Seriously????

[ChocHollyK]

wellll, hellll, I promised myself I would not get involved this go-round.....
however.....

Who, I mean, truly, WHO has ever come up with another scenario that has any possibility of merit at all??

The brown van.... never found??? wouldn't the Peterson's and Geragos' staff been hunting 'round the clock, wouldn't they have used their money and talent and expertise to finding the van and the 'people' that have been talked about all along??

The clothes... the ones Amy saw Laci in the evening before, at the hair salon.... just disappeared???? someone maybe broke into the house and stole JUST the clothes that Laci had been wearing to her hair appointment of the night before??

The inconsistencies in Scott's details and alibi's and descriptions of his actions.... WHY would someone say they were golfing and then turn around and go fishing and JUST HAPPEN to go fishing in the bay where his deceased wife's body happens to float ashore from???

These events all spin around Scott's continuing affair with Amber (who I believe was also a victim), and Scott has told her he 'lost his wife' during the prior Christmas season; this while Laci was still alive!!!

I could go on... but....
ARE you SERIOUS??? Some of you STILL actually believe this is a long string of "unfortunate" unrelated circumstances?????

Eeeeegads.... how???? how do you ignore and/or justify FACTS????
okay, there I've gone and broken my promise to NOT be involved again.... sheesssshhhhh....
dammit, Sweet Dreams, Laci.... you and your most precious Conner remain in our hearts.....

[Luke Davis]

This time Pasqual and Francois will provide an alibi.



MOO

[KKKKKKatie]

Originally posted by dan4081


Are they testifying? :D [/*]

yes, by phone ;)

[ChocHollyK]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
This time Pasqual and Francois will provide an alibi.



MOO [/*]


LOLOL.... Omg, yes, OF COURSE!!!

How 'sloppy' of me to have forgotten... hammer

[alter ego]

Originally posted by ChocHollyK
The clothes... the ones Amy saw Laci in the evening before, at the hair salon.... just disappeared???? someone maybe broke into the house and stole JUST the clothes that Laci had been wearing to her hair appointment of the night before??

-snipped-
[/*]
Amy testified the pants Laci was found in were not the ones she wore at the salon the night before.

GERAGOS: Right. And you said that they were not, in your interview with Detective Grogan you said they were not the pants, isn't that correct?

ROCHA: Well, they were not the exact, they were close in color.

GERAGOS: Right. But not the pants because they did not have, the pants she was wearing on the 23rd did not have the line nor the cuff, right?

ROCHA: Right.

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

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you went in on that date, when you went in on the 18th, they wanted you, so that I understand, to pick up or to point out what you thought Laci was wearing on December 23rd, right?

ROCHA: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you picked out, and I already asked 1 you on Thursday, they've showed you subsequent to that the pants that are in here, and you told them these were definitely not the pants?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That misstates the testimony.

GERAGOS: No, that's what she told them in her interview.

JUDGE: I think she testified those were not the pants.

GERAGOS: Yeah.

JUDGE: She testified to that on Thursday those were not the pants.

[ChocHollyK]

Originally posted by alter ego

Amy testified the pants Laci was found in were not the ones she wore at the salon the night before.

GERAGOS: Right. And you said that they were not, in your interview with Detective Grogan you said they were not the pants, isn't that correct?

ROCHA: Well, they were not the exact, they were close in color.

GERAGOS: Right. But not the pants because they did not have, the pants she was wearing on the 23rd did not have the line nor the cuff, right?

ROCHA: Right.

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

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you went in on that date, when you went in on the 18th, they wanted you, so that I understand, to pick up or to point out what you thought Laci was wearing on December 23rd, right?

ROCHA: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you picked out, and I already asked 1 you on Thursday, they've showed you subsequent to that the pants that are in here, and you told them these were definitely not the pants?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That misstates the testimony.

GERAGOS: No, that's what she told them in her interview.

JUDGE: I think she testified those were not the pants.

GERAGOS: Yeah.

JUDGE: She testified to that on Thursday those were not the pants. [/*]

That's what she testified to in court, but, my mistake, I should have stated that I was talking about the incident very shortly after Laci 'went missing'.....
Within a few days of her disappearance, when in fact, the family still trusted Scott, they brought Amy over to Laci's home and asked her if the clothes she had worn to her hair appointment were there and she said no, she didnt find them there in the house....
Or are we talking about the same time/incident?
I DISTINCTLY recall footage of Amy coming out of Laci's house in tears and then reports that Amy had NOT found the pants Laci had worn to the hair appointment the night before ???? or am I losing it???
quite possible that I could be.... LOLOLOL.... several years later, several years older.... readin' fast, on the run.... LOL
MEA KULPA if I've mistated anything....
I'm so confused now... This is the Jerry Springer thread isn't it? (JK)

[alter ego]

Originally posted by ChocHollyK


That's what she testified to in court, but, my mistake, I should have stated that I was talking about the incident very shortly after Laci 'went missing'.....
Within a few days of her disappearance, when in fact, the family still trusted Scott, they brought Amy over to Laci's home and asked her if the clothes she had worn to her hair appointment were there and she said no, she didnt find them there in the house....
Or are we talking about the same time/incident?
I DISTINCTLY recall footage of Amy coming out of Laci's house in tears and then reports that Amy had NOT found the pants Laci had worn to the hair appointment the night before ???? or am I losing it???
quite possible that I could be.... LOLOLOL.... several years later, several years older.... readin' fast, on the run.... LOL
MEA KULPA if I've mistated anything....
I'm so confused now... This is the Jerry Springer thread isn't it? (JK) [/*]Well, if there were news reports that Amy didn't find the clothes Laci was in when she was at the salon, they were inaccurate as evidenced by the trial record.

It's easy to get confused in this case, so much to remember :)

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by ChocHollyK
wellll, hellll, I promised myself I would not get involved this go-round.....
however.....

Who, I mean, truly, WHO has ever come up with another scenario that has any possibility of merit at all??

The brown van.... never found??? wouldn't the Peterson's and Geragos' staff been hunting 'round the clock, wouldn't they have used their money and talent and expertise to finding the van and the 'people' that have been talked about all along??

The clothes... the ones Amy saw Laci in the evening before, at the hair salon.... just disappeared???? someone maybe broke into the house and stole JUST the clothes that Laci had been wearing to her hair appointment of the night before??

The inconsistencies in Scott's details and alibi's and descriptions of his actions.... WHY would someone say they were golfing and then turn around and go fishing and JUST HAPPEN to go fishing in the bay where his deceased wife's body happens to float ashore from???

These events all spin around Scott's continuing affair with Amber (who I believe was also a victim), and Scott has told her he 'lost his wife' during the prior Christmas season; this while Laci was still alive!!!

I could go on... but....
ARE you SERIOUS??? Some of you STILL actually believe this is a long string of "unfortunate" unrelated circumstances?????

Eeeeegads.... how???? how do you ignore and/or justify FACTS????
okay, there I've gone and broken my promise to NOT be involved again.... sheesssshhhhh....
dammit, Sweet Dreams, Laci.... you and your most precious Conner remain in our hearts..... [/*]

The Brown van owned by the Renfrow's was found nad tested. But that wasn't enough for Geragos so he bought the van and demanded it be tested again. There was no blood in that van.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by ChocHollyK


That's what she testified to in court, but, my mistake, I should have stated that I was talking about the incident very shortly after Laci 'went missing'.....
Within a few days of her disappearance, when in fact, the family still trusted Scott, they brought Amy over to Laci's home and asked her if the clothes she had worn to her hair appointment were there and she said no, she didnt find them there in the house....
Or are we talking about the same time/incident?
I DISTINCTLY recall footage of Amy coming out of Laci's house in tears and then reports that Amy had NOT found the pants Laci had worn to the hair appointment the night before ???? or am I losing it???
quite possible that I could be.... LOLOLOL.... several years later, several years older.... readin' fast, on the run.... LOL
MEA KULPA if I've mistated anything....
I'm so confused now... This is the Jerry Springer thread isn't it? (JK) [/*] I think, but will check that they brought Amy through the house in the February search, not the one in December

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by ChocHollyK


That's what she testified to in court, but, my mistake, I should have stated that I was talking about the incident very shortly after Laci 'went missing'.....
Within a few days of her disappearance, when in fact, the family still trusted Scott, they brought Amy over to Laci's home and asked her if the clothes she had worn to her hair appointment were there and she said no, she didnt find them there in the house....
Or are we talking about the same time/incident?
I DISTINCTLY recall footage of Amy coming out of Laci's house in tears and then reports that Amy had NOT found the pants Laci had worn to the hair appointment the night before ???? or am I losing it???
quite possible that I could be.... LOLOLOL.... several years later, several years older.... readin' fast, on the run.... LOL
MEA KULPA if I've mistated anything....
I'm so confused now... This is the Jerry Springer thread isn't it? (JK) [/*]

Det. Grogan brought Amy to the house. I think she was crying because she did find the clothes Laci was wearing the last time she saw her. That would be a gut-wrenching experience to have to do that, imo.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Det. Grogan brought Amy to the house. I think she was crying because she did find the clothes Laci was wearing the last time she saw her. That would be a gut-wrenching experience to have to do that, imo. [/*]

They did, however, find the blouse Laci was wearing that night wadded up oin the back of a drawer. It is in the picture of teh clothes hamper in the first search. Who would wad it up and put it in a drawer. I doubt it was Lacci as her jacket, scarf and purse were neatly hung in the closet. We can for certain say that Laci was NOT found in black pants, can't we? And she had NO top or remnants of a top on.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


It's all laid out right here:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/Lacis_Pants.html [/*]

Another biased source

[earth goddess]

DISTASO: Go ahead and tell the jury what day was it, do you remember, that you went to the house?

ROCHA: I think it was February 18th.

[earth goddess]

DISTASO: Amy, let me ask you, this is a defense, this is a, defense A, and when you, when you went through the house with the police on February 18th, did they show you a whole number of different clothing items that Laci had?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And you went, you went through there and they asked you, you know, basically can you pick out or can you find the clothes, maybe, that she was wearing on the 23rd?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: And the description of the color of the pants that you have always given has been what? What color did you describe them?

ROCHA: Like a light creamy,

DISTASO: Okay.

ROCHA: color.

DISTASO: And of these two pairs of pants that are in, in Defense A, this first pair, would you describe that as, as kind of a light creamy, like you were talking about?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And what about the other pair?

ROCHA: Yeah, those are not light creamy to me.

DISTASO: Okay. So as you sit here today and what you remember, can you exclude one of those pairs of pants as the ones she was wearing?

ROCHA: Yeah, on the right-hand side, I can exclude those.

DISTASO: Okay. You can say those are definitely not the ones because they're not the light creamy that you described?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. The other ones, the color is similar to what you saw?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Now, the pants that I showed you the other day here in People's 11, the, do you need to see them again?

ROCHA: No.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me just show them to you again, People's 11. You can just look at the color of those pants, if you want to. And how would you describe the color of those pants?

ROCHA: Like a light tan, creamy color.

DISTASO: Okay. Would this pant, would the color of this pants match what you saw on the 23rd?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: All right. And the one I just showed you, that color was similar also?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Now, the pants in People's 11, you, you told the police you didn't remember, from seeing Laci on the 23rd, you didn't remember the cuffs or the line down the front?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: All right. And you told them that when they showed you the pictures of the pants?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me show you People's 15, and there's a photo, this is 15 A, should be A, * and C, oh, there we go. They're labeled on the back. And of these pictures, let me just throw them on here for you so you can see them, so we can all see them. This, this one, of the pictures they showed you, the different, do you recognize this as one of the pictures they showed you of the different kinds of pants?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And this pant that you saw, is the color of the pant similar to what you saw?

ROCHA: The color is similar.

DISTASO: Okay. But is the style similar to what you saw?

ROCHA: Um, no.

DISTASO: Okay. What's different about it?

ROCHA: I don't remember the drawstrings on the bottom.

DISTASO: Okay.

ROCHA: Or the cargo pockets on the side.

DISTASO: Okay. So this pocket on the side you don't remember seeing, right?

ROCHA: And the length is too long, too.

DISTASO: Okay. Because the pants that you described were like a capri length?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Now, photo number two, this pair of pants, is the color of those pants similar to what you saw?

ROCHA: They're similar but they're a little darker than what I remember.

DISTASO: All right. Would you describe that color as a light creamy?

ROCHA: No. That's more of like a khaki.

DISTASO: All right. And what about the length of those pants?

ROCHA: Those are longer than what I remember.

DISTASO: Okay. All right. Let me show you 15 C. And this pair of pants that you see here, is the length of those pants correct?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: So the length is similar. What about the color?

ROCHA: The color is similar, too.

DISTASO: Okay. And these are the ones I showed you in People's 11 that have the line down the front and the cuffs?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: And you've already told us you didn't remember that?

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Now, the scarf that you saw Laci wearing that night, here in this picture, this is People's number 6, this scarf that you see there is, can, I mean as you sit here today can you tell us for sure whether or not that's the scarf that you saw?

ROCHA: Yes, it's the scarf I remember.

DISTASO: Okay. Would it help you to see the actual item? Or are you sure in your mind?

ROCHA: I'm pretty sure in my mind.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess
I think, but will check that they brought Amy through the house in the February search, not the one in December [/*]Didn't a Kim break in and steal things before that?

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee


Yes, sometime in January.

The neighbors across the street saw the break-in (iirc it was around mid-night) and called the MPD, but they didn't get to the house until the next morning.

What kind of police work is that??

A missing woman's home is broken into and they don't show up until the next morning :mad:

They didn't know it was that nutball Kim. It could have been Laci's abductor. [/*]Didn't she wear Laci's wedding dress and steal some clothes? I think she broke a window too and messed up the bad.


IIRC

[alter ego]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
I think Ron Grantski's 911 call will be an issue in the Civil trial:




Where did Grantski get the information Laci had walked the dog in the park? It wasn't from Sharon Rocha who had talked to Scott when he called to ask if Laci was at her place. Sharon didn't know about what Laci planned to do with her day until later that night in the drive at Scott's home:

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you tell them that on the day of Laci's disappearance you were aware that Laci had planned on that day to walk the dog and bake gingerbread cookies?



ROCHA: I told them that based on what Scott had told me.

GERAGOS: Okay. When did Scott tell you that?

ROCHA: He told me that on Christmas Eve night when we were standing in the driveway of their house.

mho [/*]

: T H U D :

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


They did, however, find the blouse Laci was wearing that night wadded up oin the back of a drawer. It is in the picture of teh clothes hamper in the first search. Who would wad it up and put it in a drawer. I doubt it was Lacci as her jacket, scarf and purse were neatly hung in the closet. We can for certain say that Laci was NOT found in black pants, can't we? And she had NO top or remnants of a top on. [/*]

The point is that she wasn't wearing the same clothes as the night before. The body was found in different street clothes than she was wearing the night of the 23rd. That blows a wide hole in the theory Scott killed Laci the night of the 23rd.

[California]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


The point is that she wasn't wearing the same clothes as the night before. The body was found in different street clothes than she was wearing the night of the 23rd. That blows a wide hole in the theory Scott killed Laci the night of the 23rd. [/*]Could he have killed Laci the morning of the 24th as she was getting dressed?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
I think Ron Grantski's 911 call will be an issue in the Civil trial:



transcript of the 911 call

transcript of the 911 call
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One to dispatch.

OPERATOR: Hi, can I help you?

RON GRANTSKI, STEPFATHER OF LACI PETERSON: Yes. My son-in-law called. He'd been playing golf this morning. He left at 9:30. My daughter has been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home with just the leash on.

OPERATOR: So the dog came back without your daughter?

GRANTSKI: Right.

OPERATOR: OK, what is your address there sir?

GRANTSKI: Well, I'm at (INFORMATION WITHHELD).

OPERATOR: Is that where she is?

GRANTSKI: No, it's over at Maloma (ph) Park is where she went for the walk. What is Scott and Laci's address? I can't remember.

OPERATOR: What's your telephone number, sir, in case we get disconnected?

GRANTSKI: It's 404 -- Jesus, I can't believe (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (INFORMATION WITHHELD).

OPERATOR: OK, so what's the address where she lives and she's missing from?

GRANTSKI: Her address is (INFORMATION WITHHELD).

OPERATOR: Is that between (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and Edgebrook Drive?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

OPERATOR: OK. Is that a house or an apartment?

GRANTSKI: That's a house.

OPERATOR: What is your name?

GRANTSKI: My name is Ron. I'm her stepdad.

OPERATOR: OK, what is your name, your last name?

GRANTSKI: Grantski.

OPERATOR: G-R-A-N-S-K-Y?

GRANTSKI: G-R-A-N-T-S-K-I. Her husband is Scott Peterson is on his way over to the park to try to...

OPERATOR: What's your stepdaughter's name?

GRANTSKI: Scott Peterson.

OPERATOR: No, no, no, your stepdaughter.

GRANTSKI: Laci Peterson.

OPERATOR: Laci P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N, right?

GRANTSKI: P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N.

OPERATOR: And she's white, black, Hispanic, Asian?

GRANTSKI: She's Portuguese and white.

OPERATOR: How old is she?

GRANTSKI: She's 26.

OPERATOR: What time did she leave the house and didn't come back?

GRANTSKI: That we don't know. We just had a call from our son-in-law that he left this morning at 9:30 to play golf. He came back home about a half hour ago and she's nowhere around.

OPERATOR: OK, so she went to walk the dog where? What park?

GRANTSKI: Walked it in that park, Maloma Park. What's that park over there? What's it called?

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

Where did Grantski get the information Laci had walked the dog in the park? It wasn't from Sharon Rocha who had talked to Scott when he called to ask if Laci was at her place. Sharon didn't know about what Laci planned to do with her day until later that night in the drive at Scott's home:

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you tell them that on the day of Laci's disappearance you were aware that Laci had planned on that day to walk the dog and bake gingerbread cookies?



ROCHA: I told them that based on what Scott had told me.

GERAGOS: Okay. When did Scott tell you that?

ROCHA: He told me that on Christmas Eve night when we were standing in the driveway of their house.

mho [/*]

where did Grantski get the info that Scott played golf? And how did Grantski know what time Scott left the house?

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee
Why does Ron Grantski say Scott went golfing TWICE on the 911 call? Why did he assume that?? Anybody know? [/*]Because he thought it was too cold to fish.


IMO

[California]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


where did Grantski get the info that Scott played golf? And how did Grantski know what time Scott left the house? [/*]How did he know the dog came home with just the leash on?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by California
Could he have killed Laci the morning of the 24th as she was getting dressed? [/*]

That scenario would mean between the time she got dressed and 9:30 a.m., he managed to kill her, clean up leaving no trace of murder, surf the 'net for umbrella stands, watched Martha Stewart, loaded up the body/umbrellas. Quite an unbelievable feat, imo.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He did not find it out from Sharon Rocha. Amy Rocha had forgotten to mention that Scott had told her that he had (initially) planned to go golfing. Sharon did not know Scott had told Amy he would pick up the fruit basket because he was going golfing the next morning. She talks about it in her book, and told Amy that she should mention it to the police. This was after the 911 call!

Recall, the evening before Sharon had talked to Laci, but Laci didn't tell her that Scott had planned to go golfing the next day.

What alibi did Ron give to the police? It wasn't a fishing alibi!

Brocchini nor officer Jon Evers knew Ron had gone fishing on 24 December! Jon Evers said he had heard it on the news. Brocchini said he heard it at the trial.

GERAGOS: And when Ron Grantski came up and asked, he said, Scott was standing next to you; is that correct?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: He walked up and said he was Laci's stepfather, right?

EVERS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And he asked Scott if he was able to go golfing that day?

EVERS: Yes. If he was able to get his golf game in.

GERAGOS: And Scott said it was too cold, and he went fishing; isn't that correct?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Ron Grantski said, "Do you mean going fishing 9:30 or ten in the morning? Boy, that's late to go fishing." Is that what he said?

EVERS: Yes, that's what I remember.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when he said that, did Ron Grantski say, well, I'd been fishing the same day, what a coincidence?

EVERS: No.

GERAGOS: Did you know that Ron Grantski had been fishing virtually the exact same time?

EVERS: No.

GERAGOS: As you sit here today, is that the first time you ever heard that?

EVERS: I heard some sort of news report.

GERAGOS: Recently, during this trial?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Prior to this trial, you were completely unaware that Ron Grantski had been fishing virtually the exact same time as Scott Peterson; is that correct?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that, based upon the conversation that you heard between Ron Grantski and Scott Peterson, that that would have been surprising to you, based upon what you heard Ron Grantski saying; isn't that correct?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. It's not relevant. It's speculative.

GERAGOS: Goes to the demeanor and the tone in which the questions were asked.

DISTASO: Actually goes to his state of mind, which isn't relevant.

JUDGE: I don't think so. Sustained.

GERAGOS: Did you believe that Ron Grantski was joking?

EVERS: No.

mho [/*]

Is there testimony about what Scott said to Sharon when he phoned her?

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Grantski went fishing at the exact same time as Scott on 24 December. . It came out in testimony in court. So I don't think he felt it was too cold to fish.

mho [/*]Did Ron use a boat on San Francisco Bay?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Is there testimony about what Scott said to Sharon when he phoned her? [/*]

ROCHA: When he called he said, "Hi, Mom." He said, "Is Laci there with you or over there?" And I said, "No." And he said that her car is there, was there in the driveway and the dog was in the backward with the leash on and Laci was missing. I remember telling him to call her friends to see if anybody had seen or talked to her that day. I just thought that maybe she was with one of her friends, but I remember hanging up the phone and walking back towards the door of the bedroom to walk down the hall. I was going to tell Ron, and that's when I realized he said that she was missing. And I just, I just knew. I knew she was missing. He wouldn't have used the word "missing." I mean, most people when they would call they would say,

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He couldn't have gotten it from Sharon who had talked to Scott. Sharon did not know Laci had planned to bake gingerbread and walk the dog until later that night when Scott told her in the driveway.

mho [/*]Did the neighbor who found McKensie tell him?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by alter ego


ROCHA: When he called he said, "Hi, Mom." He said, "Is Laci there with you or over there?" And I said, "No." And he said that her car is there, was there in the driveway and the dog was in the backward with the leash on and Laci was missing. I remember telling him to call her friends to see if anybody had seen or talked to her that day. I just thought that maybe she was with one of her friends, but I remember hanging up the phone and walking back towards the door of the bedroom to walk down the hall. I was going to tell Ron, and that's when I realized he said that she was missing. And I just, I just knew. I knew she was missing. He wouldn't have used the word "missing." I mean, most people when they would call they would say, [/*]

Thanks, AE!

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by W_D_1




The only thing mentioned in the three calls between Sharon and Scott that night was the dog with the leash on. Nothing about golfing or fishing.

According to her testimony it wasn't until later that night at the house that Scott told her he was fishing. Now the next question is if he'd said he was going golfing then why didn't she ask him that night why he went fishing instead? I believe she accepted the fishing story because it's the only one he said to anyone. [/*]

Was there mention of what time Scott left the house that morning?

[GrandmaGA]

Does anyone know of ANY case EVER of where a
"mistress" gave a press conference BEFORE an arrest or trail?

[wandering]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
Does anyone know of ANY case EVER of where a
"mistress" gave a press conference BEFORE an arrest or trail? [/*]She was advised to do that by LE, IIRC. To put out the media fire.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Didn't a Kim break in and steal things before that? [/*]

I believe that was in January and Scott was able to get the things she took returned

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


That scenario would mean between the time she got dressed and 9:30 a.m., he managed to kill her, clean up leaving no trace of murder, surf the 'net for umbrella stands, watched Martha Stewart, loaded up the body/umbrellas. Quite an unbelievable feat, imo. [/*]

Of course, Scott always tells the truth. He had plenty of time to clean up the house - and if it was a soft kill, no problem, there would be no evidence to clean up. We do not even know that she got dressed that morning. She only put on a bra and a pair of pants? Makes no sense. There were no remnants of any top on her body whatsoever Guess she mops, cleans, bakes, walks teh dog, and goes shopping. in just her bra and pants

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by W_D_1



The police don't give a dang about "media fire". They don't release information about cases to suit the media.

That press conference was done to make Scott look bad in the public eye. [/*]

Exactly AND I have NEVER seen it done in any other case.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Det. Grogan brought Amy to the house. I think she was crying because she did find the clothes Laci was wearing the last time she saw her. That would be a gut-wrenching experience to have to do that, imo. [/*]

According to the testimony, she only found the blouse, the jacket and the scarf

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Did you see the press conference after the verdict? We call it the "poke in the ribs" press conference. Brocchini said that he knew about Amber from "day one!" Someone poked him in the ribs and it was hard!

Did Ron know about Amber and tell Brocchini? Ron had asked Scott if he had a 'girlfriend."

BTW, the police told Amber to put her hair in a ponytail for the press conference. She mentions this in her book.

MHO [/*]

Yep I saw and heard it. Sure would be nice to get him on the stand and ask him about it, let him deny it and then show him that video clip. He would lie his way of of it again though of course.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Didn't she wear Laci's wedding dress and steal some clothes? I think she broke a window too and messed up the bad.


IIRC [/*] Yes, she broke a window in a house that Scott was away from and did not set the alarm for. She took Laci's wedding dress - I don't remember if she put it on or not. She also took some of Scott's clothes and some liquor.

Seh was seen by neighbors. Scott told the police he would not press charges. Why?"??? I sure would. Why did he not set the burglar alarm - he knew he would be out of town.??????

Convenient that she broke in when he was out of town. I think he set her up for it because I can't imagine someone not pressing charges against someone if they broke into their house. Kim admitted being fascinated with Scott and she was also bi-polar

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Yes, she broke a window in a house that Scott was away from and did not set the alarm for. She took Laci's wedding dress - I don't remember if she put it on or not. She also took some of Scott's clothes and some liquor.

Seh was seen by neighbors. Scott told the police he would not press charges. Why?"??? I sure would. Why did he not set the burglar alarm - he knew he would be out of town.??????

Convenient that she broke in when he was out of town. I think he set her up for it because I can't imagine someone not pressing charges against someone if they broke into their house. Kim admitted being fascinated with Scott and she was also bi-polar [/*]

He didn't press charges against the Rochas when they broke into his house either.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Did Ron use a boat on San Francisco Bay? [/*]

Ron was an avid fisherman. Scott was not. And I believe he did not go until later that day and he went 16 miles from home

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Did the neighbor who found McKensie tell him? [/*]

We do not know what Scott told Sharon in all as the conversation was not taped. I think he told Sharon golfing, also - since he didn't come up with the fishing alibi until later that night. He had told Amy golfing, so he was locked into that alibi

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
Does anyone know of ANY case EVER of where a
"mistress" gave a press conference BEFORE an arrest or trail? [/*] The media was hounding her so she had to. Her picture had been in the Enquirer

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Was there mention of what time Scott left the house that morning? [/*] Scott told people 9:30 but he heard meringue on Martha Stewart and that did not come on until 9:48 so he had to leave after that.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess
The media was hounding her so she had to. Her picture had been in the Enquirer [/*]

So what. :shrug: Doesn't mean she had to give a press conference.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


Exactly AND I have NEVER seen it done in any other case. [/*]

I have never seen a defense attorney stand on the courhouse steps EVERY DAY and give press conferences either. Bragging about how he KNEW who did it and there would be a Perrry Mason moment. How he would reveal it in 3 weeks. I have never seen a defense attorney make up so many lies and feed them to the press - about the sonogram that Laci had on the 23rd of December. Her doctor had to go public to deny it.
He pulled teh same garbage in the Cam Brown case.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by W_D_1



No she didn't have to. She chose to at the insistence of her attention seeking lawyer Gloria Allred. [/*]

That first press conference was before Gloria. The press conference reeled Gloria in as she saw it as more chance for her to be on TV. barf

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by dan4081



For once we agree. I think he had told them he was planning on golfing. [/*]

Scott did not just tell Laci's parents. He told Harvey Kemple and he told Amie Krigbaum and Tara Veneble that he was gofling that morning.

You know what is really strange about his golfing alibi. There are only 9 hole courses at Del Rio, yet he was golfing from 9:30 until 4:30ish? A golfer of his skill would be done with all of the courses by noon.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


So what. :shrug: Doesn't mean she had to give a press conference. [/*]

They were following her and disturbing her at work. Funny thing, she was a single parent; she had to work.

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1




The only thing mentioned in the three calls between Sharon and Scott that night was the dog with the leash on. Nothing about golfing or fishing.

According to her testimony it wasn't until later that night at the house that Scott told her he was fishing. Now the next question is if he'd said he was going golfing then why didn't she ask him that night why he went fishing instead? I believe she accepted the fishing story because it's the only one he said to anyone. [/*]Wasn't Scott an avid golfer, perhaps the assumption was he golfed?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



Before they even went to the house? He called 911 from their home, not Scott and Laci's. [/*]But a neighbor might be concerned about a dog with a leash in the street and give the parents a call?

[California]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Was there mention of what time Scott left the house that morning? [/*]Didn't he often golf with his free time?

[California]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
Does anyone know of ANY case EVER of where a
"mistress" gave a press conference BEFORE an arrest or trail? [/*]Monica Lewinski.

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Not before the 911 call--unless she called Sharon earlier that morning and happened to get Ron...and told him the dog came home with his leash.

How did Ron know Laci had went missing in the "morning?" Scott told Sharon he came home and couldn't find Laci. So where would Ron get the information she had went missing in the "morning?" Scott didn't tell Sharon that!

mho


" [/*]Did anyone see her in the afternoon?

[California]

Originally posted by wandering
She was advised to do that by LE, IIRC. To put out the media fire. [/*]IIRC NE had the story and was going to print.

IMO

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



The police don't give a dang about "media fire". They don't release information about cases to suit the media.

That press conference was done to make Scott look bad in the public eye. [/*]Did it work?

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess


I believe that was in January and Scott was able to get the things she took returned [/*]When were the things returned?

[California]

Originally posted by Donuts


Brocchini knew about Amber from day one? I missed that press conference.:( [/*]Didn't Amber and Laci's friends have a pj party that night?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess
The media was hounding her so she had to. Her picture had been in the Enquirer [/*]No it hadn't. She went public before NE outted her.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Of course, Scott always tells the truth. He had plenty of time to clean up the house - and if it was a soft kill, no problem, there would be no evidence to clean up. We do not even know that she got dressed that morning. She only put on a bra and a pair of pants? Makes no sense. There were no remnants of any top on her body whatsoever Guess she mops, cleans, bakes, walks teh dog, and goes shopping. in just her bra and pants [/*]Didn't Scott's sister think she was drowned in the pool?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


I have never seen a defense attorney stand on the courhouse steps EVERY DAY and give press conferences either. Bragging about how he KNEW who did it and there would be a Perrry Mason moment. How he would reveal it in 3 weeks. I have never seen a defense attorney make up so many lies and feed them to the press - about the sonogram that Laci had on the 23rd of December. Her doctor had to go public to deny it.
He pulled teh same garbage in the Cam Brown case. [/*]
Do you have a link to Geragos saying Laci had a 12/23 sonogram?

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Ron was an avid fisherman. Scott was not. And I believe he did not go until later that day and he went 16 miles from home [/*]Big difference, eh?

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess


We do not know what Scott told Sharon in all as the conversation was not taped. I think he told Sharon golfing, also - since he didn't come up with the fishing alibi until later that night. He had told Amy golfing, so he was locked into that alibi [/*]Is this when Amber thought he was in Paris?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1


Who was arrested after her press conference? [/*]There was a trial, I don't remember an arrest. For the civil trial I think they won't arrest Scott.


IMO

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I don't know.

mho [/*]Then missing in the morning should be correct?

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That's what he said at the press conference.

mho [/*]Was day 1 when Scott met Sibley?

[California]

Originally posted by alter ego
No it hadn't. She went public before NE outted her. [/*]The funny part was the photo identified the source from the picture on the wall. :hat:

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


For the sake of argument, if she told him it would have been earlier in the day before Scott called and before the 911 call...so why didn't Sharon check on Laci to see if she was okay if she knew the dog came home with his leash? Are we to believe that she didn't do a thing about it until after Scott called?

mho [/*]Wasn't she at the movies?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You really can't sit here and compare this case to the President of the United States. There was an affair but there was no murder in that case. [/*]I think it would be going off topic a bit far. Just saying, there are press conferences before trials. I mentioned one example with very little thought. If a press conference proves Scott shouldn't profit from a book, that's fine with me.


IMO

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
If Ron was such an avid fishermen and he went fishing every opportunity he got, why then did he hide his 24 December fishing trip? The only reason he testified he went fishing, is he got caught with his fishing rod down. The prosecutor's investigator found out shortly before the trial that Ron had gone fishing almost the same time as Scott. Yet he had told Scott right in front of officer Evers that it was too late for Scott to go fishing!

What alibi did he give the police? He didn't tell them that he went fishing! He testified that he had not told anyone he went fishing 24 December!

MHO [/*]Wasn't Ron working? Maybe he got paid to fish!



IMO

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


For the sake of argument, if the neighbor let her know the dog came home with his leash, why then did she go to the movies? Why didn't she check to see if Laci was okay before she went to the movies? The pooch had allegedly came home with his leash in the morning.

mho [/*]Maybe Sharon didn't know before the movie. Perhaps she turned her phone off and got a message later.


IMO

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He went fishing, and that is an undsiputed fact. He got paid to fish? By who?!

mho [/*]He went to work in the morning.

Don't know about him but others have worked a holiday then goofed off for 4 hours and got paid for it. IIRC

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



There you go. You got it. Then the neighbor didn't call Sharon...but the fact still remains how did Ron know the pooch came home without his leash?

mho [/*]Psychic?

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That's right.

mho [/*]Sure sounds like work to me...

DISTASO: Now, on the 24th, let's go to the 24th now. Did you work that day?

GRANTSKI: I got up early, like I always do, and I had to go to the office in Lodi, and so I left my house about 6:30. And the boss was giving us the rest of the week off, so I went to get my paycheck and fill him in on what had been happening. And then I had to go from there to Los Banos because of a shopping center I was building was in Los Banos, and it was right at the finishing touches.[/*]


IMO

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


WHO would pay him to fish...and why? TIA

mho [/*]DISTASO: And then you left the job site. And on the way home did you do any fishing?

GRANTSKI: Yeah. I, I believe I called Sharon and, you know, that was a Tuesday. A lot of people had to kind of work part of the day or you had to get things ready, and I, I told her I was getting ready, and she said she was going to the show, I believe with Sandy, so I figured well, I've got a few hours, so I decided to drive and go fishing.

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Two story Ron!

Ron testified that he hadn't told anybody he had gone fishing.

Brocchini didn't know until the trial; Evers didn't know until he heard it on a news report during the trial. You cannot find one person who knew Ron had gone fishing until after he got caught with his fishing rod down. The prosecutors investigator found it out shortly before the trial started...and Ron had little choice but to admit it in testimony...or he would have been charged with perjury.

He can dance around it and say he told Sharon, but in his own words in his testimony, he hadn't told anybody. Oh, yeah, he did say at one point he didn't remember if he told anyone in "advance" that he was going fishing! Next we hear two story Ron told Sharon!

GERAGOS: Okay. And you went fishing, did you tell anybody in advance that you were going fishing?

GRANTSKI: I can't remember. I don't know if I did.

GERAGOS: Did you tell anybody at work that you were going fishing?

GRANTSKI: No.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you tell anybody the night before, Hey, I'm going fishing tomorrow?

GRANTSKI: No.


_______

GERAGOS: Now, at any point did you know that Ron Grantski had gone fishing that same day?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Relevance.

JUDGE: Overruled.

BROCCHINI: At any point?

GERAGOS: Maybe I'll ask it better. I assume you know now that Ron Grantski went fishing at virtually the exact same time?

BROCCHINI: I do know now.

GERAGOS: Okay. When did you learn that?

BROCCHINI: After this trial started.

GERAGOS: Now, at any point did you know that Ron Grantski had gone fishing that same day?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Relevance.

JUDGE: Overruled.

BROCCHINI: At any point?

GERAGOS: Maybe I'll ask it better. I assume you know now that Ron Grantski went fishing at virtually the exact same time?

BROCCHINI: I do know now.

GERAGOS: Okay. When did you learn that?

BROCCHINI: After this trial started.



______



GERAGOS: And when Ron Grantski came up and asked, he said, Scott was standing next to you; is that correct?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: He walked up and said he was Laci's stepfather, right?

EVERS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And he asked Scott if he was able to go golfing that day?

EVERS: Yes. If he was able to get his golf game in.

GERAGOS: And Scott said it was too cold, and he went fishing; isn't that correct?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then Ron Grantski said, "Do you mean going fishing 9:30 or ten in the morning? Boy, that's late to go fishing." Is that what he said?

EVERS: Yes, that's what I remember.

GERAGOS: Okay. And when he said that, did Ron Grantski say, well, I'd been fishing the same day, what a coincidence?

EVERS: No.

GERAGOS: Did you know that Ron Grantski had been fishing virtually the exact same time?

EVERS: No.

GERAGOS: As you sit here today, is that the first time you ever heard that?

EVERS: I heard some sort of news report.

GERAGOS: Recently, during this trial?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Prior to this trial, you were completely unaware that Ron Grantski had been fishing virtually the exact same time as Scott Peterson; is that correct?

EVERS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that, based upon the conversation that you heard between Ron Grantski and Scott Peterson, that that would have been surprising to you, based upon what you heard Ron Grantski saying; isn't that correct?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. It's not relevant. It's speculative.

GERAGOS: Goes to the demeanor and the tone in which the questions were asked.

DISTASO: Actually goes to his state of mind, which isn't relevant.

JUDGE: I don't think so. Sustained.

GERAGOS: Did you believe that Ron Grantski was joking?

EVERS: No.

mho [/*]I don't think he wanted everyone to know he was fishing while some thought he was working. How is it relevant?

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


With all due respect, this testimony is not an answer to my question: Who paid Ron to go fishing...and why? You said maybe he was paid to go fishing...but WHO and WHY? TIA

mho [/*]If Ron went to work as he normally does and he used "get ready time" to fish, I would say he was getting paid and he was fishing. Just as someone who takes extra time at lunch to go shopping gets paid to go shopping. Normally, it isn't a big deal at holiday time but not something most people want to flaunt to the boss.

IMO

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Would you please anwser my question: Who paid Ron to go fishing...and why? I have answered your many questions, now would you please answer mine? TIA

mho [/*]His boss. He was getting ready. I have answered several times.

Ron went to work.
Ron got paid by his boss.
Ron fished.
He got paid for fishing.

I can't be positive but it sounds like he was reimbursed for driving to go fishing also.


IMO

[Maranatha]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




I am fully aware of what Sharon said, but I believe Scott.

mho

mho [/*]

This explains a lot.

Why do you believe Scott? After being caught in so many lies? That just boggles my mind!

Asking most repectfully, but even when he didn't need to lie, he lied.

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
Ron obviously felt a need to hide his fishing trip. He never told Sharon, Brocchini, or Evers that he went fishing. In Ron's own words he testifed he didn't tell anyone. Sounds like he is hiding something to me. Me thinks this will be a big issue in the civil trial. He tried to make Scott look guilty for going fishing on 24 December, when he went fishing almost the same time. I wonder how things would have turned out for Scott if the police had known Ron went fishing 24 December on the night of the 24th?

mho [/*]Ron also hid his smoking, maybe they will bring that up?:shrug:

[Maranatha]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


With regard to your first question, I believe Scott. I think Sharon was so upset that she is mistaken. I think she found it out from Ron...and was confused as to who said what. And I think she forgot that she had said it to Scott first.

~snipped~

mho [/*]

May I ask you, if Sharon was so upset, why wasn't Scott? His wife and baby after all.

He was rather calm and collected from the get go IMO.

Have you ever not believed Scott?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Scott told people 9:30 but he heard meringue on Martha Stewart and that did not come on until 9:48 so he had to leave after that. [/*]

My question pertained to Grantski telling 911 that Scott left that morning at 9:30 a.m. Grantski told 911 the dog was found walking with his leash on. How did Grantski know these details? Scott told Sharon the dog was in the backyard with its leash on. At that point, Scott did not know the neighbor had placed the dog in the backyard, Sharon didn't know it.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Beebee
Why does Ron Grantski say Scott went golfing TWICE on the 911 call? Why did he assume that?? Anybody know? [/*]

Since that is where Scott told his neighbours..it may be that is what he told Ron G./..Scott really was evasive after the disappearance of Lacy...but that this day or so..he did mention more than once about going out golfing..then another story about fishing??..but later proved he never used the bait/tackle still in it's packaging ( wrong type for what he was fishing for??)

So just maybe Ron got that gist from Scott himself?

LMS:shrug:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


My question pertained to Grantski telling 911 that Scott left that morning at 9:30 a.m. Grantski told 911 the dog was found walking with his leash on. How did Grantski know these details? Scott told Sharon the dog was in the backyard with its leash on. At that point, Scott did not know the neighbor had placed the dog in the backyard, Sharon didn't know it. [/*]

The dog out on his leash...was told by the neighbour..who retrieved the dog and put him/her into the backyard..I think I recall that correctly..??

LMS:shrug:

Yiks..I know I have good recall in general..but this stuff is really taxing my skills!!

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by dan4081



Read what Alter Ego posted.
Scott called Sharon and told her Laci was missing and he came home and found the dog outside with the leash on. She told Ron and he called 911.

No conspiracy at all......... [/*]

Sharon said Scott told her the dog was in the backyard with the leash on.

Grantski gave a much greater degree of detail to 911. How did Grantski know what time Scott left that morning? That Laci went into the park and that the dog came home without her?

GRANTSKI: Yes. My son-in-law called. He'd been playing golf this morning. He left at 9:30. My daughter has been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home with just the leash on.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y


The dog out on his leash...was told by the neighbour..who retrieved the dog and put him/her into the backyard..I think I recall that correctly..??

LMS:shrug:

Yiks..I know I have good recall in general..but this stuff is really taxing my skills!! [/*]

at the time of the 911 call, Grantski had not yet spoken to Scott or his neighbors.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Questions about this 911 call will be an issue in the Civil trial, IMO. Ron will be held accountable for his words on the 911 call.

mho [/*]

ITA.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by dan4081
And while we are at it----

If you truely believe Ron knew the dog was on the leash before Scott told anyone, then you also believe Ron was involved in Lacis murder. How does that work with your insistance that Connor was a full term baby?

Now are you trying to say that Ron grabbed Laci that day and left the dog and kept Laci hostage until he removed the baby and then planted the bodies??????????????? [/*]

Ron didn't have to actually murder Laci to have some involvement or knowledge of her going missing.

iirc, the Rochas posted a $500,000 reward.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by dan4081


What does the reward have to do with anything? Nobody has collected it. [/*]

I'm surprised it is so difficult for you to connect the dots.

The outcome wasn't known at the time the reward was offered. This case could very well have been a kidnapping that went south. Laci may have died unintentionally or because she recognized someone.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Did anyone see her in the afternoon? [/*]

No one other than Scott saw Laci after their visit to Salon Salon

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Ron didn't have to actually murder Laci to have some involvement or knowledge of her going missing.

iirc, the Rochas posted a $500,000 reward. [/*] For her SAFE return. And the Rochas did not put up all that money.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess


No one other than Scott saw Laci after their visit to Salon Salon [/*]She didn't pick up a pizza?

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess
For her SAFE return. And the Rochas did not put up all that money. [/*]IIRC there were two reward amounts with different requiements and conditions. Gallo pledged up to $500,000 but others contributed. Another reward of $50,000 was for recovery of the remains and split among 5 people.


IMO

[earth goddess]

Since we are discussing fantasy theories, I like the one where Ron hit Laci with the mirror on his truck and hid the body in a shack near the river where he fished. No one remembers that Ron was seen and talked to people that day. Who saw Scott? Oh yeah,. I remember.....Geragos said the mysterious boat owner who donveniently took off on a sailing trip to no one knows where and he couldn't be found. No worker at the Marina that day claims to have seen or talked to Scott. The number of boaters on the Bay were few to none. Oh wait, Ropn followed Scott to the Marina to dump the body in his waders. Or even better are the homeless who wheeled Laci 90 miles in a grocery cart and then drug her body and dumped her right where Scott said he was that day. Oops, that couldn't happen.......no one knew he was at the Berkeley Marina until the 11pm news on the 26th. The Coast Guard was on watch after being notified on the 25th. Tracking dogs were at the Berkeley Marina first thing on the 27th and alerted by the boat launch.

Anyone who thinks that Conner was born alive, needs to reread Dr. Peterson's report as to how Conner was born. The area wehre Conner ewas found is underwater at high tide and muddy at low tide. There's no vehicle access to that area and no lighting. Anyone would have a hefty hike carrying a baby that was decomposed enough that the Coroner's investigateor would not handle it for fear of doing more damage.

The more you read the transcripts, the more guilty Scott looks.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
She didn't pick up a pizza? [/*] IIRC she called it in from Salon Salon and Scott picked it up. No one from Mountain Mikes ever testified to seeing her.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess
IIRC she called it in from Salon Salon and Scott picked it up. No one from Mountain Mikes ever testified to seeing her. [/*]It probably isn't relevant but my memory is they both picked it up.

Mountain Mike's According to Scott Peterson, pizza parlor from which he and Laci Peterson picked up a pizza on the evening of December 23, 2002; web site:

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/what/what2.htm

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess

SNIP

The more you read the transcripts, the more guilty Scott looks. [/*]

I've read the trial record more than once. I find just the opposite.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess
IIRC she called it in from Salon Salon and Scott picked it up. No one from Mountain Mikes ever testified to seeing her. [/*]
Amy told the DAs investigator Scott and Laci were both going to pick up the pizza on the way home and that is what he testified to. No one from Mountain Mike's was ever called to testify.


GERAGOS: She said Laci called, ordered pizza that were going to go pick up on the way home, Scott asked Amy if she they wanted to come over to eat the pizza at their house, is that correct?

BERTALOTTO: That's correct. That's what Amy told me.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by alter ego

Amy told the DAs investigator Scott and Laci were both going to pick up the pizza on the way home and that is what he testified to. No one from Mountain Mike's was ever called to testify.


GERAGOS: She said Laci called, ordered pizza that were going to go pick up on the way home, Scott asked Amy if she they wanted to come over to eat the pizza at their house, is that correct?

BERTALOTTO: That's correct. That's what Amy told me. [/*]It probably isn't that important since Laci would talk to Sharon later.



IIRC:hat:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081



DISTASO: Okay. And then after you walked down and you told Ron?

ROCHA: I didn't walk down, I ran down at that point. [/*]

GERAGOS: Okay. And then specifically on January 28th that's the first time that Sharon told you that in the first call she received from Scott that he had said McKenzie is in the backyard with the leash on and Laci is missing?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then she said when she got off the phone she told Ron Laci's missing. And the first time you heard that was on January 28th, is that correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now the, did you look at any of the interviews that Ms. Rocha had given, for example, to the Today Show on December 30th in which she says mom, that she said that Scott said, "Mom, is Laci there"?

GROGAN: No, I have never seen that before.

GERAGOS: Did you ever look at the January 14th Today's Show where she said "I just immediately, I knew she was missing"?

GROGAN: No, I have never seen that before.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by dan4081




SNIP

Very powerful! Sharon says that Scott told her about the dog and the leash!!


SNIP [/*]



Given: "Sharon says that Scott told her about the dog and the leash", define the premises that reliably and validly infers a sinister conclusion.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081



No sinister conclusion at all. That is not what I was saying. My point was that Scott told Sharon and Sharon relayed that to Ron so he could call 911.

Some posters believe that Ron Grantski was responsible for Lacis death. Those posters believe that Scott did not tell Sharon that he came home and found Mac on the leash, or that Sharon did not tell Ron, but somehow Ron 'knew' the dog came home with the leash on and he told that to 911. [/*]According to Sharon, Scott told her he found Mac in the backyard with his leash on. That is not what Ron told 911. He told 911 that the dog came home with his leash on.

Where did Ron get that info?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Do you know when the police questioned Sharon and Ron about what Ron had said on the 911 call? TIA

mho [/*]Did they ever?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That is exactly what I said. I said she testified that she "ran down."

Copy and paste of my paragraph from my previous post:

"Sharon's testimony as to telling Ron what Scott had told her is vague and fuzzy. It is not clear whether she actually told Ron about Scott finding the pooch with his leash on. There is nothing in her direct testimony that she had told Ron about the dog coming home with his leash on. When Distaso asked her if she walked down to tell Ron, Sharon said she ran. She did not say that she had told Ron, only that she ran down." end of quote

She said she "ran down, "but no where in HER testimony does she actually TOLD Ron about the dog coming home with his leash on. . When Distaso asked her if she had walked down, She replied that she ran down. She did not reply in her testimony that had told Ron.

mho [/*]

ITA. Per her testimony, all Scott told her was that the dog was in the backyard, with a leash.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by dan4081



No sinister conclusion at all. That is not what I was saying. My point was that Scott told Sharon and Sharon relayed that to Ron so he could call 911.

Some posters believe that Ron Grantski was responsible for Lacis death. Those posters believe that Scott did not tell Sharon that he came home and found Mac on the leash, or that Sharon did not tell Ron, but somehow Ron 'knew' the dog came home with the leash on and he told that to 911. [/*]

Thanks for clarifying.

(tip of my hat)

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Beebee


At that time it wasn't known how Mac got home, so maybe that is why... [/*]

at that time, it wasn't known that Mac ever left home.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by dan4081


Anytime.

No comment on the alleged Ron conspiracy theory????? [/*]


My alternative suspects are the three men Diane Jackson saw in front of the Medina's residence with a van and a safe at 11:40 AM on Xmas Eve. Stephen Todd and Glen Pearce were imprisoned for their part in the burglary, but she saw three men.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I would think so.

mho [/*]

Doubtful. The lead detectives didn't know until trial that Grantski went fishing that day. I think the chances are slim to none that they ever questioned Grantski or bothered to listen to the 911 call.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee
From above post:




I have a question for everybody.....

If you are a GUILTY Scott Peterson, and you let your dog out as a ruse, and then came home and found your leashed dog back in the yard with the gate closed, what does that mean?

Scott had no way of knowing what time Servas (or anyone) found the dog. Christmas eve was a day off for most people, including those in the neighborhood..... so how was he to know what Sevas MAY have witnessed??? Where is the concern that maybe Sevas, the NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR-- so close you could spit from the Peterson yard to the Servas yard, may have seen the "ruse set-up" or the carrying of a body, or Scott driving off LEAVING the dog.

Instead, the minute Servas says she found the dog, Scott puts her on with the detective. NO attempt on his own to get details.

This is pure consciousness of innocence, IMO.

Anyone else? [/*]It means the ruse worked.




mho

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by dan4081



Even though she described the men as short and dark skinned?

Todd and Pearce were neither........... [/*]

Yes.

Diane Jackson saw three men. If Steven Todd and Glen Pearce are not two of the three men, then who are the three men that she saw with a safe and a van in front of the Medina's residence at 11:40 AM on Xmas Eve?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee


No, he wasn't on his way. He sat in his warehouse on the computer in Modesto for almost an hour. He was at his warehouse till 11:18.

Servas (or anybody) looking for Laci would have changed EVERYTHING. [/*]Servas didn't know Scott was at the warehouse.


mho

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That is not why I find it powerful. I find it powerful because Sharon never even told the lead detective Scott had told her about the dog coming home with his leash until 28 January!

mho [/*]Coming from Sharon it would be hearsay, better to come from Scott.


mho

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081



Or is she confused with her facts........ [/*]Like Karen Servas?

[earth goddess]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dan4081




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MandyMutton


Is there testimony about what Scott said to Sharon when he phoned her? [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ROCHA: When he called he said, "Hi, Mom." He said, "Is Laci there with you or over there?" And I said, "No." And he said that her car is there, was there in the driveway and the dog was in the backward with the leash on and Laci was missing. I remember telling him to call her friends to see if anybody had seen or talked to her that day. I just thought that maybe she was with one of her friends, but I remember hanging up the phone and walking back towards the door of the bedroom to walk down the hall. I was going to tell Ron, and that's when I realized he said that she was missing. And I just, I just knew. I knew she was missing. He wouldn't have used the word "missing." I mean, most people when they would call they would say, [/*][/QUOTE

Yoyr post is misleeading. Karen talked to Scott at 8:48. She does not say she found the dog then. Seh told him 10:30 and he asked her to make sure. She then found the Austin's receipt in the pocket of her pants and KNEW that she saw the dog BEFORE 10:30 based on the time of her receipt from Austins. She then retraced her steps and came up with the 10:18 time which was also verified later by her cell phone records as she talked to a friend on the way from Austins to Starbucks and the ATM receipt from her withdrawal from BofA after her Starbucks trip.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by dan4081



Or is she confused with her facts........ [/*]


Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe in front of the Medina's home. That's akin to reporting having seen a baby hippo in front of their home, for no one would report seeing either a safe or a baby hippo unless they had actually seen it.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Doubtful. The lead detectives didn't know until trial that Grantski went fishing that day. I think the chances are slim to none that they ever questioned Grantski or bothered to listen to the 911 call. [/*]


WRONG WROJNG WRONG!!!!!!

You are making the same mistake that everyone else makes - Brocchini did not know that Ron went fishing. Brocchini was NOT the lead detective. He was merely the first detective on the scene. That does not make him the lead detective and he never interviewed Ron. Another detective did and it was in his report - How else do you think that Geragos knew about the trip?
It was in the discovery. Geragos isn't psychic you know. Or invincible

Read the testimony. Another detective was the lead and it's in the testimony.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


No, he wasn't on his way. He sat in his warehouse on the computer in Modesto for almost an hour. He was at his warehouse till 11:18.

Servas (or anybody) looking for Laci would have changed EVERYTHING. [/*]

Again you prove you never looked at the testimony. Scott was on his computer until 10:56, not the 11:18 that you seem to thinki he was.

READ THE TESTIMONY. Your lack of knowledge is showing.

Scoitt could not have signed off his computer at 11:18 and made it to the Marina if he were following speed limit laws, particularly using the route he claims to have used

[alter ego]

BERATLIS: I think one important thing was when he got home that night, where did he find the dog? It was in the backyard. He didn‘t—that would have told me that she hadn‘t left the house yet. She was still somewhere either in the house or in the backyard. The dog didn‘t miraculously open that gate and walk in there with a leash on. The dog was going for a walk. He didn‘t know that Karen Servas had walked over there and put the dog in the background...

ABRAMS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BERATLIS: ... in the backyard. But the first place they went, he said, was to the park. You know, why would you assume that if the dog—how did the dog get there?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6719011/

They went to the park at Sharon's insistence, not Scott's :shrug:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee


No, but she could have called Scott's cell phone, or Sharon, who would surely have called Scott.

The point is the search for Laci would have started much, much sooner.

What "ruse" would risk an early search for the victim?! [/*]I don't see how an early search would be a problem.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081



Was Karen Confused? If so, about what? [/*]Her times.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


Wudge, do you remember how many cops it took to lift the safe? [/*]


The testimony that I remember that related to the weight of the safe came from Mrs. Medina.


9630
1 A. Drill, yes.
2 Q. You mentioned earlier a safe a fairly large safe
3 was taken?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Can we assume the safe was fairly heavy as well with
6 strong reinforcement?
7 A. Well, when my husband bought it from Costco, he took
8 his cousins to help him.
9 Q. He had to actually have people help him and carry
10 the safe?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. How many people did he have to have to carry the
13 safe?
14 A. I don't want to call him weakling, but I think he
15 also got his two cousins. I think his two cousins, Joey and
16 Mario to help him.
17 Q. So it took three people to actually put the safe
18 into the house?
19 A. Hm-hmm.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Oh really?

So if Sharon (or anyone) called Scott on his cell and said Laci is missing, Scott would have said, I'll deal with it after I go fishing? [/*]

Why would Sharon even think Laci was missing. She had talked to her the night before. She was preparing for a holiday dinner. Laci had planned to attend. Why would Sharon call her?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by alter ego
Her times. [/*]

Karen was NOT confused. She was very clear on her times and backed them up with timed receipts and cell phone records. - she had three different sources that corroborated her timeline.

That is more reliable than someone calling her a liar. Or that she waqs confused. Her original statement was that she thought it was 10:30. As soon as she found the receipt, she notified the police about it and retraced her steps to get a more accurate timeline. Her timeline is consistent with my own as I drove that same route

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081



So are you implying that maybe Ron was psychic?

He said Scott was golfing on the 911 call, and according to Scott he WAS planning to golf but thought it was to cold.

The reasonable conclusion, and notice the word "REASONABLE" is that someone told Ron that Scott was going golfing on that day.


Be it Sharon, Amy or Scott, someone told him because it was what Scott had planned to do.

Dont see why that is a great mystery to you....or are you cooking up another conspiracy? [/*]When did he tell Ron he was golfing that morning that made Ron ask him about it at the park later and to mention it on the 911 call?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Karen was NOT confused. She was very clear on her times and backed them up with timed receipts and cell phone records. - she had three different sources that corroborated her timeline.

That is more reliable than someone calling her a liar. Or that she waqs confused. Her original statement was that she thought it was 10:30. As soon as she found the receipt, she notified the police about it and retraced her steps to get a more accurate timeline. Her timeline is consistent with my own as I drove that same route [/*]If she was very clear on her times, she would not have changed her testimony and her times.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Where did Ron get the information that Scott had gone golfing that morning? It wasn't from Sharon. Sharon could have only known this from Amy who Scott told he would pick up the fruit basket because he was going golfing the next day.

Sharon did not know about the fruit basket until January 2nd. Amy had told her Scott had planned on golfing and would pick up the fruit basket. Sharon mentions in her book that Amy had completely forgotten to mention it even to the police. Kim Peterson had mentioned it to Sharon, and in turn Sharon questioned Amy about it. That is when Amy remembered it. (pages 131, 132 in Sharon's book)

mho [/*]

Laci could have mentioned it in passing in her phone call to Sharon on the 23rd.

So Sharon did not know about the fruit basket - that proves WHAT????

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


How am I making this up??

Todd and Pearce are white, Jackson saw three other men.

Why is this so hard for you? You think Jackson saw Todd and Pearce and thought they were 3 dark skinned men??? [/*]

And Geragos neglectged to mention that her first impression was that they were LANSCAPERSl, not Burglars.

Why would Todd and Pearce lie to protect these three men? You are forgetting that they passed lie detector tests and that the safe was found at the location they were residing.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081


No idea. What I am saying is either someone had told him that Scott had planned to golf, or Sharon said "Scott just got back from golf and Lacis' missing and mac is home with the leash on" or he is Psychic and had a vision that Scott was planning on golfing that day, which turned out to be true if not for Scotts last minute plan change. [/*]But Sharon didn't testify about Scott saying he had played golf. Ron didn't testify to having been told by anyone that Scott said he played golf.

Just curious where Ron got this info :shrug:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


If Servas had bothered to try and find her pregnant neighbor to see what was up with the leashed dog wandering around, she would have realized Laci was missing, and alerted somebody, imo. [/*]


Give me a break. Maybe in your neighborhood the neighbors are that nosey, but they are not in Modesto. I suppose Karen should have tried every door and window too. People respect their neighbor's privacy here and Karen wasn't best friends with the Petersons either. They were acquaintances. The front gate was locked - Karen did try that. So she couldn't have "rung the bell" She walked around to the other side of the hosue and the gate was wide open. The reasonable thing is that Scott might have not shut it when he left.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess



WRONG WROJNG WRONG!!!!!!

You are making the same mistake that everyone else makes - Brocchini did not know that Ron went fishing. Brocchini was NOT the lead detective. He was merely the first detective on the scene. That does not make him the lead detective and he never interviewed Ron. Another detective did and it was in his report - How else do you think that Geragos knew about the trip?
It was in the discovery. Geragos isn't psychic you know. Or invincible

Read the testimony. Another detective was the lead and it's in the testimony. [/*]

You continue to pick nits about irrelevant points instead of understanding the bigger picture. My point was that the detectives did not communicate and share information with one another because they had tunnel vision on Peterson.

If you'd bother to read the testimony, you will see Grantski admit he asked Peterson what time he went fishing. This is AFTER Grantski had already told 911 that Peterson left the house at 9:30 AM.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess



Give me a break. Maybe in your neighborhood the neighbors are that nosey, but they are not in Modesto. I suppose Karen should have tried every door and window too. People respect their neighbor's privacy here and Karen wasn't best friends with the Petersons either. They were acquaintances. The front gate was locked - Karen did try that. So she couldn't have "rung the bell" She walked around to the other side of the hosue and the gate was wide open. The reasonable thing is that Scott might have not shut it when he left. [/*]Oh please. She asked Scott to help her with her Christmas tree. Her son swam in their pool. She had Scott's cell phone number for crying out loud. She chatted with Scott and Laci frequently.

But she was just an 'acquaintance'.

:rolleyes:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by alter ego
But Sharon didn't testify about Scott saying he had played golf. Ron didn't testify to having been told by anyone that Scott said he played golf.

Just curious where Ron got this info :shrug: [/*]

Are you saying that Ron did not know that Scott was an avid golfer?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


You continue to pick nits about irrelevant points instead of understanding the bigger picture. My point was that the detectives did not communicate and share information with one another because they had tunnel vision on Peterson.

If you'd bother to read the testimony, you will see Grantski admit he asked Peterson what time he went fishing. This is AFTER Grantski had already told 911 that Peterson left the house at 9:30 AM. [/*]

It is the responsibility of the lead detective to assemble all the information. Detectives do not always have time to communicate with each other. Ron did not remember WHICH detective interviewed him. I know, but it is confidential information. Ron knew Brocchini and so it could not have been him. Ron heard him telling a detective that he was fishing. And Ron even made a comment "No one leaves that late to go fishing." You must remember that no one knew about the boat and Ron assumed Scott was going on a proffeswional boat and they leave about 5am. If Scott had intended to fish, why didn't he just fish off the Berkeley Pier? Lalci easily could have told Sharon her plans and said that Scott was going to do his own "thing." And EVERYONE knew that Scott was an avid golfer.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by alter ego
BERATLIS: I think one important thing was when he got home that night, where did he find the dog? It was in the backyard. He didn‘t—that would have told me that she hadn‘t left the house yet. She was still somewhere either in the house or in the backyard. The dog didn‘t miraculously open that gate and walk in there with a leash on. The dog was going for a walk. He didn‘t know that Karen Servas had walked over there and put the dog in the background...

ABRAMS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BERATLIS: ... in the backyard. But the first place they went, he said, was to the park. You know, why would you assume that if the dog—how did the dog get there?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6719011/

They went to the park at Sharon's insistence, not Scott's :shrug: [/*]

Grantski told 911 that Scott left at 9:30, Laci walked the dog in the park, the dog was found with his leash attached and Laci hadn't been seen since that morning. How the guy knew all this at that point in time is a real mystery.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by dan4081



Maybe you would. She didnt. So what? Are you trying to smear Karen Servas now?

No surprise........... [/*] Karen DID go into the backyard a little ways to see if Laci might have fallen or something. However, she did not try to go into the house. Nor should she have. Scott's car was gone, the blinds were down. Maybe Laci was still asleep. Karen did not want to intrude. There was no evidence of any foul play.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Grantski told 911 that Scott left at 9:30, Laci walked the dog in the park, the dog was found with his leash attached and Laci hadn't been seen since that morning. How the guy knew all this at that point in time is a real mystery. [/*]

Do you remember every word of every conversation that you have? I don't. I just talked to a friend long distance. I remember the main part of the conversation but not all of it as the call lasted for an hour. It would have taken her less than a minute to only give me the gist of the conversation.

I think Scott told Sharon he'd been golfing simply because he used the golfing story with the first few people he talked to. He changed it to fishing when he talked to the police.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Yes.

Diane Jackson saw three men. If Steven Todd and Glen Pearce are not two of the three men, then who are the three men that she saw with a safe and a van in front of the Medina's residence at 11:40 AM on Xmas Eve? [/*]

The only place you will ever find that Diane Jackson saw a safe was from a tip sheet.

When the Modesto Polce interviewed her not once but twice she never mentions seeing a safe, Same goes with the defense investigator. She never tells him she saw a safe.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


It is the responsibility of the lead detective to assemble all the information. Detectives do not always have time to communicate with each other. Ron did not remember WHICH detective interviewed him. I know, but it is confidential information. Ron knew Brocchini and so it could not have been him. Ron heard him telling a detective that he was fishing. And Ron even made a comment "No one leaves that late to go fishing." You must remember that no one knew about the boat and Ron assumed Scott was going on a proffeswional boat and they leave about 5am. If Scott had intended to fish, why didn't he just fish off the Berkeley Pier? Lalci easily could have told Sharon her plans and said that Scott was going to do his own "thing." And EVERYONE knew that Scott was an avid golfer. [/*]

What a lead detective is supposed to do and what was done in this case appear to be polar opposites. Grantski should have been interrogated on tape.

All these assumptions you attribute to Ron certainly were not part of his testimony or Sharon's. The fact remains, Ron told 911 that Scott left the house at 9:30 a.m., Laci walked the dog in the park, the dog returned with leash still on, Laci had not been seen since that morning.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Do you remember every word of every conversation that you have? I don't. I just talked to a friend long distance. I remember the main part of the conversation but not all of it as the call lasted for an hour. It would have taken her less than a minute to only give me the gist of the conversation.

I think Scott told Sharon he'd been golfing simply because he used the golfing story with the first few people he talked to. He changed it to fishing when he talked to the police. [/*]

I have vivid recall of conversations that are marked by extreme events or situations, yes.

I'm not disputing that Sharon may have known Scott intended to play golf. The question I have is how did Ron Grantski know that Scott left the house at 9:30, that Laci intended to walk the dog in the park, that the dog returned from the park with leash on, that Laci had not been seen since that morning?

[Stuy]

Originally posted by alter ego
BERATLIS: I think one important thing was when he got home that night, where did he find the dog? It was in the backyard. He didn‘t—that would have told me that she hadn‘t left the house yet. She was still somewhere either in the house or in the backyard. The dog didn‘t miraculously open that gate and walk in there with a leash on. The dog was going for a walk. He didn‘t know that Karen Servas had walked over there and put the dog in the background...

ABRAMS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

BERATLIS: ... in the backyard. But the first place they went, he said, was to the park. You know, why would you assume that if the dog—how did the dog get there?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6719011/

They went to the park at Sharon's insistence, not Scott's :shrug: [/*]

Sharon went to the park because when Scott phone her to tell her Laci was missing he also told her she was going to the park that morning to walk the dog.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081


Thats my whole point Alter. It wasnt testified to, but that doesnt mean it did not happen. Somehow, and I'm sure you will agree here, Ron knew that Scott had planned to go golfing that morning. As Scott 'DID' plan on golfing that day.
And from the transcripts, it appears Ron assumed that when Scott got home and found Laci missing that he had been out golfing. That is why he told 911 that Scott was golfing.

I dont get what the great mystery or 'conspiracy' here is?

Did Ron say Scott was golfing on the 911 call for some nefarious reason?
Did Ron make that up out of the blue and just happened to be correct that golf was what 'Scott' had planned that day?
Did the 'fact' that Ron said "Scott was golfing" in some way tie in with some posters theory that Ron was involved in Lacis' death?

It seems some posters are so wrapped up in trying to prove Scott is innocent that they will try to spin great conspiracies out of meaningless info, without a clue as to what they think it will prove. (Not meaning you of course Alter) [/*]It's a question at least in my mind of something that doesn't add up. Like Ron going fishing himself yet giving Scott a hard time about going fishing at 10am. And why would Ron ask Scott if he got his golf game in after he told 911 that Scott had been out golfing?

:shrug:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Stuy


Sharon went to the park because when Scott phone her to tell her Laci was missing he also told her she was going to the park that morning to walk the dog. [/*]He didn't tell her that until AFTER they had gone to the park

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Stuy


The only place you will ever find that Diane Jackson saw a safe was from a tip sheet.

When the Modesto Polce interviewed her not once but twice she never mentions seeing a safe, Same goes with the defense investigator. She never tells him she saw a safe. [/*]


Diane Jackson reported seeing a safe, three men and a van in front of the Medina's home at 11:40 AM on Xmas Eve. It was logged as as a 459, which is the code for a burglary.

If she did not report seeing a safe, how did it get written on the call report?

[Stuy]

Originally posted by Beebee


Stuy,

Do you think she lied about seeing the safe?

And if so, how could she possibly know about the stolen safe, even before the Medinas did??

The fact that her report existed at all, proves she saw it! [/*]

I don't believe Diane Jackson lied about seeing a safe because I don't think she ever saw one.

Someone wrote down on a tip sheet that Diane Jackson had seen a safe. I don't believe she ever said that because when she is interviewed three time she never mentions seeing a safe.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by dan4081


Thats my whole point Alter. It wasnt testified to, but that doesnt mean it did not happen. Somehow, and I'm sure you will agree here, Ron knew that Scott had planned to go golfing that morning. As Scott 'DID' plan on golfing that day.
And from the transcripts, it appears Ron assumed that when Scott got home and found Laci missing that he had been out golfing. That is why he told 911 that Scott was golfing.

I dont get what the great mystery or 'conspiracy' here is?

Did Ron say Scott was golfing on the 911 call for some nefarious reason?
Did Ron make that up out of the blue and just happened to be correct that golf was what 'Scott' had planned that day?
Did the 'fact' that Ron said "Scott was golfing" in some way tie in with some posters theory that Ron was involved in Lacis' death?

It seems some posters are so wrapped up in trying to prove Scott is innocent that they will try to spin great conspiracies out of meaningless info, without a clue as to what they think it will prove. (Not meaning you of course Alter) [/*]

Blaming Ron is one of the great pastimes. They forget that Ron's time is accounted for. I have seen one website where they claim that Ron went to his fishing place from Los Banos via Lodi - which is ludicrous - Lodi is NW of Ron's fishing place and Los Banios is SW. I have yet to figure how you get to a place NE by going NW.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Then it would have been easy enough for the prosecution to refute.... they did not.

Why would somebody write that on a tip sheet if not true anyway?? How could they know? [/*]

The Petersons were at the Center daily - they could have taken the call. The prosecution did refute it on re-direct. READ THE TESTIMONY

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by alter ego
It's a question at least in my mind of something that doesn't add up. Like Ron going fishing himself yet giving Scott a hard time about going fishing at 10am. And why would Ron ask Scott if he got his golf game in after he told 911 that Scott had been out golfing?

:shrug: [/*]

The fact that Ron knew what time Scott left the house and that Laci had not been seen since that morning is what doesn't add up for me. I also find it utterly amazing that the jury believed the 10:18 a.m. time the neighbor found the dog is absolutely correct.

How many people are sitting in prison because of flawed eyewitness testimony? I shudder to think. And why would a jury conclude a ten-minute window isn't enough time for a woman to get abducted?

From your link up thread:

CARDOSI: No. We got into the deliberating room and we—I mean we tried to find a way out, including the two ‘90‘s (ph), the transients, that somebody else could have done this. And we weighed—we made basically a timeline. We weighed the facts that, you know, if he was there and he heard Martha Stewart, that that would have been, I believe, at 9:48 or so and then, you know, his cell phone call that he made leaving the house I believe was at 10:08 when he was leaving the house or in the vicinity of his house, anyways.

And then I believe he got to his warehouse somewhere at 10:18 or 10:30, somewhere in there. And we had it all laid out on a timeline and we weighed it in the timeline and it just didn‘t seem reasonable. It came down to basically about a 10-minute window that she could have finished getting dressed, doing her hair, mopping the floor, gone outside to walk the dog...

ABRAMS: Changing her clothes.

CARDOSI: ... changing her clothes...

ABRAMS: Yes.

CARDOSI: ... get abducted, and then Karen Servas finding the dog at 10:18. That‘s where the 10:18...

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Stuy


The only place you will ever find that Diane Jackson saw a safe was from a tip sheet.

When the Modesto Polce interviewed her not once but twice she never mentions seeing a safe, Same goes with the defense investigator. She never tells him she saw a safe. [/*]MPDs interviews of Diane Jackson were not allowed in testimony.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by dan4081



Well Beebee, lets back up here a moment.

So Karen wasnt 'being responsible'? Most people would have looked for Laci, including you? Scott came home eand Laci was gone, her truck and purse and keys were there and the dog was out with the leash on.

Karen Servas should have been concerned about pregnant Laci but Scott was ok with it? He didnt try to find Laci. As a matter of fact, he had some pizza, washed some clothes and took a shower before looking at all.
So where does Scotts responsibility in this start? He gets a free pass because why? [/*]

Yes, Scott comes home to Laci's car in the driveway. to a dark house, the dog in the yard on his leash, the house UNLOCKED, Laci's purse hanging in the closet, her keys and pepper spray in it, no baking done, everything just as he had left it, including the mop bucket. He doesn't find anything odd in that? Yet Karen finds a dog on a leash and a gate open and she's supposed to be concerned.

Oh, yes, and Scott sees thousands of dollars on the dresser just where it was when he left. He doesn't even mention that he looks for Laci until Brocchini suggests that he was calling for Laci. Does he try to call Laci to see where she is? No. Why not? Because he knows her cell phone (the one he called and left the message on) doesn't work unless it's on the charger. Yet Karen is remiss in not thinking something is wrong?
GMAB

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Blaming Ron is one of the great pastimes. They forget that Ron's time is accounted for. I have seen one website where they claim that Ron went to his fishing place from Los Banos via Lodi - which is ludicrous - Lodi is NW of Ron's fishing place and Los Banios is SW. I have yet to figure how you get to a place NE by going NW. [/*]

Ron's time is accounted for only by Ron. That's hardly an ironclad alibi.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Ron's time is accounted for only by Ron. That's hardly an ironclad alibi. [/*]

YAou are assuming that no one went to his work to see if he really had been there? He took paychecks from the office in Lodi to the job site in Los Banos. You don't think that employees wouldn't complain if they didn't get their paychecks? He talked to people both in Lodi and in Los Banoos. If you think law enforcement did not check this out then you truly know nothing about law enforcement. The first step is to eliminate possible suspects. They never could eliminate Scott.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


I'm not Marlene.

No documentation proved Servas found the dog at the time she claimed. [/*]

She proved that she was at Austin's at 10:34. She retraced her steps. I also have driven the route she took and 10:18 is the LATEST she could have put Mac back. Also, she returned home between 11:45 and 12. The "burgtlar's" van was seen at 11:40. She lived directly across the stteet from the Medinas, yet she didn't see it.

As for Susan Medina, she is a liar. She claims that she saw Scott's truck in the driveway at 5am It is dark at 5am and the view from her front window is not directly across from the Peterson driveway. With no street lights in the vicinity, I seriously doubt she saw what she said she saw.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


YAou are assuming that no one went to his work to see if he really had been there? He took paychecks from the office in Lodi to the job site in Los Banos. You don't think that employees wouldn't complain if they didn't get their paychecks? He talked to people both in Lodi and in Los Banoos. If you think law enforcement did not check this out then you truly know nothing about law enforcement. The first step is to eliminate possible suspects. They never could eliminate Scott. [/*]

They didn't try to eliminate Scott, imo.

Talking to people in Lodi and Los Banos doesn't prove where Grantski was the entire morning and I doubt the cops bothered to even check.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


They didn't try to eliminate Scott, imo.

Talking to people in Lodi and Los Banos doesn't prove where Grantski was the entire morning and I doubt the cops bothered to even check. [/*]

It proves if he were there and talked to people. Your disregard for law enforcement is noted. Ron's timeline in his testimony is consistent with what he said he did. If the employees on the job site, got their checks, then he was there. He, at least, was around people who verified his story. No one saw Scott, even though he claimed they did. All the Marina employees who worked that day never saw him. You believe his launch receipt but you don't believe Karen's receipt. Isn't that a little inconsistent?

Oh wait, I know. Everyone BUT SCOTT is a liar. That's the mantra, isn't it?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Karen Servas gave DOCUMENTATION that proved her timeline. Scott did not. His timeline had to be reconstructed. You are saying that KAren's cell phone records, the Bank of America time stamp on the ATM and the Austin's register were all wrong?

GMAB

Remember, the white van "burglars" weren't seen until 11:40 so how did they kidnap Laci between 9:48 and 10:18 Diane could see inside the van enough to see there was no landscaping equipment in it, yet she missed a body? Cell phone records show that Scott was still on the Brighton Towers at 10"08 and had not switched to the D St tower yet. So he was within a mile of his home - WHICH ALSO would mean he would have seen Laci if she were walking the streets. [/*]
I have a receipt from the store. How does that prove what I did before I went to the store?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by W_D_1



Receipts, cell phone records and bank statements don't prove what time she found the dog. Karen Servas was wrong when she claimed she left her house at 5:05 that night. Of course it took her a year to figure out that she actually left the house at 4:05 that day so why should anyone believe she found the dog at 10: 08 or 10:18 that morning and not later in the day? [/*]

ITA. That mistake alone should have caused the jury some doubt but noooooo.....

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081


There is no fact, and it certainly is not reasonable.
And unless you provide a link or proof showing that Amy did not tell someone about Scott going golfing, it is raw speculation and has no basis in fact. [/*]Why would Amy have any reason to call Sharon or Ron? Why would Sharon or Ron have any reason to call Amy?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


They didn't try to eliminate Scott, imo.

Talking to people in Lodi and Los Banos doesn't prove where Grantski was the entire morning and I doubt the cops bothered to even check. [/*]

HOGWASH

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee



Note mine too.

Brocchini is a PROVEN LIAR. [/*]

Scott is too - Brocchini never mudered anyone; Scott did.

He lied about the power to his warehouse, he lied to his mother, he lied to everyone. Where is your proof that Brocchini lied?

Testimony, please.

Oh wait, you don't provide that. We must beleive that Brocchini is a liar because BeeBee says so?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Beebee



Note mine too.

Brocchini is a PROVEN LIAR. [/*]The Master Redacter :biggrin:

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


It proves if he were there and talked to people. Your disregard for law enforcement is noted. Ron's timeline in his testimony is consistent with what he said he did. If the employees on the job site, got their checks, then he was there. He, at least, was around people who verified his story. No one saw Scott, even though he claimed they did. All the Marina employees who worked that day never saw him. You believe his launch receipt but you don't believe Karen's receipt. Isn't that a little inconsistent?

Oh wait, I know. Everyone BUT SCOTT is a liar. That's the mantra, isn't it? [/*]

Not my mantra.

Karen's receipt doesn't prove the time she found the dog.

Scott's receipt proves the time he was at the marina. Why is it necessary for anybody to remember seeing him? Do you doubt he was there?

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by Beebee


Having a receipt doesn't prove anything.

She could have found the dog when she returned. [/*]

Just chiming in. Been reading on and off.

OH I agree! Scott having a time stamped boat receipt does not prove anything either.

He just happened to be there and found one on the ground and kept it; just in case.

:confused:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee


No, I'm saying the "dog ruse" is a joke.

The bottom line is MOST people would have checked. [/*]It is difficult to say what MOST would do, hard enough to know what I would do and I wouldn't do the same in all cases. But even if MOST would do something there are those who would react in another manner.

Putting McKenzie in the yard is reasonable to me and more than some would do.

IIRC a mail carrier testified the dog was often out.


mho

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


Ron's time is accounted for only by Ron. That's hardly an ironclad alibi. [/*]

The fact that Ron was seen by other people is not ironclad? Scott should have been so lucky.

The fact is that you will do ANYTHING, including making up things to prove that your "boy" didn't kill his wife and son.

You have NO BASIS in fact whatsoever.

Did Scott take a lie detector test? You cannot prove any evidence of that.

Everyone else did.

What is wrong with someone who won't take a test - fear? Guilt?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Scott is too - Brocchini never mudered anyone; Scott did.

He lied about the power to his warehouse, he lied to his mother, he lied to everyone. Where is your proof that Brocchini lied?

Testimony, please.

Oh wait, you don't provide that. We must beleive that Brocchini is a liar because BeeBee says so? [/*]
Guess you forgot about Miguel Espidia and duct tape, eh?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee


A leashed dog, running around alone is not a normal situation. [/*]How do you know that?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Scott is too - Brocchini never mudered anyone; Scott did.

He lied about the power to his warehouse, he lied to his mother, he lied to everyone. Where is your proof that Brocchini lied?

Testimony, please.

Oh wait, you don't provide that. We must beleive that Brocchini is a liar because BeeBee says so? [/*]


Please. Detective Brocchini was impeached over and over.


KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I wouldn't say it's lost the case, Carol. But this is a big blow, and it's part of what is a very bad week. We know that one juror thought that even before this detective got impeached that the case was going poorly for the prosecution.

Now, this single strand of hair, the one bit of forensic evidence, you remember, five days in a hearing over mitochondrial DNA and whether this one strand of hair could be considered, now that strand of hair is explainable. Why? Because a witness that says that she was in that warehouse and that that secret boat was not such a secret after all with respect to Laci Peterson.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


The fact that Ron was seen by other people is not ironclad? Scott should have been so lucky.

The fact is that you will do ANYTHING, including making up things to prove that your "boy" didn't kill his wife and son.

You have NO BASIS in fact whatsoever.

Did Scott take a lie detector test? You cannot prove any evidence of that.

Everyone else did.

What is wrong with someone who won't take a test - fear? Guilt? [/*]

Everyone else took a lie detector test? Do you have a link?

The fact that Ron was seen by other people isn't an ironclad alibi for the entire day.

You need to stop directing baseless, rude accusations at me.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by W_D_1


And Peggy O'Donnell. [/*]

refresh my memory....Is that the woman who let Laci use the bathroom and Brochinni conveniently left it out of his report?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


Scott lied about an affair. (If you can even call it that) That's it.

Do you think it's unusual for a man to lie about an affair?

Brocchini on the other hand.... his lies broke the LAW. [/*]

Heather Ishimaru's Trial Notes
Day Fifteen
By Heather Ishimaru
June 24 — WHAT WOULD JOHNNY COCHRAN DO?
In the moments after Detective Allen Brocchini admitted he excised the information about the warehouse witness out of his written report, former SF homicide prosecutor Jim Hammer caught my eye across the courtroom and mouthed the words "This is huge," along with an
accompanying hand signal.
A couple minutes later, there was a break, and reporters huddled around Hammer in the hallway for some on-the-spot analysis and explanations. That's when he made the comment, "Game, set, match for the defense. This is their Mark Fuhrman."

[BobbysGirl]

Seriously, nothing unsual with a dog running around loose on a leash, partial chain or rope?

See it in our neighborhood all the time. No different than any other neighborhood. And times, they break loose and I have helped my neighbors run around and catch their dog.


Geeeese.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Heather Ishimaru's Trial Notes
Day Fifteen
By Heather Ishimaru
June 24 — WHAT WOULD JOHNNY COCHRAN DO?
In the moments after Detective Allen Brocchini admitted he excised the information about the warehouse witness out of his written report, former SF homicide prosecutor Jim Hammer caught my eye across the courtroom and mouthed the words "This is huge," along with an
accompanying hand signal.
A couple minutes later, there was a break, and reporters huddled around Hammer in the hallway for some on-the-spot analysis and explanations. That's when he made the comment, "Game, set, match for the defense. This is their Mark Fuhrman." [/*]

that's what I thought. Jury totally ignored it.

Thanks, Wudge.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by W_D_1


And Peggy O'Donnell. [/*]And he put in a report that there was no mention of 'meringue' on the Martha Stewart show aired on 12/24...

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by alter ego
And he put in a report that there was no mention of 'meringue' on the Martha Stewart show aired on 12/24... [/*]


I can see why the Judge has decided the civil case requires a trial.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


How often do you see dogs running lose with leashes on their necks??

Leashes are used to walk dogs and are controlled by a human walking the dog. Not to mention it is dangerous for a dog to be dragging a leash. They could get caught or entangled, so the human masters don't leave leashes on for no reason.

The whole thing signaled something was wrong.

Throw in Laci being pregnant. To be honest I find it appalling Servas didn't look for her. I actually believe Servas is invested in Scott's guilt so she doesn't have to feel guilt. It's easier to believe Laci was already dead. That's JMO. [/*]

I find your allegations appalling. READ THE TESTIMONY

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You know what...my dogs get loose all the time and my neighbors, who just moved in and I barely know, come over to let me know so I can put them back up.

I guess we are more caring about animals here in the south then people are in California. [/*]

And rightly so. However, some of my neighbors dogs have gotten 'out' and they are not at home.

What do I do? Let them roam. If the dog pound shows up and take them. So be it.

Or, they leave a leash law card warning on door. If a neighbor knows the dog and the dog gets away from the pound master and hides.

But, that is irrelevant. 'Kenzie knew his walks, places to rest and go back home. Hoping he find his master/momma.

BG

[KKKKKKatie]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You know what...my dogs get loose all the time and my neighbors, who just moved in and I barely know, come over to let me know so I can put them back up.

I guess we are more caring about animals here in the south then people are in California. [/*]

what an ignorant thing to say :rolleyes:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


And it worked. Brocchini is truly disgusting, IMO. [/*]

the lease you people can do is provide a link to where it says that Brocchini told people about the life insurance policy. I ask for the link because he never told anyone that. You are ignoring what was said at the trial. And making up new stuff. Not ONE TIME havge any of the Scott fans provided any testijmony to back up their lies. NOt even when asked politely.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You know what...my dogs get loose all the time and my neighbors, who just moved in and I barely know, come over to let me know so I can put them back up.

I guess we are more caring about animals here in the south then people are in California. [/*]

And in everyone else's business too, I hear

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by W_D_1



He was bound and determined from day one to make sure Scott was guilty. Apparently he didn't care if he had to lie to make it so. [/*]

As IF Brocchini had that kind of power. You are nuts if you believe that

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee


He testified he often barked. But not that day.

My whole point on this has been that imo it is highly unlikely and unreasonable to think Scott would be so stupid as to leave the dog out as a ruse. It would ATTRACT attention to the situation, and NO murderer wants that! [/*]It didn't attract attention which leads me to think it wasn't unusual.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by alter ego
And he put in a report that there was no mention of 'meringue' on the Martha Stewart show aired on 12/24... [/*]Did he also say there were no football games that day?

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by Beebee


How often do you see dogs running lose with leashes on their necks??

Leashes are used to walk dogs and are controlled by a human walking the dog. Not to mention it is dangerous for a dog to be dragging a leash. They could get caught or entangled, so the human masters don't leave leashes on for no reason.

The whole thing signaled something was wrong.

Throw in Laci being pregnant. To be honest I find it appalling Servas didn't look for her. I actually believe Servas is invested in Scott's guilt so she doesn't have to feel guilt. It's easier to believe Laci was already dead. That's JMO. [/*]

True, so true! BeeBee read my previous. rather previous post.

It is NOT uncommon for a dog getting loose from owner, or get loose on it's own. Jump fence, a gate open, whatever. Happens all the time.

BG

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Me too :beer: :beer: [/*]

Hope you enjoye the outcome too....roflmao

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
Did he also say there were no football games that day? [/*]No, tehre was no testimony to that

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Honestly Wudge, I don't know how he got away with it.

There should be harsh laws in place for LE who lie and manipulate evidence. [/*]

Yes, he did exise that information., He then explained that he did because he did not talk to that witness so it would be hearsay. The information was in his notes and that's how Geragos knew abo0ut it. Geragos also KNEW that the information was in the report by Det Holmes. Did he call Det Holmes? No. It was easieer to try to nail Brocchini who only followed proper protocol. Geragos's famous tricks - ask the right question of the wrong person. Why did he not call Det Holmes to the stand? Because Peggy never said Laci was at Scott's warehouse. Why didn't Geragos ask GROGAN about this report. He had it and could have answered the question. Again because the answer wasn't what Geragos wanted - he wanted to diss Brocchini. If Brocchini weren't honest, why would he ADMIT to excising it? I see an honest man, not a deceptive one. Why not hide his notes?

Scott was not even in town that morning and he was busy buying the wrong equipment for his fishing trip that afternoon. So Laci could not have seen the boat as Scott had the only key to the warehouse.

AGAIN, all this is in the testimony.

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
It didn't attract attention which leads me to think it wasn't unusual. [/*]

TY

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You know what...my dogs get loose all the time and my neighbors, who just moved in and I barely know, come over to let me know so I can put them back up.

I guess we are more caring about animals here in the south then people are in California. [/*]

What I find strange is that Servos left the leash on the dog (which can be dangerous) and also she didn't bother to see if anybody was home. Servos was friends with Laci. She knew she was pregnant. She knew the dog wasn't allowed to roam the neighborhood. I'm surprised she didn't at least look around to see if Laci had fallen in the street and the fact that she didn't tells me she was in a hurry. People in a hurry aren't paying close attention to things such as time.

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by Beebee


I gotta ask, is your first name Karen? [/*]

Please be civil. Do you want the threads shut down again and again?

TY

BG

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
It didn't attract attention which leads me to think it wasn't unusual. [/*]

Again testimony is ignored. The mailman said that Mac barked when Mac was out of the gate, not inside.

I guess it's more fun to make up things than to READ THE TESTIMONY

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


the lease you people can do is provide a link to where it says that Brocchini told people about the life insurance policy. I ask for the link because he never told anyone that. You are ignoring what was said at the trial. And making up new stuff. Not ONE TIME havge any of the Scott fans provided any testijmony to back up their lies. NOt even when asked politely. [/*]You have been given links time and time again and it is YOU that is ignoring was what was said at trial.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the very first sentence of this article is that Modesto police told Laci Peterson's family that her husband was having an affair and recently took out a 250,000 dollar life insurance policy on her, correct?

BROCCHINI: That's what the article says.

GERAGOS: And that's, that was what you phoned Mike Richardson to tell him to go read that; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: I did.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


What I find strange is that Servos left the leash on the dog (which can be dangerous) and also she didn't bother to see if anybody was home. Servos was friends with Laci. She knew she was pregnant. She knew the dog wasn't allowed to roam the neighborhood. I'm surprised she didn't at least look around to see if Laci had fallen in the street and the fact that she didn't tells me she was in a hurry. People in a hurry aren't paying close attention to things such as time. [/*]

You make it sound like they were girlfriends. They were acquaintances and neighbors, not buddies. And Mac frequently was outside the gate. The blinds were drawn READ THE TESTIMONY and she probably didn't want to disturb Laci..

not rocket science - common sense - READ THE TESTIMONY

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Up to you if you want to trust me on this, but I've been to the Peterson neighborhood. It's not the kind of neighborhood where dogs are running lose, okay?

I need to go back to my main point...

In no way do I believe McKenzie on his leash was a ruse. It was proof Laci left the home to walk the dog, IMO. [/*]

READ THE TESIMONY

Who testified that Laci walked the dog? She left the hosue in 41 degree weather without her purse, coat or keys, leaving the house unlocked? She did no baking that day or shopping either - her car was cold. Her cell phone did not work off the charger, yet you choose to believe that she left the house and walked her dog and was not seen by anyone.

All of the reported sitings were of a woman in a white top and black pants. Laci was not found in black pants and had no top on

I have been in that neighborhood multiple times. I lived two blocks from Covena when it happened. No one who KNEW Laci saw her that morning. No one who KNEW Laci saw her after her trip to Salon Salon. The last person to talk to her was her mom on the 23rd. Scott was the only person who saw or talked to her after that.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Beebee


How often do you see dogs running lose with leashes on their necks??

Leashes are used to walk dogs and are controlled by a human walking the dog. Not to mention it is dangerous for a dog to be dragging a leash. They could get caught or entangled, so the human masters don't leave leashes on for no reason.

The whole thing signaled something was wrong.

Throw in Laci being pregnant. To be honest I find it appalling Servas didn't look for her. I actually believe Servas is invested in Scott's guilt so she doesn't have to feel guilt. It's easier to believe Laci was already dead. That's JMO. [/*]I have dogs and many of my neighbors have dogs and they are all different. I don't assume that I know better than Servas what to do with her neighbor's dog.

In my area, we have a leash law, so everyone has there dog on a leash.


mho

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


You make it sound like they were girlfriends. They were acquaintances and neighbors, not buddies. And Mac frequently was outside the gate. The blinds were drawn READ THE TESTIMONY and she probably didn't want to disturb Laci..

not rocket science - common sense - READ THE TESTIMONY [/*]

Why are you trying to diminish their relationship? They most certainly were "buddies."

I seriously doubt it says in testimony that Mac was frequently out of the yard and in the street wearing a leash.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by packy


I can see being in a hurry a person may not pay attention, but didn't she say she heard a noise in the yard and thought Laci was working there. So why not call Laci's name as she put the dog in the yard? [/*]

You are talking about two separate occasions. She thought she heard raking in the yard when she put Mac back in the yar. She ventured into the back yard enough to realize that the noise was coming from another yard, not the Petersons.

Her evening engagement had nothing to do with putting Mac back in the yard. It was hours later.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Again testimony is ignored. The mailman said that Mac barked when Mac was out of the gate, not inside.

I guess it's more fun to make up things than to READ THE TESTIMONY [/*]Then Mac was often outside?

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by Beebee


Up to you if you want to trust me on this, but I've been to the Peterson neighborhood. It's not the kind of neighborhood where dogs are running lose, okay?

I need to go back to my main point...

In no way do I believe McKenzie on his leash was a ruse. It was proof Laci left the home to walk the dog, IMO. [/*]

It is not about trusting you. You have every right to believe and have an opinion.

Visiting the neighborhood and living there are 2 different things. It is a matter to me, IMO, living in a neighborhood speaks volumes.

Do you live in the country by any chance?

I have, family has and it is a totally different scenario.

Respectfully, your opinions and mine are what they are.

We all live hectic, and fast pace lives.

More so now than, then.

Christmas is/has been the worse. Last minute errands, preps etc leaves much ado about speculations. IMOO

TY for your thoughts and consideration.

BG

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


And it worked. Brocchini is truly disgusting, IMO. [/*]

READ THE TESTIMONY

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


READ THE TESIMONY

Who testified that Laci walked the dog? She left the hosue in 41 degree weather without her purse, coat or keys, leaving the house unlocked? She did no baking that day or shopping either - her car was cold. Her cell phone did not work off the charger, yet you choose to believe that she left the house and walked her dog and was not seen by anyone.

All of the reported sitings were of a woman in a white top and black pants. Laci was not found in black pants and had no top on

I have been in that neighborhood multiple times. I lived two blocks from Covena when it happened. No one who KNEW Laci saw her that morning. No one who KNEW Laci saw her after her trip to Salon Salon. The last person to talk to her was her mom on the 23rd. Scott was the only person who saw or talked to her after that. [/*]Who testified that Laci's cell phone did not work off the charger?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
I have dogs and many of my neighbors have dogs and they are all different. I don't assume that I know better than Servas what to do with her neighbor's dog.

In my area, we have a leash law, so everyone has there dog on a leash.


mho [/*]

we have a leash law here, too but in my neighborhood the only dogs on leashes are dogs being walked. The rest of the time they are either in houses or behind fences.

If I see my neighbor's dog with a leash on in front of their house, I'd wonder where my neighor is. I'd at least knock on their door. Especially if their car is in the drive. I'd also take off the leash so the dog doesn't catch it on something and hang itself. I don't believe my actions are beyond normal. :shrug:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


IIRC That report was to get a search warrant.

He lied to get it. Isn't that supposed to be a violation? [/*]

Meringue was mentioned ONE time in an hour show. And 48 minutes into that show. On the 23rd meringue was mentioned 8 times - there was a segment on it. I can see where it would be easy to miss meringue if it only appeared as a single comment. The point is that it put Scott at home at 9:48 which greatly narrowed his time frame. Whether you believe Karen or not, Scott was within a mile of his home at 10:08 and still at home at 9:48. So you can ignore Karen's timeline, but it fits perfectly into other documented times.

Scott could not have been home at 10:30 when Karen first said she put Mac in the yarde. He signed onto his omputer AT work about that time. It takes about 14 minute to get from Covena to the warehouse - so Scott would have had to have left his house by 10:16, again, verifying Karen's timeline.

I can assure you that Karen Servas is a well respected woman in this town and not one to make up things.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Meringue was mentioned ONE time in an hour show. And 48 minutes into that show. On the 23rd meringue was mentioned 8 times - there was a segment on it. I can see where it would be easy to miss meringue if it only appeared as a single comment. The point is that it put Scott at home at 9:48 which greatly narrowed his time frame. Whether you believe Karen or not, Scott was within a mile of his home at 10:08 and still at home at 9:48. So you can ignore Karen's timeline, but it fits perfectly into other documented times. [/*]No, the point is Brocchini made a FALSE report :read:

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by alter ego
Who testified that Laci's cell phone did not work off the charger? [/*]

and who testified that in all sightings of Laci, she was wearing a white shirt and dark pants?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Meringue was mentioned ONE time in an hour show. And 48 minutes into that show. On the 23rd meringue was mentioned 8 times - there was a segment on it. I can see where it would be easy to miss meringue if it only appeared as a single comment. The point is that it put Scott at home at 9:48 which greatly narrowed his time frame. Whether you believe Karen or not, Scott was within a mile of his home at 10:08 and still at home at 9:48. So you can ignore Karen's timeline, but it fits perfectly into other documented times.

Scott could not have been home at 10:30 when Karen first said she put Mac in the yarde. He signed onto his omputer AT work about that time. It takes about 14 minute to get from Covena to the warehouse - so Scott would have had to have left his house by 10:16, again, verifying Karen's timeline.

I can assure you that Karen Servas is a well respected woman in this town and not one to make up things. [/*]

GMAB. How easy is it to MISS the mention of meringue when that is the reason you're watching the tape?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by earth goddess


READ THE TESTIMONY [/*]There is no guarantee that what will be covered in the civil trial was totally covered in the criminal trial. There are things not testified to, that some may feel is important. TESTIMONY is fine for the jury but posters may want to discuss more.


mho

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
Then Mac was often outside? [/*]

I don't know if often is the correct word, but it was not uncommon according to the mailman.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
There is no guarantee that what will be covered in the civil trial was totally covered in the criminal trial. There are things not testified to, that some may feel is important. TESTIMONY is fine for the jury but posters may want to discuss more.


mho [/*] I can understand that, but they are making up things that were never in the testtimony to prove that Scott is not guilty. He was convicted on the testimony, not on the fantasies of some posters.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


ITA. Per her testimony, all Scott told her was that the dog was in the backyard, with a leash. [/*]

Was she asked if Scott told her he was golfing?

[earth goddess]

HARRIS: Had you had any interactions with McKenzie prior to the 24th?

GRAYBILL: I, as I remember it, there were times when the dog was out with her owner and he would take control of the dog and put the dog in the backyard whenever the mailman came by.




GRAYBILL: I knew who he was. I knew who Laci was. I knew who everybody was.

HARRIS: Okay. So just to go back through that, there would be times where the defendant or someone would be out with the dog as you're walking down the street towards 523. Can you describe what would happen as you would walk down there and if the dog was out?

GRAYBILL: The dog would guard the territory. The dog knew its boundaries, so . . .

HARRIS: Let me stop you. What do you mean by that?

GRAYBILL: Well, like one day there was no one there. The dog knew its boundaries, so . . .

HARRIS: What do you mean by that?

GRAYBILL: Well, like one day there was no one there, okay? The dog was out, all right? And the dog would not let me cross the property. Because you walk, there's no sidewalks. You skirt the grass, on all the houses. So as I would walk up to the house, the dog would be out, and it would be barking at me. But if I stayed in the middle of the street and kept walking right down the middle of the street, the dog would not come off the edge of the property. It would stay on its grass and let me proceed. And I could go up to the next house, at 517, and deliver the mail and the dog didn't have a problem with that. But Golden Retrievers are like that. They'll stay in their territory.

HARRIS: Specifically on December 24th of 2002, did you have any problem with the dog or the dog come out and keep you off the property?

GRAYBILL: No. I had no problems on December the 24th. It was a normal day.

HARRIS: And as far as you can recall were you able to deliver the mail at 523 Covena?

GRAYBILL: Yes, I was.


So the dog was out at least one time unaccompanied. He was out without a leash also. Mind you, this is just during the time the postman was on the street.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


we have a leash law here, too but in my neighborhood the only dogs on leashes are dogs being walked. The rest of the time they are either in houses or behind fences.

If I see my neighbor's dog with a leash on in front of their house, I'd wonder where my neighor is. I'd at least knock on their door. Especially if their car is in the drive. I'd also take off the leash so the dog doesn't catch it on something and hang itself. I don't believe my actions are beyond normal. :shrug: [/*]What you do sounds normal for your neighborhood. In my neighborhood an owner might be fined $300 because you took the leash off his dog.


mho

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess



I can assure you that Karen Servas is a well respected woman in this town and not one to make up things. [/*]

I can assure you that I don't believe she has any such reputation. She does have difficulties grasping the concept of time, tho.

[BobbysGirl]

Originally posted by earth goddess
I can understand that, but they are making up things that were never in the testtimony to prove that Scott is not guilty. He was convicted on the testimony, not on the fantasies of some posters. [/*]

TY and to a few of the posters above. Wish I could delve deeper. My memory not that bad on the SP trial. Can't remember lunch yesterday. :)

OT/ My little time frame I had here has expired. Going to New Orleans Sun. Got things to do.

BG

BG

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
What you do sounds normal for your neighborhood. In my neighborhood an owner might be fined $300 because you took the leash off his dog.


mho [/*]

A leash without a human on one end of it in control is why owner's get fined. I wouldn't take a leash off a dog and then let it run around outside the fence.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
I have dogs and many of my neighbors have dogs and they are all different. I don't assume that I know better than Servas what to do with her neighbor's dog.

In my area, we have a leash law, so everyone has there dog on a leash.


mho [/*]

There is a leash law in Modesto, also, but it is not always obeyed. If your dog stays in your yard, usually no one complains

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by earth goddess
I can understand that, but they are making up things that were never in the testtimony to prove that Scott is not guilty. He was convicted on the testimony, not on the fantasies of some posters. [/*]Yes, of course. As far as the conviction the testimony is paramount. But I think some of us are just exchanging views about minor items, like letting dogs run on a leash.


mho

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


A leash without a human on one end of it in control is why owner's get fined. I wouldn't take a leash off a dog and then let it run around outside the fence. [/*]It is not relevant to this case what you would do. It is not relevant what most people would do. What is relevant is what was done. McKenzie was put in the backyard with leash on according to statements.


mho

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081


I dont know how to make this any easier for you.
You ask "So where would Sharon have gotten it".

My post stated "Ron could have gotten that info from Sharon when Scott called the morning Laci went missing.

Then you say "Not from Amy as Amy had forgotten about it until she was reminded of it on January 2nd. I don't have link, but I gave a book source: Sharon Rocha in her book. In her book, Sharon mentions that Amy had forgotten about it--until 2nd January."

My post stated " I also have not seen a single link from you saying that Amy did not tell anyone that Scott was planning to "golf" that morning. Not pick up a fruit basket after golf, but "golf".

And even after my post you STILL post the same thing from Sharons book talking about a fruit basket!! Yes, Amy forgot that Scott was going to pick up a fruit basket after golf. I got that part.
But she did not forget that he was going to golf. [/*]

Ok. So why then did Ron tell 911 that Scott had been out golfing and then later in the park asked Scott if he got his golf game in?
:shrug:

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
It is not relevant to this case what you would do. It is not relevant what most people would do. What is relevant is what was done. McKenzie was put in the backyard with leash on according to statements.


mho [/*]

Chill out. I responded to your posting about YOUR neighborhood.

:rolleyes:

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by alter ego


Ok. So why then did Ron tell 911 that Scott had been out golfing and then later in the park asked Scott if he got his golf game in?
:shrug: [/*]

How did Grantski know Scott left the house at 9:30 a.m.?

Lotsa questions to ask Mr. Grantski at that civil trial.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by packy


I hear you, but I thought in the preliminary she said she thought it was Laci working. I've always been curious just what was that noise from. She could have been in a hurry to do her errand but it just seemed odd not to call out. [/*]

She testified that she went into the back yard and realized that the noise she was hearing was not coming from the Peterson yard.


DISTASO: And we'll talk about the receipts in a minute. So after you found the dog and you checked his tags, what did you do next?

SERVAS: I took his leash in my hand and I walked across my lawn and across to Scott and Laci's house and I tried to open the front gate.

DISTASO: Okay. So you went here across your lawn?

SERVAS: Correct.


DISTASO: And when you had the dog, how were you holding him as you were walking him to the house or to the Peterson's house, how are you holding him, by his fur, by his collar, by the leash?

SERVAS: By the leash.

DISTASO: Okay. So the leash was still attached?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: Can you describe for the jury what the condition of the leash was?

SERVAS: The leash had, it was dirty it had leaves and, like, grass clippings on it. It was moist.

DISTASO: Was your lawn wet that morning?

SERVAS: My lawn was. It was overcast that day. It hadn't rained in a couple of days, but the lawns were pretty dewy and moist from the fog.

DISTASO: And do you remember whether the dog's coat, you know, whether the dog's coat wet or was it dry?

SERVAS: It was dry.

DISTASO: So you take the dog, you take him across your lawn here, and is that right?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: I'm traveling in the right direction as we look at this picture from the middle towards the right?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: Now this is, is this 27E?





SERVAS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. All right. Now you said you went and tried the front gate?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And is that the gate right here (pointing)?

SERVAS: Yeah. Right there.

DISTASO: Okay. So you walk across your lawn here (pointing) and you tried the front gate, is that right?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: And what happened?

SERVAS: Well, I felt a little panic because the gate was locked, but then I heard some raking in the backyard and so I figured I'd go try and see if the side gate was unlocked or open.

DISTASO: So you walk up there, try this gate, didn't get it, did you continue across the lawn?

SERVAS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: And you said you went to the side gate?

SERVAS: Yes, I noticed that Laci's car was there, so I went, and as I came around the corner, the side gate, which is located right here, was open, it was ajar, and so I figured she must be in the backyard so I walked into the backyard with the dog.

DISTASO: And where was Laci's car parked?

SERVAS: It was parked up in the drive-, I mean it was up in the driveway. I don't know if it was on the right or left side, but it was right about here.

DISTASO: And were you familiar with the defendant's truck?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And you recognize Scott Peterson as he sits here in court?

SERVAS: Yes, absolutely.

DISTASO: And so Laci's car parked in the drive?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: And look at People's 12 behind you, the diagram there. And where you see not the pickup truck, but the one that's labeled 4M where you see that, is that the approximate place Laci's car was?

SERVAS: I don't know if that's the exact place, but that's how far up to the gate that the car was parked.

DISTASO: Okay. And where was Scott Peterson's truck?

SERVAS: It was not there. I didn't see it.

DISTASO: Did you ever see, did you see Scott Peterson leave at all that morning?

SERVAS: No, so.

DISTASO: So Laci's car is parked here and this gate is open you said?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: One more thing on this diagram, this diagram, People's 12 shows the gate that you're describing. Do you see it right here, gate No. 2?

SERVAS: Yes, I do.

DISTASO: And the gate is swung open outwards towards the vehicles?

SERVAS: Correct.

DISTASO: And is that the way you saw it on December 24th?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And that gate swings out toward the street?

SERVAS: It does, yes.

DISTASO: And this is just a little bit, this is People's 27F a little bit closer of these same areas; is that right?



SERVAS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Okay. Can you do me a favor now. Take that blue marker that you were using. And on People's 12, can you write with a dash line where you went with the dog.

SERVAS: From the point that I started?

DISTASO: Yeah. This diagram doesn't really show where your house is or where you found the dog, right?

SERVAS: No, it doesn't.

DISTASO: And where you found the dog on People's 12 where you wrote, where you have "Servas home" it would be further to the left?

SERVAS: Yes.

DISTASO: Can you just write this, write "found dog" and put an arrow towards the
left.

SERVAS: (writing on diagram)

DISTASO: And then can you write, can you show us with like a dash line the route you took and what you did with the dog.

SERVAS: Okay. (writes on diagram) Okay. This is where I went to the front gate and the gate was looked and I heard the noise coming from the backyard so I went around, which is normally where I would go, through the gate. And then I walked with the dog along the cement by the pool up to right here at the end of the house and I looked to the left, didn't see anything, but the noise that I originally heard when I was up here at the gate I determined was coming from either the Hogan's backyard or the Dunger's backyard. I think it was the Hogan's.

DISTASO: Let me stop you. Those were other neighbors?

SERVAS: Correct.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



Raw speculation, emotion, and wishful thinking. Link please. Provide a link that Amy remembered the golf but not the fruit basket....not based on raw speculation and wishful thinking. TIA

mho [/*]

I'll make a deal with you, when you provide a link, someone else will. Don't even go there with me - I have provided more than one link. Time you did the work for a change.

[earth goddess]

The Dungers lived directly behind 523 Covena and the Hogans lived behind Servas.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


I'll make a deal with you, when you provide a link, someone else will. Don't even go there with me - I have provided more than one link. Time you did the work for a change. [/*]How about you just abide by TOS, and stop thinking you can make up rules for others to follow.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


How did Grantski know Scott left the house at 9:30 a.m.?

Lotsa questions to ask Mr. Grantski at that civil trial. [/*]Scott didn't leave at 9:30 Ron was just guessing. Scott was an avid golfer and when he wasn't home all day that would be a logical assumption.



MOO:hat:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by W_D_1


He was just guessing? And he guessed the approximate time that Scott really did leave? Damn that man better be going to Vegas and playing the lottery. [/*]*I don't think it is unusual for families and close friends to anticipate what ofthers may do or have done. Ron probably has a good idea when Scott works, what he does when he isn't working and where he would be that night.

He even suspected Scott had a mistress.


MOO

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Guessed? He stated it as a fact, and he stated the time Scott left as a fact! This is not an "assumption." He "knew" the approximate time Scott had left that morning, and he "knew" Laci went missing in the morning!

OPERATOR: Hi, can I help you?

RON GRANTSKI, STEPFATHER OF LACI PETERSON: Yes. My son-in-law called. He'd been playing golf this morning. He left at 9:30. My daughter has been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home with just the leash on.

mho [/*]I doubt Ron knew any of that.



MOO

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I doubt Ron knew any of that.



MOO [/*]

He stated it as fact....and he was right. Quite the psychic, he is.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by W_D_1



I know what hours my daughter in law works but I never know what time she is going to leave. Scott had the day off that day. I doubt he followed a schedule for his off time.

His suspecting Scott had a mistress never came out until after Amber was known. I don't think he suspected anything and made that up later to make himself sound big. [/*]I hope he is asked in the civil trial, for now it is just speculation. I have my opinion and yours differs.


MOO:hat:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Of course he "knew" it! His words are on the 911 transcript. He knew Laci went missing in the "morning." He said it on the 911 tape. He "knew" the dog came home with his leash. He "knew" Scott had planned to play golf. He "knew" the approximate time Scott left his home that morning. This is a documented fact. His words are on the 911 transcript.

mho [/*]How did he KNOW these things?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


He stated it as fact....and he was right. Quite the psychic, he is. [/*]Many people said Scott murdered Laci and Conner and they were right. Were they all psychic?


MOO:hat:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Ron's words on the 911 tape is not speculation. It is a documented fact. The words he said are not opinion; they are fact.

This is from the 911 phone call:

OPERATOR: Hi, can I help you?

RON GRANTSKI, STEPFATHER OF LACI PETERSON: Yes. My son-in-law called. He'd been playing golf this morning. He left at 9:30. My daughter has been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home with just the leash on.


mho [/*]I disagree. I have called 911 and I didn't think I was under oath when I did. I said things I thought were true. I've heard others call 911 and as they were speaking I knew it wasn't fact, they were guessing or exaggerating.

I think Ron was trying to get the police to search for Laci and he did wht he thought was right.


MOO:hat:

[Mamie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Of course he "knew" it! His words are on the 911 transcript. He knew Laci went missing in the "morning." He said it on the 911 tape. He "knew" the dog came home with his leash. He "knew" Scott had planned to play golf. He "knew" the approximate time Scott left his home that morning. This is a documented fact. His words are on the 911 transcript.

mho [/*]

Can you explain to me why it is a big deal if Ron Grantski did say that Scott went golfing? I think Amy assumed he was golfing too, that day because she called him earlier in the day to ask him to stop off and pick up the basket they had ordered for her grandparent, thinking Scott would be in the area at the golf course. He might have told Amy that the night before when he was in her shop with Laci. I do not think that Amy would have called him if she had known he was going fishing at the Brkly Marina. I don't see where RG is going to have a hard time explaining that or anything. JMO

[drip~drop1]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Ron's words on the 911 tape is not speculation. It is a documented fact. The words he said are not opinion; they are fact.

This is from the 911 phone call:

OPERATOR: Hi, can I help you?

RON GRANTSKI, STEPFATHER OF LACI PETERSON: Yes. My son-in-law called. He'd been playing golf this morning. He left at 9:30. My daughter has been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home with just the leash on.


mho [/*]

It's been a while but maybe Ron was just relaying what scott had told either him or Sharon.

Are people really back to "ron kilt Laci"????????:eek: hammer Why would he????? FGS leave Ron alone!
moo

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by drip~drop1


It's been a while but maybe Ron was just relaying what scott had told either him or Sharon.

Are people really back to "ron kilt Laci"????????:eek: hammer Why would he????? FGS leave Ron alone!
moo [/*]Exactly!

[Mamie]

Originally posted by drip~drop1


It's been a while but maybe Ron was just relaying what scott had told either him or Sharon.

Are people really back to "ron kilt Laci"????????:eek: hammer Why would he????? FGS leave Ron alone!
moo [/*]

I'm sure that's it that Scott had said he was golfing. Weren't there other people that Scott told that to as well, and then he told the cops he was fishing and where? IIRC. Much ado about nothing Ron having to "answer" to what he said in the 9-1-1 call. JMO

[Nattlebee]

Originally posted by Beebee


How often do you see dogs running lose with leashes on their necks??

Leashes are used to walk dogs and are controlled by a human walking the dog. Not to mention it is dangerous for a dog to be dragging a leash. They could get caught or entangled, so the human masters don't leave leashes on for no reason.

The whole thing signaled something was wrong.

Throw in Laci being pregnant. To be honest I find it appalling Servas didn't look for her. I actually believe Servas is invested in Scott's guilt so she doesn't have to feel guilt. It's easier to believe Laci was already dead. That's JMO. [/*]


ROFLMAO! A little dramatic dontcha think? I'm loving this debate. The "anyone but Scott" theories just keep getting stupider and stupider. Keep 'em comin'!:biggrin:

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Many people said Scott murdered Laci and Conner and they were right. Were they all psychic?


MOO:hat: [/*]

I have no idea that they were right or not because the lynch mob mentality got in the way.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Mamie


Can you explain to me why it is a big deal if Ron Grantski did say that Scott went golfing? I think Amy assumed he was golfing too, that day because she called him earlier in the day to ask him to stop off and pick up the basket they had ordered for her grandparent, thinking Scott would be in the area at the golf course. He might have told Amy that the night before when he was in her shop with Laci. I do not think that Amy would have called him if she had known he was going fishing at the Brkly Marina. I don't see where RG is going to have a hard time explaining that or anything. JMO [/*]The question is where did he get the info to tell 911 that Scott had been golfing. No one testified that Scott said he had been golfing when he first called Sharon asking if Laci was there.

I'm not sure what Amy has to do with Ron telling 911 that Scott had been golfing.

[Mamie]

Originally posted by alter ego
The question is where did he get the info to tell 911 that Scott had been golfing. No one testified that Scott said he had been golfing when he first called Sharon asking if Laci was there.

I'm not sure what Amy has to do with Ron telling 911 that Scott had been golfing. [/*]

Actually my post was directed at another and wanting to know why it was so important. And Amy is family. Family talks to family, especially in crisis? Doesn't yours? If someone is missing don't you think that the family would check with other family members and close friends that live in the same town or vicinity to see if the person is there? Amy called Scott earlier that day, etc., etc., etc., and so if Amy thought he was golfing when she asked him to pick up the basket, then it is quite possible that other family members knew it as well. He had this golf membership so maybe on his off time, he always golfed and it could have been a logical assumption, no?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Mamie


Actually my post was directed at another and wanting to know why it was so important. And Amy is family. Family talks to family, especially in crisis? Doesn't yours? If someone is missing don't you think that the family would check with other family members and close friends that live in the same town or vicinity to see if the person is there? Amy called Scott earlier that day, etc., etc., etc., and so if Amy thought he was golfing when she asked him to pick up the basket, then it is quite possible that other family members knew it as well. He had this golf membership so maybe on his off time, he always golfed and it could have been a logical assumption, no? [/*]Amy is not Sharon and Ron's family :shrug:

[Mamie]

Originally posted by alter ego
Amy is not Sharon and Ron's family :shrug: [/*]

Amy was Laci's half sister, if I remember correctly. And if you want to split hairs, Ron and Sharon were not married. Now to me, everyone in this, including Brent and his wife and children, Amy, Sharon, Sharon's ex, and Ron are all family. You're not trying to suggest that with Laci gone, that Amy and Sharon would not speak or act the same and consider themselves far apart now, are you? Of course you're not. JMO

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Mamie


Amy was Laci's half sister, if I remember correctly. And if you want to split hairs, Ron and Sharon were not married. Now to me, everyone in this, including Brent and his wife and children, Amy, Sharon, Sharon's ex, and Ron are all family. You're not trying to suggest that with Laci gone, that Amy and Sharon would not speak or act the same and consider themselves far apart now, are you? Of course you're not. JMO [/*]:confused: Before Laci went missing, Amy would have no reason to call Sharon and Ron and tell about Scott volunteering to pick up the basket and him saying he was going to golf as they were not family.

[GrandmaGA]

"KING: So, therefore, Ron, there is no thought in your mind obviously people always suspect the most immediate family member or something like this and the husband has not been released from that suspicion and no one, this program has not indicated that he is, but there was no question in your mind that he's not involved, right, Ron?

GRANTSKI: Well, that's correct. I, you know, it might seem unusual he went fishing by himself, but I go fishing by myself a lot. Heaven forbid something happen here because I do it all the time.

KING: So that's not strange to you that he would go fishing?

GRANTSKI: No. Not to me.

KING: And the baby's not due until February 10, right it wasn't that he was going to miss the birth of a child?

GRANTSKI: Just a few hours, I mean, just gone for a few hours. It's -- you have to remember that was a workday for most people. I went to work in the morning, then I was off in the afternoon and he happened to have the day off and so did Sharon. So everybody already prepared for our dinners. We were having dinner at our house that night. So, It was kind of like a lax time before the evening of all of us getting together. "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/13/lkl.00.html

Strange Ron didn't say he too had gone fishing that day, huh?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
"KING: So, therefore, Ron, there is no thought in your mind obviously people always suspect the most immediate family member or something like this and the husband has not been released from that suspicion and no one, this program has not indicated that he is, but there was no question in your mind that he's not involved, right, Ron?

GRANTSKI: Well, that's correct. I, you know, it might seem unusual he went fishing by himself, but I go fishing by myself a lot. Heaven forbid something happen here because I do it all the time.

KING: So that's not strange to you that he would go fishing?

GRANTSKI: No. Not to me.

KING: And the baby's not due until February 10, right it wasn't that he was going to miss the birth of a child?

GRANTSKI: Just a few hours, I mean, just gone for a few hours. It's -- you have to remember that was a workday for most people. I went to work in the morning, then I was off in the afternoon and he happened to have the day off and so did Sharon. So everybody already prepared for our dinners. We were having dinner at our house that night. So, It was kind of like a lax time before the evening of all of us getting together. "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/13/lkl.00.html

Strange Ron didn't say he too had gone fishing that day, huh? [/*]

:eek:

According to your link, that was aired Jan 13,2003.

:eek:

JUDGE: When was the last time, when was the next time after the 24th you actually talked to Scott Peterson?

GRANTSKI: I believe it was the afternoon of the 25th or 26th.

DISTASO: Okay.

JUDGE: What were the circumstances? How did you get around to talking to him?

GRANTSKI: Well, I wanted to ask him about his fishing trip to Berkeley.

JUDGE: To Berkeley. Go ahead, Mr. Distaso.

DISTASO: Okay. Go ahead. Did you ask him about that?

GRANTSKI: Well, yes. And he,

DISTASO: Tell me what happened in that conversation.

GRANTSKI: Well, I told him, I said, you know, I think you're Berkeley fishing trip is a fishy story, if you did something else, did you have a girlfriend? Did you go see your girlfriend? I said You better get it out now because, if you don't, it's going to come out and you're going to look a lot worse. And he said No and turned around and walked away.

:eek:

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee



Something I just noticed about this interview after reading the whole thing at the link is it's Ron who FIRST brings up the fishing being "unusual".

"GRANTSKI: Well, that's correct. I, you know, it might seem unusual he went fishing by himself, but I go fishing"..........


So not only does he not mention his own fishing, he puts it out there first that "it might be unusual".


I wonder why? [/*]Was it usual for Scott to fish by himself?

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee



I'm getting the impression Grantski was suspicious of the fishing all along. Never mind that he ALSO went..... he apparently still thought it was odd for Scott to go. So if as early as 25/26 Grantski is letting Scott know he thinks his "story" is "fishy".... I wonder what he was saying to Sharon behind closed doors?

Maybe the MPD detectives weren't the only ones working on Sharon to break her support of Scott?

What a shame, imo. [/*]Wasn't it Dennis that broke Sharon's support?

"You don't want to be in my shoes," Rocha said Tuesday at his Escalon ranch.
It is the base for his tractor, dump truck and water truck service.
He talked easily about his daughter, describing her "bubbly personality,"
open and loving to everyone. He spoke with difficulty about her husband, Scott.

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee



I don't think it is unusual for anyone to fish by themselves. I live on a lake and see it everyday. It can be a very relaxing sport. If you don't like to fish you may not understand this. [/*]How many times did Scott fish by himsellf that year?

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
If Ron had been tailing Scott and knew his activities, why then would he have told 911 that Scott had gone golfing? I don't know.

It not mere coincidence that Grantski went fishing at the exact same time as Scott, and hid it until the proscution's investigator found it out shortly before the trial.

mho [/*]

I don't believe Ron had been tailing Scott. I just think Ron was aware of what time Scott left the house. Either Ron himself was in Laci's neighborhood or he knew someone there, imo.

[MandyMutton]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That sounds more plausable. He could have been in Laci's neighborhood or knew someone there. If he had followed him to Berkely Marina he would have known he went fishing, and wouldn't have told 911 that he had gone golfing.

mho [/*]

He wouldn't have had time to follow Scott to the marina nor would he have a reason to do so. The fact is, somebody knew the Medina couple was headed out of town. Their house was burglarized. Laci lived right across the street and went missing during the same time frame. Grantski knew what time Scott left the house. The only way he would know this detail is if he was there or knew somebody who was watching neighborhood activity, imo.

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee


Before or after he bought his own fishing boat?

Before? I really don't know.

After? It took him only a couple weeks to get it into the water and try it out. [/*]Before Ron knew he had a boat. Aren't we wondering why Ron thought it was unusual?

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
I DO NOT believe Ron Grantski killed Laci! But there has to be an explanation how he knew the exact time Scott had left his house that morning of 24 December, and he went fishing at the exact same time as Scott! Could it be Ron Grantski had been tailing Scott and knew his activities?

As early as 25 December he asked Scott if he had a girlfriend. Could he have known about Amber Frey before 24 December? Al Brocchini said at the press conference after the verdict, that he knew about Amber from "day one!" We call it the "poke in the ribs" press conference. When he said he knew about Amber from "day one," he got a poke in the ribs.

mho [/*]Didn't Ron say 9:30 a.m. and Scott left later?