SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

[Riviera]

Let's try again ----->

SII: Evidence that Points to Innocence - Part II

[Otter]

Evidence that points to innocence? Can't think of a thing. After pondering and discussing the case all these years .... nope, not a thing.

Poor Laci and Conner, murdered by the person who was supposed to protect you both with his life. And he took you both, in cold blood.

My opinion only of course, except a jury agrees with me, so its a fact!

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Otter

Evidence that points to innocence? Can't think of a thing. After pondering and discussing the case all these years .... nope, not a thing.

Poor Laci and Conner, murdered by the person who was supposed to protect you both with his life. And he took you both, in cold blood.

My opinion only of course, except a jury agrees with me, so its a fact!

I'm right there with you, Otter. When looking at all the evidence, it points to only one person: Scott. I remember when it first hit the airwaves, I
felt so bad for Scott. His beautiful, pregnant wife was missing on Christmas Eve. Laci's family was on TV defending and supporting him which I thought was really nice. Then, little by little things changed. Scott's demeanor was a bit strange, the bodies washing up on the shore very close to where he was golfishing/boat testing, etc., etc. Even though I didn't want him to be guilty, it was apparent nobody but Scott could have done this. The jury was correct in their verdict. ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO SCOTT.

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by Otter

Evidence that points to innocence? Can't think of a thing. After pondering and discussing the case all these years .... nope, not a thing.

Poor Laci and Conner, murdered by the person who was supposed to protect you both with his life. And he took you both, in cold blood.

My opinion only of course, except a jury agrees with me, so its a fact!

ITA Otter. 3.54" is not evidence of innocence. There is no significant relevance and not even "phenomenal" evidence of innocence. As someone once asked, "Where is it Mr. Fung?"

[TopGunner]

OK, I'm going to try a new, friendlier approach...something that COULD have shook the guilty tree was if one single person, anyone...actually had a conversation with Laci at any point of time on the 24th. Even if she left a message for someone, or emailed someone. It would have rocked the boat big time. But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.

The shades. I forgot all about them until now. That was one of the first things to come out, wasn't it? Little by little, things continued to point to Scott.

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

OK, I'm going to try a new, friendlier approach...something that COULD have shook the guilty tree was if one single person, anyone...actually had a conversation with Laci at any point of time on the 24th. Even if she left a message for someone, or emailed someone. It would have rocked the boat big time. But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.

Sorry, couldn't let that pass.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

Sorry, couldn't let that pass.

LOL Lav, I actually meant to type <no pun> after that.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

Sorry, couldn't let that pass.

Nothing gets past you, Lavindar. And you know where the "B" for bold is too!

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

Nothing gets past you, Lavindar. And you know where the "B" for bold is too!

Shall we break into song: Rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby (that's all I know but I can't get it out of my head)

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

OK, I'm going to try a new, friendlier approach...something that COULD have shook the guilty tree was if one single person, anyone...actually had a conversation with Laci at any point of time on the 24th. Even if she left a message for someone, or emailed someone. It would have rocked the boat big time. But no one talked to her past 8:30 PM on the evening of the 24th, and I think the shades being closed all day on the 24th was quite telling as well.

Exactly TG. Not even DRISP had a conversation with Laci that morning of 12/24/02.

[I'mSun]

How did we all end up on Evidence that Points to Innocence thread? We should be on Evidence that points straight to Scott, because everything does.

[attorneywan2be]

From the original thread..

IMO:

Keep in mind that the evidence that points to Scott's innocence is not limited to the evidence that I'm going to address..the jury didn't follow the law when they convicted Scott Peterson, there was no evidence he committed a crime, and the so called circumstantial evidence, is nothing but evidence pointing to his innocence...

The jury totally ignored this:

"If there's two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- meaning circumstantial evidence -- and one points to the defendant's innocence and one points to the defendant's guilt, the jury MUST adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence,"

BTW, victim's blood..fingerprints..murder weapon..etc..are all circumstantial evidence..and there was NONE!

Examples of the evidence that points to his innocence..

People who saw Laci on December 24th, 2002

Several people reported to the police that they saw Laci walking her dog on December 24, 2002. were they lying or were they mistaken? what would be their motive to lie? and if they were mistaken (all of them), then where is that pregnant woman that was walking her golden retriever, why didn't she come forward? Detective Craig Grogan testified about some of those witnesses, Tony Freitas and Homer Maldonado. He also testified that a former police officer, Thomas Harshman, reported seeing a woman fitting the description of Laci being pulled into an older white van by two men.

Source: trial transcripts.

Conner's gestational age

The medical examiner, Dr. Brian Peterson, performed the autopsy on Laci and Conner. He testified that Conner was a full term baby, his estimated gestational age was 9 months. There were testimonies that Conner's gestational age on December 23, 2002, one day before Laci disappeared, was around 32 weeks. That's an indication that Laci lived for at least 6 weeks after her disappearance.

Source: trial transcripts

The twine around Conner's neck

A criminalist with the California Department of Justice, Pin kyo, testified that the plastic twine found around Conner's neck was tied in a bow-like knot that had a very tight knot underneath. Dr. Cyril Wecht stated that the twine could not have been a debris that wrapped around Conner's neck, "not in a million years". IMO, that indicates that Conner was handled by someone outside Laci's uterus---> he was born.

Sources :
1-trial transcripts
2-news report..TV program

No vernix was found on Conner's body

The Medical examiner, Dr. Brian Peterson, testified to:
1-Conner was a full term baby, his gestational age was estimated at 9 months old.
2-There was no Vernix present on his body.

The lack of vernix on Conner confirms that he was indeed full term.. one might wonder, would the vernix wash off if his body was in the bay? ...IMO, cold water would harden it..it would not wash off..
Let's talk about that waxy greasy substance "Vernix" that coats the entire body of the fetus..
When the fetus is 20 weeks old vernix starts to form..it coats his entire body until he reaches 38 weeks, by then that substance will be disappearing..

If Conner died when he was 32 weeks, Vernix would have been present on his body..however, according to the ME there was no vernix..that indicates to me that Conner was definitely 38 weeks or older, moreover, the fact that there was NONE on Conner further indicates to me that he was indeed born..when babies are born they still have some of that substance left on them.. so someone might have removed it..

I also noticed that the ME didn't mention if he found "lanugo" on Conner? that fine hair that covers the fetus body until he reaches 38 weeks..

Sources:
1- Preliminary Hearings transcripts
2- http://www.babycenter.com/glossary/V

The Mineral deposits found in the crotch area of Laci's pants

The medical examiner, Dr. Peterson, testified that the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants were the result of a repeated wetting and drying of her pants OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME...obviously, that could not have occurred if her body was at the bottom of the bay...IMO, this indicates that Laci was somewhere on land. There was no way for those deposits to have formed whether her body was at the bottom of the bay or was floating, because those mineral deposits were found in the crotch area, that area would have been submerged at all times
The question is: why in the crotch area?? could it be from urine? maybe her captives let her urinate in her pants repeatedly, and it would go thru cycles of wetting and drying..

Sources: trial & prelim transcripts

The condition of the bodies

According to the medical examiner, there were no fish bite marks on either body..no evidence of chewing..no evidence of animal feeding on Conner's body... there was no evidence the bodies were exposed to marine life...again, IMO, this indicates that Laci and Conner were not in the bay...their bodies were most likley planted where they were found.

Source: prelim transcripts

The location of Conner's body

According to testimonies, Conner's body was found 24' north of the breaker line PASSED the debris line and beyond the jetty, he was the largest and heaviest as compared to the debris shown in People's exhibit 96E. IMO, his body should have settled before the debris. In addition, according to the ME, his body was very soft and it came apart quite easily, so there was no way he could have gone over the jetty without coming apart. Not only did he not come apart, but there was no injury on his body to speak of. IMO, his body was planted where he was found, mind you, his body was found very close to the dirt path, possibly few steps away.

Source: trial transcripts & People's exhibit 96 E

The location of Laci's body

A senior research hydrologist with U.S. Geological Society, Ralph Cheng, testified that based on the tidal conditions, he could not explain why Laci's body landed where she was found..he basically admitted that based on tidal conditions, he was not able to prove that both bodies travelled to shore from the same point of origin. In addition, we know that they didn't find Laci's body in the water, after extensive search using the most sophisticated sonar equipments..they found things as small as a can of beer...and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found.

Source: trial transcripts

Consciousness of innocence

1- On December 24, 2002, Scott told the police the exact place he went fishing..he showed them the boat at the warehouse..he had nothing to hide..in fact, at first the police didn't believe him, Scott went out of his way to prove to them that he did go fishing there. Detective Brochinni testified that everything he said about his activities that day checked out...

2- The man who sold the boat to Scott, Bruce Peterson (no relation), testified that he asked Scott to pay in cash, he also testified that Scott gave him his correct name and his correct home address as they were completing DMV forms to release liability to Scott. The seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...the boat was no secret.

3- Susan Aquino, Sharon Rocha's sister, testified that when she was at Scott's house, two police officers came to the door, they informed Scott that there were two witnesses down at the park saying that they saw Laci walking over at the walking bridge, according to her, Scott said that it could not be Laci because that was not her route.
If Scott staged the abduction, he would have been quick to accept those witnesses accounts.

Conclusion: Scott is factually innocent

[Trixy]

FACT: Scott Peterson was found guilty. No evidence to free him from that fact.

[enlightenme]

The jury totally ignored this:

"If there's two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- meaning circumstantial evidence -- and one points to the defendant's innocence and one points to the defendant's guilt, the jury MUST adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence,"

No they didn't ignore that jury instruction. Their belief in what was reasonable is just different than yours.

JMO

[Wearing A Halo]

Factually, DRISP is in the confines of a death row cell at SQ awaiting his appeal process before he gets to lay on a gurney and be executed for the murders of Laci and Conner. Deal with it AW2B, DRISP is. I am sure that even though you will defend him, you wouldn't trade places with him for any length of time of his incarceration. Think about it, would you trade places with him as he, in your mind, is innocent and so are you? I want to know just how far, you AW2B and other NGs, really will go to comfort DRISP and yourselves.

[Trixy]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

From the original thread..

IMO:

snipped

Conclusion: Scott is factually innocent

Factually innocent according to whom? Last I checked he's on death row. The jury most certainly followed the law. FACT! It is insulting to our intelligence to think that we will believe the "everyone is wrong, everyone lied, the jury didn't follow the law and Scott is innocent"...etc.

[enlightenme]

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

No one saw all the other debris floating and actually washing up onto shore during the storm either. Does that mean it didn't?

I never actually saw it rain last night but judging by the wet roads, grass, and puddles all over, I'm pretty sure it did.

JMO

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

No one saw all the other debris floating and actually washing up onto shore during the storm either. Does that mean it didn't?

I never actually saw it rain last night but judging by the wet roads, grass, and puddles all over, I'm pretty sure it did.

JMO

No one found any foot prints, DNA or other evidence of any kind around the bodies suggesting they were planted.

The jurors most certainily did follow the instructions TO THE LETTER. What are the chances of all 12 and 99% of america mid-understanding those instructions?

There were over 71 *sightings* of Laci, but nobody took the stand to say they were certain.

Conners age was estimated to be between 33 and 38 weeks gestational age, which clearly means there was not A specifice date of age given, but what was provided by Peterson - which was posted at least 5 different times in the last 3 days is he believes Conner died in the uterus, and he believed Laci was dead and in the bay for months.

[Trixy]

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

No one saw them being planted. You know why? It didn't happen.



DRISP is stay right where he belongs.

[TopGunner]

Open question to ANYONE:

If Laci was strangled in her own home, or suffocated. If she was then wrapped in a tarp (for example) in her home, carried to the truck and then to the boat, then dumped in the bay. Exactly what kind of evidence, DNA, etc., should have been found by the police, and where?

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Open question to ANYONE:

If Laci was strangled in her own home, or suffocated. If she was then wrapped in a tarp (for example) in her home, carried to the truck and then to the boat, then dumped in the bay. Exactly what kind of evidence, DNA, etc., should have been found by the police, and where?

Hmmmmmmmmm -- her hair, possibly body fluid????

Oops. Scott took care of that, didn't he?

[Cadillakin]

Originally Posted by Trixy

"and no one saw their bodies floating..! IMO, her body was planted where she was found."

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

[Cadillakin]

Originally Posted by TopGunner

Open question to ANYONE:

If Laci was strangled in her own home, or suffocated. If she was then wrapped in a tarp (for example) in her home, carried to the truck and then to the boat, then dumped in the bay. Exactly what kind of evidence, DNA, etc., should have been found by the police, and where?

Well, the one place Laci's DNA should absolutely not be found would be on or in the boat cover or tarp.. but Scott took care of that by washing one in gasoline and draping it over his back fence.. and placing the other under a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

When Scott stopped at the gas station for fuel upon returning from Berkeley, he may not have used a single ounce of it for the boat or truck. All of it might have been used to sterilize some portions of likely evidence or the crime scene.

[Danni]

It is hard to believe this case is still on the boards. I hope he is miserable but he probably thinks he is a celebrity.

[Trixy]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

I haven't seen it. Appreciate it if you would put it up. Thanks.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Actually, Laci, or another corpse, was seen floating in the bay a day before Laci's body washed up. It was reported in the SF papers. Boaters clearly saw a body floating past.. but by the time authorities arrived the body could not be found..

The story of Laci had lost some impact in the Bay when the body was seen floating... thus no mention was made linking her to the sighting. But the following day, Laci was found on the shoreline. I don't recall the exact sequence... if the body floating was seen the day Conner was found, or the day before. Whatever, in the next days, the sighting article was drowned by the overwhelming news coverage of Laci and Conner's possible recovery and the subsequent arrest of Scott.

I think I saved the article to my hard drive, in the event that the newspaper deleted it from their archives and Google couldn't locate it. If any of you haven't seen it, I'll look for it when I get home from work. I haven't had any luck finding it again.. but I'm about 90% sure I saved it at home.

Hey Cadi, if you can find this, I'd love to see it.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Trixy

I haven't seen it. Appreciate it if you would put it up. Thanks.

I don't recall reading anything about a body seen floating, but I do remember reports of the sonar detecting a body in the bay. The divers were unable to find it and then the two bodies washed ashore shortly thereafter.

Sources close to the investigation told CNN that a search was conducted in mid-March near the marina with a side-scanning sonar. The sonar detected what investigators thought might be a body attached to a weight that was keeping it at the bottom of the bay, but turbulent water kept divers from reaching the object.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/1...ase/index.html

[Cadillakin]

Originally Posted by deputydi

I don't recall reading anything about a body seen floating, but I do remember reports of the sonar detecting a body in the bay. The divers were unable to find it and then the two bodies washed ashore shortly thereafter.

Not related. The possible sonar sighting was weeks before they washed up. My posting regards an actual flesh and blood body floating on the surface of the Bay the day before Conner or Laci was found.

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

From the original thread..

The jury totally ignored this:

"If there's two reasonable interpretations of the evidence -- meaning circumstantial evidence -- and one points to the defendant's innocence and one points to the defendant's guilt, the jury MUST adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence,"

That second part (follow-on) of this standard jury instruction states: "If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
The jury ignored nothing. All 12 of them just disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Not related. The possible sonar sighting was weeks before they washed up. My posting regards an actual flesh and blood body floating on the surface of the Bay the day before Conner or Laci was found.

Wow. I never heard this. Can you find an article that references it?

[Cadillakin]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Wow. I never heard this. Can you find an article that references it?

As I said, I'm having trouble finding the article in the Google archives. But... I'm pretty sure I saved the article, in Acrobat pdf or html on my hard drive. I've posted it before. Once to the site where I met Miss Bootsie... a site which I think is now defunct.. Cookie? was hosting it? And to Court TV.. but I was banned and deleted there...

Speaking of banned.. I noticed that Mabel Cashew & Girasole are banned at Websleuths. The last mentioned was totally sweet and non-offensive. I wonder about the circumstances of those bannings.. Can somebody private message me if they know?

[adnoid]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

That second part (follow-on) of this standard jury instruction states: "If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
The jury ignored nothing. All 12 of them just disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

That's right. And the reasonableness is determined by the jury during deliberations. The fact that some message board posters, based on less information than the jury had plus random assorted information that was not allowed in court for various reasons come to a different conclusion might be interesting but will never be relevant.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

Well, the one place Laci's DNA should absolutely not be found would be on or in the boat cover or tarp.. but Scott took care of that by washing one in gasoline and draping it over his back fence.. and placing the other under a leaf blower that was leaking gasoline.

can you elaborate on this please....

I don't recall hearing that Scott washed a tarp or a boat cover in gas....

and does gas get rid of stains and dna?

[ekg]

People who saw Laci on December 24th, 2002

Several people reported to the police that they saw Laci walking her dog on December 24, 2002. were they lying or were they mistaken? what would be their motive to lie? and if they were mistaken (all of them), then where is that pregnant woman that was walking her golden retriever, why didn't she come forward? Detective Craig Grogan testified about some of those witnesses, Tony Freitas and Homer Maldonado. He also testified that a former police officer, Thomas Harshman, reported seeing a woman fitting the description of Laci being pulled into an older white van by two men.

Source: trial transcripts.

how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....

I've seen it mentioned so many times than the SII just want to overlook what the jury and 99% of world thinks........ well it seems to me that those 71(or however many) are being ignored and overlooked on the other side....

all it takes is for one of them to be right.......... just one.. and everything a SIG has harped on and hoped for in this case is moot....It doesn't matter if 70 ppl saw her in the wrong direction or the wrong clothes...... they could all be wrong and it wouldn't matter one single bit.......... but if that 71st person was right? Scott's an innocent man sitting on death row....and the real killer really is still out there...

Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

That second part (follow-on) of this standard jury instruction states: "If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
The jury ignored nothing. All 12 of them just disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

So true. There is NOTHING about the "bodies placed on the shore" theory that sounds reasonable to me. It will never make it into a court of law in a second trial, which I also don't think will EVER happen.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by ekg

how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....
<snip>Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?

I guess the outcome couldn't have been any worse, <*R> If Geragos could have found one or two witnesses whose claim was remotely credible, he should have subpoened them. If the jury hears from 70+ witnesses testifying to the same thing (and the time, distance and location of the sightings do not jive) not only will they be bored to death, they will quickly realize the vast majority of claims are not credible. Putting on a series of witnesses whose testimony is not believable spells certain conviction for the accused.

The reason MG didn't have any of them testify IMO is that NONE of them had credible sightings for one reason or another.

[Cadillakin]

Originally Posted by ekg

can you elaborate on this please....

I don't recall hearing that Scott washed a tarp or a boat cover in gas....

and does gas get rid of stains and dna?

As to your question, the answer is a definitive yes. Maybe you weren't following the case, but the gas washed boat cover and stained, chemically-laden tarp were an integral part of the government's case. It clearly gave credence to the idea that Scott was covering up his actions on the day Laci disappeared.

If you can find the transcripts, just search on the relevant words. If you can't, just let us know, and at least one of us will make sure you get them. I have them here on the work computer if somebody can host a 5mg file or knows where I can upload it for ekg's benefit.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by ekg

how many ppl saw her? 71? all it takes is for just one to be right and Scott's innocent....

I've seen it mentioned so many times than the SII just want to overlook what the jury and 99% of world thinks........ well it seems to me that those 71(or however many) are being ignored and overlooked on the other side....

all it takes is for one of them to be right.......... just one.. and everything a SIG has harped on and hoped for in this case is moot....It doesn't matter if 70 ppl saw her in the wrong direction or the wrong clothes...... they could all be wrong and it wouldn't matter one single bit.......... but if that 71st person was right? Scott's an innocent man sitting on death row....and the real killer really is still out there...

Geragos should have marched every single one of them up on the stand.... I don't care if they were wrong or not... they should have been marched up there to atleast confirm their tip and what if any follow up they received from MPD...

AW2B, can that be an appeals issue? MG not bringing up witnesses who saw her that day?

The sightings were all over the world, weren't they? Should Geragos have brought in the tipster who thought they saw Laci in France?

Come on, Geragos could have easily called (even by subpoena) the 5 witnesses in Modesto who THOUGHT they saw Laci on 12/24. There was a reason he did not but rather relied on police reports being read.

How does one PROVE an eyewitness (who didn't know Laci and didn't talk to her) was correct? The jury either believes them or they don't. A very large number of wrongful convictions were because of eyewitness testimony.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by Cadillakin

As to your question, the answer is a definitive yes. Maybe you weren't following the case, but the gas washed boat cover and stained, chemically-laden tarp were an integral part of the government's case. It clearly gave credence to the idea that Scott was covering up his actions on the day Laci disappeared.

If you can find the transcripts, just search on the relevant words. If you can't, just let us know, and at least one of us will make sure you get them. I have them here on the work computer if somebody can host a 5mg file or knows where I can upload it for ekg's benefit.

I'm sorry but you are making the statement that Scott washed one tarp in gas and then put another one under the blower... I know about the one under the blower but I know nothing of the other one you claimed he "washed" in gas....(in fact I only remember the one tarp period, the brown one that was found under the blower that was hung and pictured on the fence were one in the same, or so I believed until you said they were 2 different tarps).... so it is not up to me to go search and show that your statement is factual or not...... you made the statement, now please back it up...

I have the TS.. so at the very least you should provide a date and who testified if you cannot just post the relevant information here...

and can you show me something that says gas will wash away stains and dna......

thank you..