just because the prosecutor elicited a clear identification. His client would be dead in the water, convicted for certain, if he leaves the witnesses conclusions unchallenged. A good lawyer must challenge the conclusions of that eyewitness, his prejudice, eyesight, sanity, an anything else he can in an effort to at least give the jury an alternative to consider... After all, the witness might be wrong, but without a challenge, the identification will most likely stand as fact in the deliberations.

In this case, the jury had already heard testimony indicating that Scott said he interacted with the city workers. When Geragos did not at least try to impeach the city workers for their faulty memory or smoking too much pot on the job, he left the jury with only one viable conclusion.. that Scott made up the story out of thin air.

Lying about Paris to his girlfriend is one thing, a juror or two might forgive him for that.. but lying about his actions on the day his wife disappeared, at the same location that her body is later found, is another.[/QUOTE]

Bravo Cadi - I mean, who would do such a thing?

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Some of you may not realize that on the day of Laci's disappearance, not a single person testified to sighting Scott. Until he showed up that evening at Amy and Tara's home inquiring about Laci, Scott, like his wife, from the previous night onward, literally fell out of sight.

Oddly, in the trial, attorney Geragos did not attempt in any way to substantiate Scott's word or alibi on the day Laci disappeared. Other than what came from Scott's own mouth, introduced thru his interviews with police, not one second of his day is accounted for in trial testimony, The prosecution introduced Scott's parking stub, the gas receipt, and the phone calls made to Greg and Scott's parents late in the afternoon, but the defense introduced none of Scott's activities on that day after he left his warehouse.

In statements to police, well before the trial started, Scott did attempt to substantiate his day. He told a story about bumping his truck into a pylon and talking to some city workers. But when the city workers on-duty that day were called upon by the prosecutors, not a single employee recalled seeing or speaking with Scott. Nor did they see him boating, though the area was nearly deserted.

AMAZINGLY, Geragos and his team did not even ask those same employees if they saw or talked to Scott when it was their turn to question the witnesses. They should have been pressing those witnesses hard to recall meeting Scott ...to show that Scott was just acting normally.. that no body was concealed in his boat, and that Scott was doing exactly what he claimed. Any confirmation at all that Scott was acting in a normal manner could have been exonerating.. But not a single, solitary word on the subject. They only asked vague questions about how big the area was, how many people lived on the boats, etc.. suggesting that Scott was there, but nobody saw him.

As always, a great post Cadillakin.

You're right. Some people don't realize that 20-21 hrs., is an awfully long period of time for a young active couple, such as Scott and Laci, to literally fall out of sight.

Also very telling, is that, while engaging in casual conversation when talking with his Dad, on the way home from the Marina, Scott did not once mention his trip to the Bay.

[adnoid]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

...A good lawyer must challenge the conclusions of that eyewitness, his prejudice, eyesight, sanity, an anything else he can in an effort to at least give the jury an alternative to consider...

Well, yes, but the defense only has the actual witnesses and facts to deal with. Unlike message board posters, they cannot invent perps out of thin air and blame everything on them.

In your hypothetical where the prosecution puts on an eyewitness that says the defendant did it, but there were other eyewitnesses as well, should the defense put them on if those witnesses will also say the defendant did it just to show the jury that he (the defense attorney) will argue the point with them?

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Perhaps that is so.. as a rule of thumb.. but there are many circumstances that justify an effort to contradict or impeach a seemingly credible witness.. As an example; If a trial hinges on eyewitness testimony (as many times it does) and the main eyewitness testifies; "That guy, the defendant, did it", a defense lawyer shouldn't give up and roll over just because the prosecutor elicited a clear identification. His client would be dead in the water, convicted for certain, if he leaves the witnesses conclusions unchallenged. A good lawyer must challenge the conclusions of that eyewitness, his prejudice, eyesight, sanity, an anything else he can in an effort to at least give the jury an alternative to consider... After all, the witness might be wrong, but without a challenge, the identification will most likely stand as fact in the deliberations.

In this case, the jury had already heard testimony indicating that Scott said he interacted with the city workers. When Geragos did not at least try to impeach the city workers for their faulty memory or smoking too much pot on the job, he left the jury with only one viable conclusion.. that Scott made up the story out of thin air.

Orginally Posted by TopGunner:
Lying about Paris to his girlfriend is one thing, a juror or two might forgive him for that.. but lying about his actions on the day his wife disappeared, at the same location that her body is later found, is another.[/

Bravo Cadi - I mean, who would do such a thing?

NO ONE but Scott.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Perhaps that is so.. as a rule of thumb.. but there are many circumstances that justify an effort to contradict or impeach a seemingly credible witness.. As an example; If a trial hinges on eyewitness testimony (as many times it does) and the main eyewitness testifies; "That guy, the defendant, did it", a defense lawyer shouldn't give up and roll over just because the prosecutor elicited a clear identification. His client would be dead in the water, convicted for certain, if he leaves the witnesses conclusions unchallenged. A good lawyer must challenge the conclusions of that eyewitness, his prejudice, eyesight, sanity, an anything else he can in an effort to at least give the jury an alternative to consider... After all, the witness might be wrong, but without a challenge, the identification will most likely stand as fact in the deliberations.

In this case, the jury had already heard testimony indicating that Scott said he interacted with the city workers. When Geragos did not at least try to impeach the city workers for their faulty memory or smoking too much pot on the job, he left the jury with only one viable conclusion.. that Scott made up the story out of thin air.

Lying about Paris to his girlfriend is one thing, a juror or two might forgive him for that.. but lying about his actions on the day his wife disappeared, at the same location that her body is later found, is another.

I've never seen you post before so --- if you're new, WELCOME. If you're not new, WELCOME BACK.

I love this post because it very succinctly says what most of us have been saying all along. Along these same lines, I believe it is an almost always fatal mistake for the defense attorney to go on record (either with the media or in opening statements) making claims that there are witnesses to certain events (implying that these witnesses will testify) and then not even attempt to call them to the stand. I believe this creates an expectation with the jury and leaves them wondering why these witnesses weren't heard from.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Some of you may not realize that on the day of Laci's disappearance, not a single person testified to sighting Scott. Until he showed up that evening at Amy and Tara's home inquiring about Laci, Scott, like his wife, from the previous night onward, literally fell out of sight.

Oddly, in the trial, attorney Geragos did not attempt in any way to substantiate Scott's word or alibi on the day Laci disappeared. Other than what came from Scott's own mouth, introduced thru his interviews with police, not one second of his day is accounted for in trial testimony, The prosecution introduced Scott's parking stub, the gas receipt, and the phone calls made to Greg and Scott's parents late in the afternoon, but the defense introduced none of Scott's activities on that day after he left his warehouse.

In statements to police, well before the trial started, Scott did attempt to substantiate his day. He told a story about bumping his truck into a pylon and talking to some city workers. But when the city workers on-duty that day were called upon by the prosecutors, not a single employee recalled seeing or speaking with Scott. Nor did they see him boating, though the area was nearly deserted.

AMAZINGLY, Geragos and his team did not even ask those same employees if they saw or talked to Scott when it was their turn to question the witnesses. They should have been pressing those witnesses hard to recall meeting Scott ...to show that Scott was just acting normally.. that no body was concealed in his boat, and that Scott was doing exactly what he claimed. Any confirmation at all that Scott was acting in a normal manner could have been exonerating.. But not a single, solitary word on the subject. They only asked vague questions about how big the area was, how many people lived on the boats, etc.. suggesting that Scott was there, but nobody saw him.

Don't you think SLP's alibi was his defense's biggest problem?

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Don't you think SLP's alibi was his defense's biggest problem?

I do. I believe that his planned alibi got all screwed up when he believed that someone saw him at the marina. We don't really know if this sighting was real or imagined, but had it not been for this, I think Scott would have stuck with golfing as his alibi. He would have been in a much better position but IMO he truly believed Laci's body would have washed into the ocean and she would never be found. Assuming this, he must have felt relatively safe admitting he was 90 miles away from home. I think a Supreme Being had a hand in making sure he didn't get away with it.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I do. I believe that his planned alibi got all screwed up when he believed that someone saw him at the marina. We don't really know if this sighting was real or imagined, but had it not been for this, I think Scott would have stuck with golfing as his alibi. He would have been in a much better position but IMO he truly believed Laci's body would have washed into the ocean and she would never be found. Assuming this, he must have felt relatively safe admitting he was 90 miles away from home. I think a Supreme Being had a hand in making sure he didn't get away with it.

That is my belief too, di. As horrible as finding them was, not finding them would have been so much worse. And while it would have been much harder for a jury to convict without their bodies, it still could have happened.

ETA: I believe if he would have gone with the golfing alibi, the witnesses would have come forward. As it was, the prosecution didn't need to call them....and the defense didn't want to.

[cookiewench]

Thank you, cada.

Every time I think this case has been played out and talked out, someone brings up a new way to think about something concerning it.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I do. I believe that his planned alibi got all screwed up when he believed that someone saw him at the marina. We don't really know if this sighting was real or imagined, but had it not been for this, I think Scott would have stuck with golfing as his alibi. He would have been in a much better position but IMO he truly believed Laci's body would have washed into the ocean and she would never be found. Assuming this, he must have felt relatively safe admitting he was 90 miles away from home. I think a Supreme Being had a hand in making sure he didn't get away with it.

Or maybe he realized that the golfing alibi would be a bust if no one saw him at a golf course and if did not check in anywhere.

There is a public golf course in Berkeley. Maybe he was thinking of saying he golfed there? I don't know but he sure screwed up royally, which a lot of murderers do. They think a lot about how to murder but neglect to cover all their bases afterwards.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

That is my belief too, di. As horrible as finding them was, not finding them would have been so much worse. And while it would have been much harder for a jury to convict without their bodies, it still could have happened.

ETA: I believe if he would have gone with the golfing alibi, the witnesses would have come forward. As it was, the prosecution didn't need to call them....and the defense didn't want to.

There was definite talk that the DA's office was going to press charges even without a body. They were working on it and it was published in the ModBee and elsewhere, I believe. That's why Scott was already gearing up with his Jackiemobile and escape stuff before the bodies even washed ashore.

[cookiewench]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Or maybe he realized that the golfing alibi would be a bust if no one saw him at a golf course and if did not check in anywhere.

There is a public golf course in Berkeley. Maybe he was thinking of saying he golfed there? I don't know but he sure screwed up royally, which a lot of murderers do. They think a lot about how to murder but neglect to cover all their bases afterwards.

He sure did screw up royally!

I've always thought that he either got too late a start (for whatever reason) to get to the golf course later, or - he went to the marina with her the night before but then got paranoid and went back to check the next day.

He had a hard time letting go of that golfing alibi, though.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

He sure did screw up royally!

I've always thought that he either got too late a start (for whatever reason) to get to the golf course later, or - he went to the marina with her the night before but then got paranoid and went back to check the next day.

He had a hard time letting go of that golfing alibi, though.

I agree. I believe he killed Laci during the night of the 23rd, took her body to the marina in the middle of the night, dumped her and planned to use his golfing alibi the next day. He fabricated the story about her plans and activities for the morning of the 24th so when he came home from golfing and found her "missing" this would indicate to everyone that she was alive when he left the house and his golfing alibi would have produced many witnesses. Something happened to change all that. Probably his paranoia about dumping her in the darkness -- he felt compelled to go back and make sure there was no sign of what he had done. He got a later start than planned (why I don't know) and couldn't get from the Marina back to Modesto in time to play a round of golf. I believe this is why he reported to a couple of people initially that he had been golfing all day. This was the rehearsed story and it got changed at the last minute which confused him.

All this is theory and MOO.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I agree. I believe he killed Laci during the night of the 23rd, took her body to the marina in the middle of the night, dumped her and planned to use his golfing alibi the next day. He fabricated the story about her plans and activities for the morning of the 24th so when he came home from golfing and found her "missing" this would indicate to everyone that she was alive when he left the house and his golfing alibi would have produced many witnesses. Something happened to change all that. Probably his paranoia about dumping her in the darkness -- he felt compelled to go back and make sure there was no sign of what he had done. He got a later start than planned (why I don't know) and couldn't get from the Marina back to Modesto in time to play a round of golf. I believe this is why he reported to a couple of people initially that he had been golfing all day. This was the rehearsed story and it got changed at the last minute which confused him.

All this is theory and MOO.

I believe the shipping channel buoys are lit. So he would have had a guide