Collection of Lies on the Peterson Case

[Babes]

Ok let's collect all the lies from everyone on this case ( From Scott , to LE and to anyone in the case ) . As much as possible let's stick to the facts :)

Let's put it on this format :


Lies :
Link (If Any):


Thank You Folks
:)

[Babes]

Lies: Famous Meringues

Peterson told officers that when he left his wife on Christmas Eve she was watching her favorite show, Martha Stewart Living. The episode concerned baking meringues, Peterson recalled.

Investigators told a judge that Peterson had lied, because the meringue episode was actually aired Dec. 23, a day earlier.

But in court Wednesday, Geragos played a clip of the Dec. 24 episode that appeared to contradict the police. In it, Martha Stewart and cookbook author Dorie Greenspan are seen discussing various Parisian desserts. When Greenspan mentions meringues, Stewart squeals, "Oh, that will be nice."

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson3/index.html

[Babes]

Lies : Scott Peterson Lies

Link: Too many to mention :D

[Babes]

Lies : Brochinni adding a "duct tape" story to the Tip

Link : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040706/ai_n14579081

[Babes]

Lies : Laci @ the Warehouse

Prosecutors said Peterson never showed Laci the boat, bought shortly before she disappeared. But Peterson's lawyers countered that a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored days before she vanished

Link : http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-28-peterson-trial_x.htm

[Babes]

Lies : Stealth Jurors Lied Just to be on a Jury (?)

“During the course of the case we were able to expose three separate stealth jurors who lied in order to try to get on the jury,” Geragos said. “There was so much community fervor against Scott that many of the jurors wanted to be on the jury because they had their own private agenda.”

Link : http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/28/lawyerMaintainsPetersonsInnocence

[Babes]

Lies : Amber Frey is Lying?

Based on a document obtained by Court TV, police concluded at that time that, "Amber Frey is no longer telling us the truth in this investigation."

Link : http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/062504_crier_ctv.html

[GrandmaGA]

Brocchini asked Peterson's employer, a fertilizer company, to audit him for financial impropriety, but the company's internal report showed no wrongdoing. He also told Laci Peterson's relatives and the couple's friends the defendant had taken a $250,000 life insurance policy out on his wife just before her death, a charge that ultimately proved false.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/062404-pm_ctv.html

[GrandmaGA]

His latest example -- and potentially the most harmful to prosecutors -- is Brocchini's testimony about a tip he received several days after the remains of Laci Peterson and the couple's fetus washed onto a San Francisco Bay shore.


http://www.ktvu.com/peterson/3528789/detail.html


© 2008, KTVU.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by Babes
Lies : Laci @ the Warehouse

Prosecutors said Peterson never showed Laci the boat, bought shortly before she disappeared. But Peterson's lawyers countered that a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored days before she vanished

Link : http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-28-peterson-trial_x.htm [/*]

Nobody has disputed the fact that Laci was "at" the warehouse
We do however have never heard anyone testify that Laci ever "entered" Scott's warehouse. She even had to use someone else's bathroom...

Link to testimony of "anyone" seeing Laci inside the warehouse that day or any day after the boat was purchased!

If not, your point is moot....

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Lies : Scott Peterson Lies

Owned a yacht and condo in Sacramento.




imo

[Sturgeon_Moon]

The former fertilizer salesman, for example, pretended to be in Paris and Brussels and admitted that his favorite movie was The Shining, in which Jack Nicholson played a deranged husband intent on killing his wife – a "bombshell" revelation that led Frey's attorney, Gloria Allred, to comment: "Is that a weird coincidence, or can we draw other conclusions from that?"

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,680818,00.html

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Amber had no way to know it, but almost none of that was true. Scott Peterson wasn't single. He didn't live in Sacramento. He didn't own a condo in San Diego. Only one detail was factual, and it would later seem chilling. The Land Rover he said he wanted to sell did exist. It belonged to his wife, Laci.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786393/

[Frydaddy]

Went sailing with Greg Rogue...

Hair turned this color from swimming in friend's pool...

Lied to Diane Sawyer (and American viewers) about immediately telling police about Amber...

Lied to Amber and Karen about the polygraph...

Lied to Karen about the gun...

Lied to Rob about interview with Geraldo...

Lied about cat scratch (tree) fever...

Jackie lied on LKL about polygraph...

Lied about electricity in warehouse...

These are all I can remember off the top of my head and IMO.

[Frydaddy]

Originally posted by W_D_1



Everyone who claims Diane Jackson didn't see a safe is lying. Testimony proved she DID say she saw a safe so it belongs right here on the lies thread. [/*]


Ummmm...NO! Find the tip sheet where we can all see it...THEN it can potentially go here.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Frydaddy



Ummmm...NO! Find the tip sheet where we can all see it...THEN it can potentially go here. [/*]

Testimony isn't good enough for you? :rolleyes:

[Frydaddy]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


Testimony isn't good enough for you? :rolleyes: [/*]

Not on this issue! The person who did the reporting and the person who took the report...neither testified. And the tip sheet wasn't admitted. Those are the ingredients for a nice red herring sammich.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

"Where are you?" Jackie Peterson asked on Jan. 11, 2003.

"West Fresno," Peterson responded. However, according to
Jacobson, Peterson was actually keeping an eye on the search.

CK

[higharm]

Originally posted by denny
Someone posted this lie on the other thread.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by higharm


Not all ng's believe Scott will ever go free - - I am one of those.

Any evidence of him not commiting this crime is long gone and will stay gone. Those who know the truth are never going to tell it, including Scott Peterson. So the story goes [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:lol: [/*]

And this is a lie because? Do you not think there is a murder weapon? Do you not think there is forensics somewhere? Do you not think someone knows what happened?

Don't worry, no one is telling. Your "guilty" person will stay right where he is - - but a lie? Not at all

[higharm]

Originally posted by denny
A very short list of lies told by his supporters:


1. Ron's son Darrin coming from OR on Christmas Eve to kill Laci.
2. Ron hitting laci with his car
3. Amber owning red boots
4. Red boots were by the front door of the Peterson residence.
5. Laci having a restraining order against Ron.
6. The coffee cup on the counter not matching Laci's china
7. The juror's "miming" throwing a body off the boat on the trailer
8. The jurors watching TV during the trial
9. The jurors talking to their spouses about the case
10. Ron and/or Darrin molesting Laci
11. Ron driving to his fishing hole in Oakdale from Los Banos via Lodi (don't you always drive 20 or 30 miles out of your way when you go fishing?

12. Conner being born by way of a crude c-section.

( it doesn't matter that Dr. Peterson testified that there was no evidence of tool marks on Laci's body.) [/*]

I don't believe Scott killed Laci, but I do agree all the above are BS. Not all NG's believe all the lies.

[Wudge+]

Those who hold Scott to be not guilty should not respond to O/T or trolling posts.

Responding will inevitably result in the closing of the thread and/or the forum.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Frydaddy
Went sailing with Greg Rogue...

Hair turned this color from swimming in friend's pool...

Lied to Diane Sawyer (and American viewers) about immediately telling police about Amber...

Lied to Amber and Karen about the polygraph...

Lied to Karen about the gun...

Lied to Rob about interview with Geraldo...

Lied about cat scratch (tree) fever...

Jackie lied on LKL about polygraph...

Lied about electricity in warehouse...

These are all I can remember off the top of my head and IMO. [/*] You are so co9rrect - there are far to many to lsit.


Suffice to say that he lied about everything - still try to find out exac tly WHERE he cut his knuckle - on machinery while helping a farmer (since when do fertilizer salesmen work on machinery?), cut it on the toolbox (no forensicx on tool box AT ALL), or men cut themselves (I've yet to know a man who "cuts" himself)

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by W_D_1


Since you were posting what you called lies by posters I figured it fit right in with your post. [/*]

What does this have to do with anything, other than you are baiting again.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by denny
Notice WDI taking this thread OT so that CW would have to shut it down.

More lies from Scott:

"I died my hair in a swimming pool"

That was a classic! [/*]

Sure was. His body hair had not changed color and if he had done it in a pool, every hair on his body would have beeen orange. News flash. Swimming pools don't turn dark brown hair ORANGE anyway.

[earth goddess]

Matt Dalton's book of lies:

Most glaringly:

Conner was cremated

Amy went to the house for pizza on the 23rd.

Berkeley is the home of the Church of Satan

Satanists did it

etc, ad nauseum. There's not enough room to list all his lies

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Lie: Diane Jackson said in her report to police that she saw a van. (The tip line was probably the Peterson's tip line, all lies, lol).

http://books.google.com/books?id=78odKhCYo84C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=diane+jackson+report+scott+peterson&source=web&ots=u1W5XyUSrr&sig=dFerHOTw4SqWWrIo4sWNWV7rlRo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA60,M1 [/*]

It's not a lie.

Testimony:

179. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who -- the
woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma
neighborhood; is that correct?
180. I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when -- when she
called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Geragos agreeing that that's what IT (tip line) says, does not override the actual report which I posted. [/*]

Do you even read your own links? Geragos didn't agree to anything, he asked a question and Grogan agreed Jackson did report the tip to POLICE.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Excuse me. Perfect I'm not. Grogan in his testimony said "that's what IT said".

So tell me, what is "it"?

No place in there does Grogan say "that's what Diane Jackson said", he does not even whisper her name, so maybe you should read your own links and not be so pesty about mine.

I posted the report Diane Jackson gave to the police, and no fancy footwork of Geregos (did I get that right?), will change it. [/*]

181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Grandma, this reminds me of when Jackie Peterson yelled "WELL HE'S BEEN ALL THOSE PLACES!"

Grogan is not saying that Diane Jackson saw a safe. He is saying that that's what the tip sheet reads. The report that Diane gave to the police, which is much more valid that a tip sheet written by who knows, has no mention of a safe.

If you need to believe otherwise, that's ok with me. I know that this will never come up in the civil case or the appeals because her report to the police makes no mention of a safe. [/*]

I am not going round and round with you. Believe whatever you wish. The tip line she called WAS the police, no one else even had a tip line in December.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Excuse me. Perfect I'm not. Grogan in his testimony said "that's what IT said".

So tell me, what is "it"?

No place in there does Grogan say "that's what Diane Jackson said", he does not even whisper her name, so maybe you should read your own links and not be so pesty about mine.

I posted the report Diane Jackson gave to the police, and no fancy footwork of Geregos (did I get that right?), will change it. [/*]

And in redirect he says that there uis no mention of a safe safe in the report

This is SO COOL!!! Notice what Grogan is looking at in this testimony:

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: [COLOR=limegreen]And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it[/ccolor].

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.

FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.


There's NOTHING in a DEFENSE REPORT about a safe.....ROFLMAO

[earth goddess]

Matt Dalton claims that Todd was a "third striker," having suffered three prior convictions for residential burglary.

Not all residental burglaries qualify for 3 strikes:

Here are the crimes that qualify under 3 strikes:

"Serious Felonies" (As "Strikes") Within the Meaning of California Penal Code Section 1192.7.(c)

Murder or voluntary manslaughter;
mayhem;
rape;
sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or anotherperson;
oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of greatbodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victimor another person;
lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years;
any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison forlife;
any other felony in w hich the defendant personally inflicts great bodilyinjury on any person, other than an accomplice; or any felony which thedefendant personally uses a firearm;
attempted murder;
assault with intent to commit rape or robbery;
assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer;
assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate;
assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate;
arson;
exploding a destructive device or any explosive with the intent toinjure;
exploding a destructive device o r any explosive causing great bodilyinjury or mayhem;
exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder;
burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined bythe Vehicle Code, or inhabited portion of any other * uilding;
robbery or bank robbery;
kidnapping;
holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison;
attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in thestate prison for life;
any felony in which the defendant persona lly used a dangerous or deadlyweapon;
selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell,furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine(PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of theprecursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph(1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100of the Health and Safety Code;
any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act isaccomplished against the victim's will by force, violence, duress, menace, orfear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person;
grand theft involving a firearm;
carjacking; any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivisionother than an assault; and
any conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph (24) as itapplies to Section 11370 .4 of the Health and Safety Code where the defendantconspirator was substantially involved in the planning, direction, orfinancing of the underlying offense.

"Violent Felonies" (As "Strikes") Within the Meaning of California Penal Code Section 667.5.(c)

Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
Mayhem.
Rape as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediateand unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years as defined in Section 288.
Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison forlife.
Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on anyperson other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as providedfor in Section 12022.7 or 12022.9 on or after July 1, 1977, or as specifiedprior to July 1, 1977, in Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which has been charged and proved as provided in Section 12022.5, 12022.53, or 12022.55.
Any robbery perpetuated in an inhabited dwelling house, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, which is inhabitedand designated for habitation, an inhabited floating home as defined insubdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, aninhabited trailer coach, as defined in the Vehicle Code, or in the inhabitedportion of any other building, wherein it is charged and proved that thedefendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon, as provided insubdivision (*) of Section 12022, in the commission of that robbery.
Arson in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 451.
The offense defined in subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by force, violence, duress, menace, orfear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.
Attempted murder.
A violation of Section 12308.
Kidnapping in violation of subdivision (*) of Section 207.
Kidnapping in violation of subdivision (*) of Section 208.
Continuous sexual abuse of a child *** in violation of Section 288.5.
Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215, if it ischarged and proved that the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadlyweapon as provided in subdivision (*) of Section 12022 in the commission ofthe carjacking.
Any robbery of the first degree punishable pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 213.
A violation of Section 264.1.

I guess Dalton also cannot add - the 3 stikes law means "you're out after the 3rd strike; not the fourth.

[Mamie]

Originally posted by margaritaville


Nobody has disputed the fact that Laci was "at" the warehouse
We do however have never heard anyone testify that Laci ever "entered" Scott's warehouse. She even had to use someone else's bathroom...

Link to testimony of "anyone" seeing Laci inside the warehouse that day or any day after the boat was purchased!

If not, your point is moot.... [/*]

I was thinking the same thing. Or even if she was inside the warehouse, we (meaning everyone but Scott) has no idea if he had the boat covered in any way with canvas or a couple of those cheap blue plastic things and then had fertilizer pallets stacked in front of that. He could have turned his work table I guess on it's side to help hide----there are lots of things he could have done. He could have told her it was someone else's boat that he was keeping for them because it was a Christmas present for that person's relative----which is similar to the story we heard----didn't we-----about him not telling anybody about the boat because it was a Xmas gift for Ron? I do not know how valid that last sentence is, but it did float around. JMO

[Mamie]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


It's not a lie.

Testimony:

179. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who -- the
woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma
neighborhood; is that correct?
180. I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when -- when she
called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says [/*]

Until somebody listens to DJ's recording, the call sheet cannot be validated-----for obvious reasons. I mean who was it that made this call sheet? Why weren't they called in to testify? If this call sheet was from the PD, they record conversations and probably keep them for 60-90 days. With the State, they were automatically kept 90 days. JMO

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by AngelWings



I love you, lol. [/*]Another fantasy bites the dust.



imo

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


I am not going round and round with you. Believe whatever you wish. The tip line she called WAS the police, no one else even had a tip line in December. [/*]

Wrong! It was called into the search center tipline where it was given to Sgt Steele. It is unknown if Steele actually took the call himself or not.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Wrong! It was called into the search center tipline where it was given to Sgt Steele. It is unknown if Steele actually took the call himself or not. [/*]Why is it unknown?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Why is it unknown? [/*]

There were many people manning the lines at the search center, including Peterson family members. The center was still in its infancy at this point. It was a bit chaotic

[baytown babs]

Originally posted by earth goddess


And in redirect he says that there uis no mention of a safe safe in the report

This is SO COOL!!! Notice what Grogan is looking at in this testimony:

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: [COLOR=limegreen]And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it[/ccolor].

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.

FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.


There's NOTHING in a DEFENSE REPORT about a safe.....ROFLMAO [/*]

Good point. I think the Judge's reminder in giving instructions to the Jury that the attorney's statements and questions are NOT evidence - is one to bear in mind.
The defense attorney can say whatever he wants, try to mislead. To see that as evidence because it's in the trial records is wrong. It's his job to try to muddy the waters. He often asks people questions and gets"that's what it says" or some other comment like that "I don't know who that woman is" when he is asking the witness about Jackson's supposed statement - and he then has no more quesions, trying to leave a doubt in the juror's minds about what was said by him as attorney, and what was the FACT or actual statement.

It usually is effectively demolished by cross examination.

in this sworn testimony - as opposed to what Geragos can try to make someone say about a tip we see the following:

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

And yet repeatedly we hear, as a fact, that Diane jackson witnessed a burglary and not only that she witnessed a burglary but witnessed details of it she could not possibly have seen and didn't claim to have seen. And that is used as fact.

If that is the kind of hook the defense hangs it hat on for appeals, it will not go well for them. An appellate judge is not an internet poster or a lay person, they know exactly what tricks the attorneys try to play, which are allowed, and the difference between evidence and NOT evidence.

[baytown babs]

Originally posted by Mamie


I was thinking the same thing. Or even if she was inside the warehouse, we (meaning everyone but Scott) has no idea if he had the boat covered in any way with canvas or a couple of those cheap blue plastic things and then had fertilizer pallets stacked in front of that. He could have turned his work table I guess on it's side to help hide----there are lots of things he could have done. He could have told her it was someone else's boat that he was keeping for them because it was a Christmas present for that person's relative----which is similar to the story we heard----didn't we-----about him not telling anybody about the boat because it was a Xmas gift for Ron? I do not know how valid that last sentence is, but it did float around. JMO [/*]

She was never seen IN the warehouse, she was seen AT the warehouse. My guess is that Scott told her it was too crowded for her to use the bathroom there so she just used the one next door. But say she did know about the boat, he could easily have asked her not to mention it as it would be a surprise. I can just imagine how that might have gone - 'Ron and I need to mend fences or get closer becaus now he's gonna be the grandpa of my son, I'd like to spend more time with him' or whatever.

on the other hand I don't know why the hair in the pliers is so critical, because it wasn't linked exactly to Laci just that she COULD have been the contributor. Even if it were her hair couldn't it have gotten in there via transfer? I pull my kid's long hair off my jacket a lot. How it would get in the pliers I guess is another story.

[baytown babs]

Originally posted by Babes
Lies: Famous Meringues

Peterson told officers that when he left his wife on Christmas Eve she was watching her favorite show, Martha Stewart Living. The episode concerned baking meringues, Peterson recalled.

Investigators told a judge that Peterson had lied, because the meringue episode was actually aired Dec. 23, a day earlier.

But in court Wednesday, Geragos played a clip of the Dec. 24 episode that appeared to contradict the police. In it, Martha Stewart and cookbook author Dorie Greenspan are seen discussing various Parisian desserts. When Greenspan mentions meringues, Stewart squeals, "Oh, that will be nice."

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson3/index.html [/*]

This is a lie because they accused Scott of lying? or because the detective who testified that there was no mention of meringue lied?

For him to get up there and lie on purpose abou a fact he knew to be otherwise, knowing that the defnse would full well also be watching that show and could prove him wrong, would be idiotic. It's more likely he was mistaken in his testimony because he MISSED the reference to meringue.

The reference to meringue took all of two or three seconds out of an hour show, right? the meringue itself wasn't in evidence on the show just the mention of it. So would be easy to miss especially if you think you are looking for a recipe being MADE out of meringue (if you even know what meringue is) rather than a quick mention of it.

A lie is more like "I am in Paris" when you are in Modesto. No way to just be mistaken about that.

I don't think this one should necessarily count as a lie.

[baytown babs]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
Brocchini asked Peterson's employer, a fertilizer company, to audit him for financial impropriety, but the company's internal report showed no wrongdoing. He also told Laci Peterson's relatives and the couple's friends the defendant had taken a $250,000 life insurance policy out on his wife just before her death, a charge that ultimately proved false.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/062404-pm_ctv.html [/*]

To me, with this and the 'accidental recollection' of the duct tape, Brocchini does lose credibility. Too many incidents where he was mistaken - make me think he was overjealous to the point of lying. That came out.

I understand his desire, as a person who initially had his hinky-meter go off at Scott's story, and later investigated and found evidence that made him firm in his belief that Scott was the murderer, to see the guy put behind bars. I can see being eager to bring up key points that make people see things as you do.

However this kind of action by the police is less likely to get a conviction, rather than more.

As with OJ, police misconduct - not necessarily in that case but in prior cases, profiling, racism and evidence planting etc- was enough to give a jury reasonable doubt that they could be attempting to plant evidence in the OJ case.

The prosecution took Brocchini, who seemed to have an agenda that prevented him from being CAREFUL about what he said, off the stand and replaced him with someone who had been less like a bull dog all along, Grogan. Whether the prosecution's case or only Brocchini himself lost credibility was for the jury to decide.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by baytown babs


To me, with this and the 'accidental recollection' of the duct tape, Brocchini does lose credibility. Too many incidents where he was mistaken - make me think he was overjealous to the point of lying. That came out.

I understand his desire, as a person who initially had his hinky-meter go off at Scott's story, and later investigated and found evidence that made him firm in his belief that Scott was the murderer, to see the guy put behind bars. I can see being eager to bring up key points that make people see things as you do.

However this kind of action by the police is less likely to get a conviction, rather than more.

As with OJ, police misconduct - not necessarily in that case but in prior cases, profiling, racism and evidence planting etc- was enough to give a jury reasonable doubt that they could be attempting to plant evidence in the OJ case.

The prosecution took Brocchini, who seemed to have an agenda that prevented him from being CAREFUL about what he said, off the stand and replaced him with someone who had been less like a bull dog all along, Grogan. Whether the prosecution's case or only Brocchini himself lost credibility was for the jury to decide. [/*]

The judge's instructions on this event was that it should go to the reasonableness of the investigation.

Think about it tho. Wouold the logical thing be to tie her up and use SCOTH tape, MASKING tape, ELECTRICAL tape. I think not. Duct tape is the logical thing to use. Brocchini was also stating it from memory without the aid of any notes on his recollection..

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Mamie


Until somebody listens to DJ's recording, the call sheet cannot be validated-----for obvious reasons. I mean who was it that made this call sheet? Why weren't they called in to testify? If this call sheet was from the PD, they record conversations and probably keep them for 60-90 days. With the State, they were automatically kept 90 days. JMO [/*] The was the tip line at the Search Center, not police headquarters.

Sgt Steele was the police liason to the search center. That is in the tesimony altho Geragos tries to interrupt and not get that point in. By the time this tip was taken, I believe "safe" as in the rewward vliers so everyone KNEW about it. Todd and Pearce also had a weed whacker I believe. DJ thought these guys were landscapers; who did she not see a weed whacker in the van.

Karen Servas returned hom about 11:45 yet she did not notice these "suspicious" characters or the "suspicious" van although it would have been directly across from her house. So in five minutes, they have kidnapped Laci, gone into her house to get a change of pants for her, possibly murdeering her, managed to get that heavy safe into the van, and the rest of the stolen items, and be gone from the street. Kinda boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[Cooper]

Originally posted by Babes
Ok let's collect all the lies from everyone on this case ( From Scott , to LE and to anyone in the case ) . As much as possible let's stick to the facts :)

Let's put it on this format :


Lies :
Link (If Any):


Thank You Folks
:) [/*]


"Peterson...." anyone with that name in this case.

We could spend eternity counting the lies from that section.


Respectfully,

Cooper

[Mamie]

Originally posted by baytown babs


She was never seen IN the warehouse, she was seen AT the warehouse. My guess is that Scott told her it was too crowded for her to use the bathroom there so she just used the one next door
(snipped)

[/*]

My point exactly. That's why I said, "even if she was in the warehouse......", which means that I didn't mean she WAS in the warehouse. And I think the gist of what Scott said why she couldn't use his bathroom is pretty much the same as what you said, so need to guess, I guess.:seeya:

[Mamie]

Originally posted by earth goddess
The was the tip line at the Search Center, not police headquarters.

Sgt Steele was the police liason to the search center. That is in the tesimony altho Geragos tries to interrupt and not get that point in. By the time this tip was taken, I believe "safe" as in the rewward vliers so everyone KNEW about it. Todd and Pearce also had a weed whacker I believe. DJ thought these guys were landscapers; who did she not see a weed whacker in the van.

Karen Servas returned hom about 11:45 yet she did not notice these "suspicious" characters or the "suspicious" van although it would have been directly across from her house. So in five minutes, they have kidnapped Laci, gone into her house to get a change of pants for her, possibly murdeering her, managed to get that heavy safe into the van, and the rest of the stolen items, and be gone from the street. Kinda boggles the mind, doesn't it? [/*]

If it was the tip line at the Search Center, then for sure it cannot even begin to be taken as gospel, unless there's a recording of it. I was trying to get that across to the other poster without stepping on toes.

Absolutely boggles the mind with regard to all that they would have had to do and still maintain calm (since murder is not their main game)----and not only get the heavy safe in the van, what about poor Laci's body, all of this in broad daylight! And I'm sure MacKenzie wouldn't have been barking and drawing attention to them by now, huh? Boggles the mind, indeed.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Frydaddy


Not on this issue! The person who did the reporting and the person who took the report...neither testified. And the tip sheet wasn't admitted. Those are the ingredients for a nice red herring sammich. [/*]Then Grogan lied when he agreed to what Geragos said was on the tip sheet?

[GrandmaGA]

Prosecution Witness #48: Allen Brocchini, MPD Testimony Prelm Testimony



What is missing from Brocchini's reports is documentation that he asked Scott if he had a girlfriend on Dec. 24 and Scott denied it. As much as he wanted the Jury and the spectators to believe that he really did ask Scott that question and Scott really did lie, it just wasn't in the reports. Geragos skillfully noted the great detail about everything else -- and yet no mention of that question.

Brocchini admitted that Scott told a "lot of truth" in the interview on the 24th.

Brocchini admitted that statements attributed to him in 3 or 4 different affidavits used to obtain search warrants and wire taps were incorrect.

[Frydaddy]

Originally posted by alter ego
Then Grogan lied when he agreed to what Geragos said was on the tip sheet? [/*]

We'll likely never know.

[California]

Originally posted by Mamie


If it was the tip line at the Search Center, then for sure it cannot even begin to be taken as gospel, unless there's a recording of it. I was trying to get that across to the other poster without stepping on toes.

Absolutely boggles the mind with regard to all that they would have had to do and still maintain calm (since murder is not their main game)----and not only get the heavy safe in the van, what about poor Laci's body, all of this in broad daylight! And I'm sure MacKenzie wouldn't have been barking and drawing attention to them by now, huh? Boggles the mind, indeed. [/*]How much did the safe weigh?

[California]

Originally posted by oldschool


Ah HE DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS earth goddess didn't you know that men go around cutting each other all the time. It's this guy thing, you see your buddy and you each give the other a cut or two or a good hammer.

That's got to be the most ridicules thing that come out of Peterson's mouth although being at the Eiffel Tower sure runs a close second. [/*]Wasn't that a line from a popular movie at the time, men cut themselves and they bleed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0V9m-aJQo4

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


I am not going round and round with you. Believe whatever you wish. The tip line she called WAS the police, no one else even had a tip line in December. [/*]

Then was was their a number to call on the fliers that was NOT at the police station? You think you know wit all and you know NOThinjg. i was AT the search center. I saw It.

Adn, as for you allegations that Brocchini told the Petersons aboput the insurance policy, I suggest you read the TESTIMOLNY.. It clearly lsays that the tip came from the search center adn was give to Sgt. Steele.

You are correction about one thing. The PETERSON TIP LINE was not set up yet - and that tip line never ever had one good tip given to the police. What a sham!!!!!! But there WAS a valid tip line at the center from the first day.

Please familiarize yourself with teh FACTS. I suggest you read Grogan and Grantski - if that helps - or is it just easier to make up stuff? You post untruths from uncverified sources all the time - just because you believe it, does not make it true and I have a bridge for sale in San Fraqncisco for you

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by oldschool


I guess I'm a little behind the times I've never seen this movie. I was just amazed that SP would say you know how guys go around cutting each other. [/*]


'Don't cross this bridge until you get here.
Gerry Spence

So reads the sign over Gerry's bridge at Hidden Valley ranch. Old school stuff indeed. Wisdom for the courtroom.

(smile and regards)

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I think we should give him credit. I don't think there's too many reasonable explanations for cutting your knuckles. Especially when you cut them the same day your wife disappears. [/*]

And changing your story several times doesn't help either.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by oldschool


I guess I'm a little behind the times I've never seen this movie. I was just amazed that SP would say you know how guys go around cutting each other. [/*]Fight Club (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgFWXLN-ug)

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Aside from making the initial quick and rash decision not tp tell anyone about Amber... (and lies associated with that decision)...

What other "story" did he change?? [/*]

How he cut his hand - he changed that several times. On the tool chest in the back of his truck - where no forensics were found; on machinery while helping a customer - his employee testified that they never worked on machinery - all they had to do was hook two hoses together; and the resounding favorite - men cut themselves.

Telling his mother that he had talked to Longview about the videotape - he didn't do that until AFTER he told her he had.

What he was fishing for - or more likely NOT fishing for, that he went "just to put his boat in the water.

That he was golfing, err., fishing that day

I'm sure there are more but those are the only two that pop into my head right now. I'm sure others can come up with more.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Then was was their a number to call on the fliers that was NOT at the police station? You think you know wit all and you know NOThinjg. i was AT the search center. I saw It.

Adn, as for you allegations that Brocchini told the Petersons aboput the insurance policy, I suggest you read the TESTIMOLNY.. It clearly lsays that the tip came from the search center adn was give to Sgt. Steele.

You are correction about one thing. The PETERSON TIP LINE was not set up yet - and that tip line never ever had one good tip given to the police. What a sham!!!!!! But there WAS a valid tip line at the center from the first day.

Please familiarize yourself with teh FACTS. I suggest you read Grogan and Grantski - if that helps - or is it just easier to make up stuff? You post untruths from uncverified sources all the time - just because you believe it, does not make it true and I have a bridge for sale in San Fraqncisco for you [/*]

I sugggest YOU butt out of MY opinions and the links I provide
and you enjoy your own made up stuff and know it all fairy tales. Before you attack others REMEMBER others CAN disagree with almighty you without remarks about silly bridges for sale or suggestions from you. :seeya:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


It's not a lie.

Testimony:

179. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who -- the
woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma
neighborhood; is that correct?
180. I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when -- when she
called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
181. Okay. And then he said that -- what was on the call sheet was
that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section
for burglary?
182. Yes.
183. On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
184. That's what it says.
185. Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed
from the house, correct?
186. That's what it says [/*] Where does Grogan admit that it's an official tip sheet? Was it entered into evidece?

iT could have been a piece of paper that said Diane Jackson saw a safe from Grogan's reply. Without that paper in evidence, you only have Geragos saying safe.

You seem to conveniently forget that no safe was mentioned in the police interview nor in teh Jan 16 interview to the defense investigator.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
Brocchini asked Peterson's employer, a fertilizer company, to audit him for financial impropriety, but the company's internal report showed no wrongdoing. He also told Laci Peterson's relatives and the couple's friends the defendant had taken a $250,000 life insurance policy out on his wife just before her death, a charge that ultimately proved false

And I suggested that you read Sharon's book and Ron Grqntski's tewstimony in which they say that Brocchini did no such thing.

you are a media junkie, and don't check out the facts at all. I believe Sharon and Ron before I believe something that the media quoted that Geragos leaked - just like he leaked the fake sonogram that Laci took on Dec 23rd.

The tip was given to Sgt. Steele - Sgt Steele was the liason between the search center and the police. Sgt. Steele was AT the SEARCH center, so the call came into the search center.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Where does Grogan admit that it's an official tip sheet? Was it entered into evidece?

iT could have been a piece of paper that said Diane Jackson saw a safe from Grogan's reply. Without that paper in evidence, you only have Geragos saying safe.

You seem to conveniently forget that no safe was mentioned in the police interview nor in teh Jan 16 interview to the defense investigator. [/*]

I sugggest YOU butt out of MY opinions and the links I provide
and you enjoy your own made up stuff and know it all fairy tales. Before you attack others REMEMBER others CAN disagree with almighty you without remarks about silly bridges for sale or suggestions from you.:seeya:

[roytoy]

Originally posted by Beebee


SNIPPED



When Scott went home he realized Brocchini took his gun. Think that was a red flag he was a murder suspect?? Remember that run-away bride case? Her fiance refused to take a polygraph at his lawyers request, remember that? He had done nothing wrong, remember that part too? Contrary to popular myth, polygraphs are not encouraged by lawyers, for good reason.


Anyhow-- imo you have not given me any "lies".... [/*]
Mr. Mason took a polygraph:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/30/wilbanks.found/
Authorities had searched for Wilbanks since Tuesday, when Mason first reported her missing to police. He had told them she went out for an evening jog near their home in Duluth, a suburb northeast of Atlanta, and never returned.

The search later turned into a criminal investigation. Mason hired a lawyer and passed a polygraph test.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Okay lets look at these one by one.

Golfing/fishing.

So what if he changed his mind that morning and decided to try his new boat instead of golf :shrug: How is that sinister? It's not. I change my plans all the time. I'm working off derailed plans right now. I planned to be jet skiing this morning with my brother while my hubby is golfing, but due to weather I am inside and getting ready to go to re-pot some plants while talking online.
Since golf and fishing are both normal activities that many guys enjoy... what is so strange that Scott had a choice?? I really don't get the whole golf/fishing problem. I just don't see one.

The main thing is he was truthful about where he was! To everyone, including LE! He let them search with no warrant and took them to the warehouse!
(no, I do not believe he said golf to that one neighbor and Kemple)

The fishing and getting the boat wet are the same general activity. Again, I don't see the problem. I live on a lake and to our right is a shallow bay -- just about any day we have decent weather fishing boats go back there and troll around. Guys by themselves, guys in small groups, but when I look out it is obvious to me that the boating is part of the whole experience. Getting out on the water, etc.... I myself love the water so I can completely understand.

Left the house at 9:30- vs 10:00ish.

Okay- he gave his estimate to Brocchini. In that SAME conversation he answers Brocchini's question about what was on TV-- Martha Stewart- meringue. So-- how is he trying to fudge anything here?? On a day off work where you don't have to check the clock every hour, is it unusual to be off a half hour??? I don't think so. Why would he lie about something like that anyway?? He told LE what he did that day and it all checked out.

You really should read this:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/Timeline.html

It's not just opinion, it is all backed up with facts, testimony, exhibits.

Polygraph.

Scott agreed to take a polygraph when Brocchini interviewed him 12/24. He did not hesitate.

When Scott went home he realized Brocchini took his gun. Think that was a red flag he was a murder suspect?? Remember that run-away bride case? Her fiance refused to take a polygraph at his lawyers request, remember that? He had done nothing wrong, remember that part too? Contrary to popular myth, polygraphs are not encouraged by lawyers, for good reason.


Anyhow-- imo you have not given me any "lies".... [/*]

Gee a cop confiscaates an illegal weapon. Imagine that. It is illegal in CA to carry a loaded weapon in a glove box.

The gun was also not registered to Scott.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Beebee


Okay lets look at these one by one.

Golfing/fishing.

So what if he changed his mind that morning and decided to try his new boat instead of golf How is that sinister? It's not. I change my plans all the time. I'm working off derailed plans right now. I planned to be jet skiing this morning with my brother while my hubby is golfing, but due to weather I am inside and getting ready to go to re-pot some plants while talking online.
Since golf and fishing are both normal activities that many guys enjoy... what is so strange that Scott had a choice?? I really don't get the whole golf/fishing problem. I just don't see one.[quote[

He tells the police it was a MORNING decision to go fishing, yet he tells Amie Krigbaum, Tara Veneable that he went golfing the EVENING. That was AFTER he got home from fishing.

It's like saying telling someone it was a spur of the moment trip to NEW YORK, then telling the police you went to CALIFORNIA.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Gee a cop confiscaates an illegal weapon. Imagine that. It is illegal in CA to carry a loaded weapon in a glove box.

The gun was also not registered to Scott. [/*]

11 THE COURT: No, it's not. I believe he testified
12 he had permission to be in the truck. And then when he was
13 searching the truck, he took the gun without your client's
14 permission. I think that's his testimony?
15 THE WITNESS: Without his knowledge.
16 THE COURT: Without his knowledge, all right. You
17 had permission to be in the truck. You didn't have
18 permission to take the gun.
19 MR. GERAGOS: Q. You didn't have permission to
20 fake it, right? I mean specifically you never -- you didn't
21 have his consent -- you didn't say, I'm going to take this.
22 You didn't have a search warrant. You just took it, right?
23 A. I legally took it. That's right.
24 Q. What do you mean you legally took it?
25 A. I had consent to be in the truck.
26 Q. Consent to be in the truck doesn't give you consent

11129
1 to take the property.
2 THE COURT: This is all argumentative. We want to
3 know what he did. He had consent to go in the cab of the
4 truck. He saw the weapon. He took it without the consent of
5 your client. That's what happened.
6 MR. GERAGOS: Right. And there would be a motion
7 to strike the, "I legally took it".
8 MR. DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That's --
9 I'm going.
10 THE COURT: There is an issue whether it was
11 legally taken or not.
12 MR. DISTASO: There is no issue of that.
13 MR. GERAGOS: Of course there is.
14 THE COURT: I think there may be. I'm going to
15 strike that "legally taken".
16 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Where does Grogan admit that it's an official tip sheet? Was it entered into evidece?

iT could have been a piece of paper that said Diane Jackson saw a safe from Grogan's reply. Without that paper in evidence, you only have Geragos saying safe.

You seem to conveniently forget that no safe was mentioned in the police interview nor in teh Jan 16 interview to the defense investigator. [/*]You have got to be kidding!

It was given to the Defense by the Prosecutor in Discovery and now you think it's not an 'official tip sheet'?

:rolleyes:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


It wasn't entered into evidence for a reason, probably. [/*]

IIRC, teh Bares stamp referred to the Harshman tip, not this one, but I will check. And it was NOT entered into evidence - I believe Geragos even had to ask his asst atty what the date on it was

[earth goddess]

GERAGOS: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And who is he?

GROGAN: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –

JUDGE: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.

GROGAN: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.

GERAGOS: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?

GROGAN: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.

GERAGOS: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?

GROGAN: That's what it says.


No where does he give a Bates stamp number on it and he only alludes to it being a tip sheet.

Note - this also shows that it WAS called into the Search center because Sgt Steele was the liason to the police department from teh Search Center.

Funny, isn't it that he puts the Harshman tip sheet on the overhead, but not this one. I smell a rat and his name is Geragos

I HAVE TO ADD this from the judge:

JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness
of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay?


[SIZE=3]Tip sheet not for the truth.[/SIZE}

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by W_D_1



Grogan was reading from the tip sheet and it had a bates stamp number. That number was 14765. Neither Grogan nor Fladager claimed the tip sheet was fake.

ETA the tip sheet may not have been released if it had alot of personal information from callers on it. It may have been sealed in chambers during the session about allowing Diane Jacksons testimony in for the truth. [/*]

The Harshman tip sheet was put on the projector. This one was not. The judge said the tip sheet was not to be entered as the truth but to the reasonableness of what the police did. They DID interview Diane at 18:30 that same day.

NOT FOR THE TRUTH

[Ryder]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Sorry Bee Bee, I just now caught this. I agree that independently, many of Scott's statements and actions could be easily explained away, but after a while the explanations (to me) get old and tiring. No one could have so many factors tied together that are suspicious and inconsistent.

Could Scott change his mind about golfing? Of course! That by itself, like you said, is not big deal. But (again for me), when you also hear that not even 24 hours earlier he said he was going golfing, not golfing OR fishing, and then you hear about his boat that no one seemed to know about, and then you hear he's in his truck, towing his boat, talking to his Dad, and makes no mention of it. Then you hear he tells the detectives that the electricicty in the warehouse doesn't work, along with arriving home after not being able to reach your wife all day and there's her car, her purse, her cell phone, she's 8 months pregant and what does he do? Laundry! Eventually you hear about Amber, and then the bodies washing up where he was fishing, but even without those 2 last things, his actions and words in the from the evening of the 23rd to the evening of the 24th made red flags go up everywhere.

Again, I see your point, but tied together I just don't see how anyone can feel that anything he did was normal or acceptable. [/*]Great post, AngelWings. You are so correct when you say people need to look at the WHOLE picture - not each tiny thing that could possibly be explained away. Scott's demeanor during all this said a lot too, and it wasn't favorable towards Scott.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Ryder
Great post, AngelWings. You are so correct when you say people need to look at the WHOLE picture - not each tiny thing that could possibly be explained away. Scott's demeanor during all this said a lot too, and it wasn't favorable towards Scott. [/*]Another dead giveaway and this seems to be a trait with all wife-killers. They are ready to move forward into a new relationship within a few days if they don't already have one on the hook. Scott may not have seen Amber after Laci disappeared, but he sure kept her hanging, didn't he? Then he wanted her to meet him at Lake Arrowhead within, what, a month?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


The Harshman tip sheet was put on the projector. This one was not. The judge said the tip sheet was not to be entered as the truth but to the reasonableness of what the police did. They DID interview Diane at 18:30 that same day.

NOT FOR THE TRUTH [/*]90% of the trial was 'not for the truth' but to the reasonableness of the investigation or Scott's state of mind. :read:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess


The Harshman tip sheet was put on the projector. This one was not. The judge said the tip sheet was not to be entered as the truth but to the reasonableness of what the police did. They DID interview Diane at 18:30 that same day.

NOT FOR THE TRUTH [/*]
Yes it was.



GERAGOS: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Another dead giveaway and this seems to be a trait with all wife-killers. They are ready to move forward into a new relationship within a few days if they don't already have one on the hook. Scott may not have seen Amber after Laci disappeared, but he sure kept her hanging, didn't he? Then he wanted her to meet him at Lake Arrowhead within, what, a month? [/*]Big deal, he was hooking up with Amber BEFORE Laci disappeared and not once after.

:rolleyes:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Ryder
Great post, AngelWings. You are so correct when you say people need to look at the WHOLE picture - not each tiny thing that could possibly be explained away. Scott's demeanor during all this said a lot too, and it wasn't favorable towards Scott. [/*]

Incorrect.

Jurors must follow jury instructions. In criminal trials, model jury instructions reflect jury instruction #38 as given by Judge Delucchi.

"Each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings


It wasn't entered into evidence for a reason, probably. [/*]Neither were Brocchini's or Grogans reports.

Your point?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


It was proved well beyond a reasonable doubt. He's on death row afterall. [/*]

The point was and remains that jurors must filter each piece of evidence through the jury instructions.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


And they did Wudge, they most certainly did. It seems your filter is different from theirs. And mine. IMO [/*]

The filter is the same for everyone.

HTH

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Incorrect.

Jurors must follow jury instructions. In criminal trials, model jury instructions reflect jury instruction #38 as given by Judge Delucchi.

"Each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." [/*]

As usual Wudge doesn't give the ENTIRE truth

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/juryinstruction.html?page=7

If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

If you find that before this trial the defendant made willfullyl flase or deliberately misleading statements concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider these statements as a circumstance tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, thaqt conduct is not sufficient, by itself to prove guilt, and its weight and sufficiency of significance, if any, are for you to decide.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


As usual Wudge doesn't give the ENTIRE truth

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/juryinstruction.html?page=7

If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

If you find that before this trial the defendant made willfullyl flase or deliberately misleading statements concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider these statements as a circumstance tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, thaqt conduct is not sufficient, by itself to prove guilt, and its weight and sufficiency of significance, if any, are for you to decide. [/*]

We were discussing whether each piece of evidence needs to be filtered through jury instructions, nothing more, and that is covered in jury instruction 38.

The instruction you posted is in regards to something entirely different.

HTH

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Wudge+


We were discussing whether each piece of evidence needs to be filtered through jury instructions, nothing more, and that is covered in jury instruction 38.

The instruction you posted is in regards to something entirely different.

HTH [/*]

He also says that questions are NOT evidence, yet people persist that because Geragos said it, it has to be true. Do you REALLY think a 2.5 full term baby is reasonable?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


He also says that questions are NOT evidence, yet people persist that because Geragos said it, it has to be true. Do you REALLY think a 2.5 full term baby is reasonable? [/*]

He's correct. Questions are not evidence.

As for 2.5, I assume you were trying to reference Connor's weight, which my recall has as 3.5 lbs. at a minimum.

Exactly, what did Geragos say "had to be true"?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings



It wasn't at a minimum. Conner's weight was listed two ways, and the 3.5 was the maximum. [/*]

Citation or link please.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Incorrect.

Jurors must follow jury instructions. In criminal trials, model jury instructions reflect jury instruction #38 as given by Judge Delucchi.

"Each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." [/*]Nope, I'm correct. The jury may not have reached the verdict that you wanted, but that does not mean they didnt do their job. They accepted what THEY felt was acceptable, beyond a reasonable doubt and came to that decision unanimously. Like all the other arguments you have, this has been discussed ad nauseum.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Wudge+


He's correct. Questions are not evidence.

As for 2.5, I assume you were trying to reference Connor's weight, which my recall has as 3.5 lbs. at a minimum.

Exactly, what did Geragos say "had to be true"? [/*]

That's what the estimate was. The actual weight as testified to in the preliminary by Dr. Peterson was 1160 grams which comes out to 2.55 lbs

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Link please. TIA

mho [/*]http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/index.htm

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


That's what the estimate was. The actual weight as testified to in the preliminary by Dr. Peterson was 1160 grams which comes out to 2.55 lbs [/*]


I recall 3.5 lbs at some point in the trial, but I will accept 2.5lbs based on the preliminary hearing testimony.

I have never focused on weight, because Dr. Peterson testified that Connor was decomposed. And because no one knows when that process started, no one can say, and no one testified to, how much weight he lost.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Wudge+



I recall 3.5 lbs at some point in the trial, but I will accept 2.5lbs based on the preliminary hearing testimony.

I have never focused on weight, because Dr. Peterson testified that Connor was decomposed. And because no one knows when that process started, no one can say, and no one testified to, how much weight he lost. [/*]

or gained. You assume loss. It could have been gained.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


or gained. You assume loss. It could have been gained. [/*]

Who testified that Connor's weight might well have gone up as he was decomposing?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings



0 Q. Did you make any other notations or observations
21 about the condition of Conner Peterson?
22 A. Conner was decomposing, in general terms. He
23 weighed 1160 grams. The crown -- again, back to my report
24 now, Your Honor. I'm sorry.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm [/*]

Angel, I was looking for the two ways you mentioned that Connor's weight was listed.

In the trial, was it said to be 3.5 lbs.?

[Ryder]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE
Warren E Ruff, Sheriff-CoronerName: PETERSON, Connor
aka DOE,Baby Boy
_______________________________________AUTOPSY DIAGNOSES1) Phenotypic Male Fetus, estimated gestational age 9 months (33-38 Weeks
based on anthropologic meansurements)2) No Gross external or internal anomalies3) How can he estimate Conner's age at 9 months when 33 - 38 weeks leaves a difference of a month and a half? A better estimate is 7.5 - 9 months.

[Okito]

Originally posted by Ryder
How can he estimate Conner's age at 9 months when 33 - 38 weeks leaves a difference of a month and a half? A better estimate is 7.5 - 9 months. [/*]

EXACTLY!! Laci's due date was February 10th, which was also Amber's birthday. So going missing on Dec. 24th means that she was 7.5 months pregnant!

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


On Connor Peterson's coroner report, his weight is listed as 3.5 lbs.

http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=connor%20peterson%20coroner%20rep ort&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false

mho [/*]

Thank you. That is what I thought.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Yep. And if Amber was really just a little "fling" he would have forgotten about her very existence immediately. How many people who've just had their family kidnapped/murdered are even thinking about a little fling they were having?


The only reason he would have had to remember or contact Amber would have been simply to explain to her what had happened, apologize, and tell her she wouldn't be hearing from him again. [/*]I'd say he suspected her. :o

JMHO :hat:

[kimmy56]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg
I'd say he suspected her. :o

JMHO :hat: [/*]

of???

[CSloper]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Originally posted by Beebee


Okay lets look at these one by one.

Golfing/fishing.

So what if he changed his mind that morning and decided to try his new boat instead of golf How is that sinister? It's not. I change my plans all the time. I'm working off derailed plans right now. I planned to be jet skiing this morning with my brother while my hubby is golfing, but due to weather I am inside and getting ready to go to re-pot some plants while talking online.
Since golf and fishing are both normal activities that many guys enjoy... what is so strange that Scott had a choice?? I really don't get the whole golf/fishing problem. I just don't see one.[quote[

He tells the police it was a MORNING decision to go fishing, yet he tells Amie Krigbaum, Tara Veneable that he went golfing the EVENING. That was AFTER he got home from fishing.

It's like saying telling someone it was a spur of the moment trip to NEW YORK, then telling the police you went to CALIFORNIA. [/*]

I believe it was Tara Veneable who said that Scott said he'd been golfing. She heard what she expected to hear. Amie was at the door talking to Scott. Tara was somewhere in the background. What Scott said was 'gone all day.'

[CSloper]

Originally posted by AngelWings
GERAGOS: Is it fair to say that, a fair statement that virtually everything that you have testified to in terms of your opinion as to what happened is just a hypothesis in terms of whether or not the baby was in the uterus, or wasn't in the uterus, those kind of things, those kinds of opinions?
PETERSON: I would say that, based on the things we have already discussed, the relative conditions of the bodies, the changes I saw in the uterus, and so forth, my opinion is that Conner was in the uterus when Laci was placed in the water, and eventually was released fits those facts best. As you have also said there might be other scenarios that fit those facts too. Based on what I know now, I think those fit the facts best.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm#cross [/*]

Apparently, he wasn't aware that the uterus measured 32cm on December 24, 2002, and 23 cm on April 14, 2003. Surely, he would not NOT take the difference into account. Does this truth alter the facts? You bet it does.

[Okito]

Originally posted by CSloper


I believe it was Tara Veneable who said that Scott said he'd been golfing. She heard what she expected to hear. Amie was at the door talking to Scott. Tara was somewhere in the background. What Scott said was 'gone all day.' [/*]

Wow...you were standing next to him when he said this!! Why didn't you testify?

LOL at "gone all day"....he shoulda taken off for Mexico immediately instead of his lame attempt at esplainin'.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


Scott not wanting to expose his relationship with Amber only proves his innocence all the more.

If Scott had killed Laci, he'd have no problem exposing Amber, because there would be no fear of reprisal from Laci - she's dead.

It was because Scott figured Laci was still alive, and the two of them would go on to have a life together, he and Laci, is why he didn't want to expose his relationship with Amber.

Now had Scott left it there, and gone on to be concerned about Laci gone missing, I'd have a much higher opinion of his character, but he didn't, and that was his most fatal mistake. [/*]

reads like a Harlequin novel outline. imo. stick to the facts of the case.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex


Hi Dawg

I'd say he should have told police about her the very night he returned from "fishing" and she wasn't home:shrug:

He told Miss Sawyer he told LE the first day...but that wasn't true.


SP: No. And our romantic relationship…and that is a…it, it’s inappropriate...it was inappropriate and…I owe a tremendous…ah…apology to…to everyone…obviously, including Amber and her family and her friends an…and our families…um, this should have been…this should have been brought forth by me…immediately, the, the romantic relationship.

DS: Had you told anyone? Did you tell the police?

SP: I told the police immediately.

DS: When?

SP: That was…uh…the first night we were together… the police…I spent with the police.

DS: You told them about her?

SP: Yeah, from December 24th on.

DS: Did your wife find out about it?

SP: I told my wife…

DS: When?

SP: In ah…early December…


Even when confronted with the party pics of Amber on his lap Scott asked Grogan "Is that supposed to be me?" on Jan 3rd:


He said he repeatedly asked Peterson if he was having an affair, but he insisted he was not, even after the detective confronted him Jan. 3 with a photocopy of a snapshot of him embracing his mistress in front of a Christmas tree. On the videotape screened for jurors, Grogan slid the picture in front of Peterson as he sat in a police interview room. On the tape, Peterson stares down at the poor-quality image, wrinkles his brow and then shakes his head.

"He said, 'Is that supposed to be me?'" Grogan testified. He said Peterson said the woman looked like a college acquaintance, but again denied he was having an affair. [/*]


At best this would go to motive, but the jury did not find Amber to be a motive, nor did they find any motive whatsoever.

False statements are corroborative evidence, not inculpatory evidence. This case has always lacked the required inculpatory evidence as regards intent, premeditation, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Corroborative evidence equates to "bun" only. Where's the beef?

[Okito]

Looking up the tide charts, searching for a dinky, middle aged man boat (he had 4 others don't ya know and somehow I doubt they were THIS type of inexpensive, easily disposable boat), looking at sturgeon fishing sites which explain when the season is and what you use for bait (again, Scott appears to be a "skimmer" but then he's "real" smart, and all the things leading up to Xmas Eve.

Telling Amber they would be together towards the end of January, the Francois and Pascal imaginary friends during Laci's candlelight vigil, and the numerous gaffes he made in interviews, lies to the police, the taped telecons, etc. etc. etc.

NOT someone who is expecting his wife to come back through the door, baby in tow.

See Grogan's 41 List for further detail.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by feathergirl


He suspected her of killing his wife and child........but instead of telling LE about her so they could check out where she was that day, etc. - he recites poetry to her?


Won't fly. Won't even flutter to the ground. Just kind of falls flat, with a loud thud. [/*]As I recall, she didn't have an alibi.

[Okito]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg
As I recall, she didn't have an alibi. [/*]

As I recall, she was with her daughter all day, SANS wheels. Kind of hard to injure or kidnap or kill someone you don't even know exists.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex



HI Wudge

The jury realized who and why. Scott killed her and he planned it. He had an abandoned and malignant heart.

The "beef" is cooling his "buns" on Death Row, San Quentin, CA, USA.

Why? Because his wife and sons bodies were found where he was the day he reported them "missing". [/*]

The bodies are not inculpatory evidence of: intent, premeditation, deliberation and malice aforethought.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex



HI Wudge

The jury realized who and why. Scott killed her and he planned it. He had an abandoned and malignant heart.

The "beef" is cooling his "buns" on Death Row, San Quentin, CA, USA.

Why? Because his wife and sons bodies were found where he was the day he reported them "missing". [/*]

The bodies are not inculpatory evidence of: intent, premeditation, deliberation or malice aforethought.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by Okito


As I recall, she was with her daughter all day, SANS wheels. Kind of hard to injure or kidnap or kill someone you don't even know exists. [/*]Her sister lived in Modesto. She knew about Laci and nothing will ever change my mind about that.

:hat:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex



Abandoned and malignant heart + bodies = Death Row:shrug: [/*]

Insufficient evidence = wrongful conviction.

A second trial results in acquittal. The MPD is sued for withholding Brady material (exculpatory evidence). A very expensive lesson for Modesto.

[Okito]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg
Her sister lived in Modesto. She knew about Laci and nothing will ever change my mind about that.

:hat: [/*]

Her sister MOVED to Modesto AFTER 12-24. You might want to :read: up.

Something tells me they WOULDN'T have run in the same circles either.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+


The bodies are not inculpatory evidence of: intent, premeditation, deliberation or malice aforethought. [/*]Just the bodies washing up on the shore and nothing else would not prove intent, premeditation, deliberation or malice aforethought. However, with all the other CE it becomes damning circumstantial evidence. Looking at an even bigger picture, Scott's own words as well, point to a planned murder.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by AngelWings


But where they washed up is.

imo [/*]Absolutely! :patriot:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg
Her sister lived in Modesto. She knew about Laci and nothing will ever change my mind about that.

:hat: [/*]:eek: That's right, I forgot about that!

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Insufficient evidence = wrongful conviction.

A second trial results in acquittal. The MPD is sued for withholding Brady material (exculpatory evidence). A very expensive lesson for Modesto. [/*]Well Wudge, first ya gotta prove it. Those burglars and pesky grass clippings just won't do it. You are going to need more. Now, you want to talk Brady v Maryland? Then you should already know that while it is illegal for prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, nobody ever gets a reprimand. Besides, you have to prove that too. Nobody is going to sue - nobody ever does.

It is highly doubtful there will be a retrial. The MOST the double murderer can hope for is a new sentence, which would suit people just fine because Scott wouldn't stand a chance in the General Population.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Insufficient evidence = wrongful conviction.

A second trial results in acquittal. The MPD is sued for withholding Brady material (exculpatory evidence). A very expensive lesson for Modesto. [/*]
ITA! :beer:

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by TexMex



OMG...a Judge yells at a lawyer. Free Scott! Judge chewed on the defense some days too. Alert the media.


Miss Lissa seems to have picked up on the fact that Scott Peterson wasn't taking the search for his wife very seriously. He didn't want her found. He was to busy watching Ectasy channel
and regailing Miss Frey with poetry, gifts and tales of foreign adventures. [/*]
Partial testimony of Laci's Yoga teacher was thrown out too.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Didn't Amber's sister live only a few blocks from Laci?

mho [/*]Yes.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Wasn't Amber's family searching lakes in a motorboat?

I think we are in agreement about Amber Frey!

mho [/*]
Ava Frey, Amber Freys' sister, who lives just a few blocks away from Scott Peterson in Modesto, is helping Private Investigator, Bill Garcia look for Laci Peterson.

Ava was in Fresno taking part in the ground and water searches, and she was interviewed while on a power boat with her little black lap dog. Garcia was seated in the boat, along with the man in charge of the sonar device. She stated that there were many, many volunteers searching alongside the lake and river beds. It was reported that her sister Amber has maintained on-going contact with the Rochas, and that they were searching this area because of newly-surfaced clues. Garcia (who found the recent bloody "blanket-like" cover) also gave out the same info as in the 5:00 interview.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by feathergirl


No [/*]:lol:

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Thank you.

Did you read Amber's book?
mho [/*]No. I wouldn't waste my time.

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Amber's sister was part of a large, foot-search group one day.

I see that you find that to be hilarious. [/*]Good Lord, I have a photo of Ava and her puppy in the BOAT SEARCH.

Have you been with this case since the beginning? :confused:

[caphill]

I was shcoked to hear of the death of Darrin Grantski, Ron Grantski's son.

Does it not seem strange that the news of this death was not widely published or did not make news.

Do you think it was hushed up in Modesta for some reason?

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Wasn't Crier's book published before the trial? That is where I read about it. If you read the book, you'd know that the woman went into a room with Scott to pick out the photos. [/*]

Prosecutors got caught in the hotel room showing photos to a witness a day before they testified. :tongue:

[Justice_Dawg]

Originally posted by caphill
I was shcoked to hear of the death of Darrin Grantski, Ron Grantski's son.

Does it not seem strange that the news of this death was not widely published or did not make news.

Do you think it was hushed up in Modesta for some reason? [/*]
I was shocked too!
It seems very strange to me that the media didn't report it.

I'd like to know what he died of at age 39. :confused:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Amber's sister was part of a large, foot-search group one day.

I see that you find that to be hilarious. [/*]She also buddied up with "investigator" Bill Garcia to search some lakes in Fresno. :read:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Where does it say that "Amber's family" (not just her sister) helped with the search, and what exactly is your problem with a citizen of Modesto helping with one of the searches? [/*]I dunno, where does it say "Amber's family"?
What's my problem? I don't have a problem. What's your problem?

:shrug:

[GrandmaGA]

As defense lawyers began their second cross-examination Thursday, Grogan quickly was forced to acknowledge that Peterson inquired about the investigation much more often then he had previously testified.

"In actuality, Scott Peterson was talking to police every single day asking about the investigation," Geragos said.

Geragos then had Grogan acknowledge that he and Peterson spoke at least 11 times during the first 10 days of the case.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3767174/detail.html

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA
As defense lawyers began their second cross-examination Thursday, Grogan quickly was forced to acknowledge that Peterson inquired about the investigation much more often then he had previously testified.

"In actuality, Scott Peterson was talking to police every single day asking about the investigation," Geragos said.

Geragos then had Grogan acknowledge that he and Peterson spoke at least 11 times during the first 10 days of the case.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3767174/detail.html [/*]

SP never once told LE he was in 'another relationship. NOT ONCE. Even when he was confronted with the xmas pictures he wouldnt admit it and come forward with her name AND the names of those in her circle.

instead of 'talking' to LE, he went on TV and sobbed, apologized and LIED once again about his 'inappropriate relationship'

FACT: he was still in contact with AF until mid February.

- he told "THE WORLD" on TV that he informed LE on DECEMBER 24th that he was having an affair. He never once informed LE.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/sawyerinterview.html?page=3

check the chron as to when he STOPPED inquiring about the investigation.

best regards,
Pru

[Cooper]

Originally posted by caphill
I was shcoked to hear of the death of Darrin Grantski, Ron Grantski's son.

Does it not seem strange that the news of this death was not widely published or did not make news.

Do you think it was hushed up in Modesta for some reason? [/*]


No. Darren Grantski was not a public figure AND he lived in Oregon for many years, where his obituary was published.

[Cooper]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg

I was shocked too!
It seems very strange to me that the media didn't report it.

I'd like to know what he died of at age 39. :confused: [/*]

Have you never read an obituary? People aged 39 and younger can die of many things, including illnesses and motor vehicle accidents.

[Cooper]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg
Good Lord, I have a photo of Ava and her puppy in the BOAT SEARCH.
[/*]

Are you a stalker?


:confused:

[caphill]

Originally posted by Cooper


Have you never read an obituary? People aged 39 and younger can die of many things, including illnesses and motor vehicle accidents. [/*]

People certainly do die at early ages from any number of causes.

Darrin Grantski's father, though a private citizen, had become a public figure with his many public appearances regarding Laci Peterson.

I was just surprised the news of his son's death did not make media news. I am sure there are many people who offer condolences to Ron Grantski and his family for their loss.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Cooper


Are you a stalker?


:confused: [/*]

It was a published photo. Her and Bill Garcia were loving up the media.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by caphill
I was shcoked to hear of the death of Darrin Grantski, Ron Grantski's son.

Does it not seem strange that the news of this death was not widely published or did not make news.

Do you think it was hushed up in Modesta for some reason? [/*]

Yes.

[caphill]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Yes. [/*]

check PM

[S Tigertail]

Originally posted by caphill


People certainly do die at early ages from any number of causes.

Darrin Grantski's father, though a private citizen, had become a public figure with his many public appearances regarding Laci Peterson.

I was just surprised the news of his son's death did not make media news. I am sure there are many people who offer condolences to Ron Grantski and his family for their loss. [/*]

As far a Ron Grantski being a public figure, I doubt many people outside Modesto would recognize the name. They don't follow trials, or watch LKL. Scott Peterson they might remember and Laci because it did receive a lot of coverage but the world has moved on and most of it has been forgotten. I doubt the Modbee would cover up anything sensational and maybe the man's family didn't want to invite a circus to their loved ones funeral. The media probably wouldn't have come if they had. Darrin didn't live in Modesto. It wasn't reported because it wasn't news. And who needs condolences from strangers who never knew him.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by W_D_1



Just another in the long list of lies the MPD told. [/*]Check out the news in todays Modesto news about the bust by FBI.

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


It's pretty well known that Scott never joined any searches for Laci, never asked the police about her other than to say if they took her for the baby, did that mean he'd get half his family back, and when his family was found, he ran AWAY from them, not toward them like you, or I, or anyone who was innocent would do, IMO.

Scott never called Granski about Laci. Any contact he made with him was checking to see if he was a suspect, again, IMO. [/*]

Scott called Grogan 11 times in the first 10 days to ask about the investigation. He also talked to other officers involved. It is not "pretty well known" that he never asked the police about her.

He called Sgt Cloward on several occasions. That was picked up on the wiretaps. He asked Cloward for directions as far as the search. He also tried to meet with the police chief. All of that information is in the trial transcripts of Grogan's testimony.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
Check out the news in todays Modesto news about the bust by FBI. [/*]

Which news? I've just looked at the front page of the Modesto Bee but am not sure which item you're talking about. Got a link, please? TIA

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Anakerie


Which news? I've just looked at the front page of the Modesto Bee but am not sure which item you're talking about. Got a link, please? TIA [/*]When I try to go to Modesto Bee It is now sending me to registration. Top five is where you will find articles. I guess the motorcycle shop is a chop shop and even involved sending stolen things over seas. A bailiff,Captain with the SCSD,his wife and other are arrested.

[Leanne Weich]

Originally posted by AngelWings


If I read in the paper that a Granski died, I would never make the connection with Ron, because I am also not in the Modesto area. Seems even silly to bring up. We lost 3 teens from the 2008 graduation class in our town this year. Very sad, three seperate situations. [/*]

I live outside the USA as do my children and I can guarantee you that were we to see an obituary for a Grantski, we'd immediately check it out to see if there is a connection to Ron. We also watch LKL when it is a subject we're interested in.
It is naive, imo, to assume that people outside of Modesto were not as interested in this case as anyone else. I'm very sad for Ron.


ETA: I'm not sure that you are the poster who posted that people outside of Modesto wouldn't know who Ron was or did not watch LKL but just wanted to put my thoughts in one post.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
When I try to go to Modesto Bee It is now sending me to registration. Top five is where you will find articles. I guess the motorcycle shop is a chop shop and even involved sending stolen things over seas. A bailiff,Captain with the SCSD,his wife and other are arrested. [/*]

Ohhh.. That story.. It was in the news in Sacramento 3 days ago. Here's a link to one of the articles in Sacramento:
http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=44803&catid=2

[HI_CYCLE]

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=9314


Racketeering and a raft of other charges have been brought against several businessmen, a sheriff’s captain, a retired deputy, and several motorcycle gang members following a lengthy federal probe in the Central Valley



In separate indictments, Stanislaus County sheriff’s Captain Raul Deleon, 51, of Modesto; former Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriff-Bailiff David Swanson, 52, of Modesto; and retired law enforcement officer and current law enforcement dog trainer Steven Johnson, 60, of Linden, have each been charged for making false statements to federal investigators and lying to a federal grand jury during a federal probe into leaks surrounding the racketeering investigation

[bookie]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
When I try to go to Modesto Bee It is now sending me to registration. Top five is where you will find articles. I guess the motorcycle shop is a chop shop and even involved sending stolen things over seas. A bailiff,Captain with the SCSD,his wife and other are arrested. [/*]


Four cops are facing various charges. One retired Stanislaus County deputy, a retired CHP officer, the bailiff and a Stanislaus County Sheriff's dept Capt.

The first one is facing, among other things, racketeering, witness tampering and solicitation to commit a crime of violence. The second one is facing charges related to operating a chop shop and the others are facing charges of making false statements.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/362766.html

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookie



Four cops are facing various charges. One retired Stanislaus County deputy, a retired CHP officer, the bailiff and a Stanislaus County Sheriff's dept Capt.

The first one is facing, among other things, racketeering, witness tampering and solicitation to commit a crime of violence. The second one is facing charges related to operating a chop shop and the others are facing charges of making false statements.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/362766.html [/*]Wait till they start rolling on each other. How many officers of the courts have been bought off? This is not a small deal.
I have seen right here in Florida the whole Dept. Of Corrections fall.Started with officers ended up at the top.

[Anakerie]

I can see it now. The Scott supporters are going to use this news item to paint all LE in Modesto and Stanislaus County as being guilty of similar things. IMO, there are corrupt people, not just LE, all over the world. They are the minority though... Thank heavens.

[Leanne Weich]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I wasn't the poster who said that, and I also didn't say that people outside of Modesto wouldn't be interested. I say that I personally wouldn't make the connection if I heard it, maily because not much was ever said about ron having a son in Oregon. [/*]

I did clarify that I didn't recall if you were the poster who posted who said that and further clarified I was incorporating it in my reply to you so as to only make my point in one post so you can chill OK!!

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


There are bad lawyers, doctors, teachers, spouces, employers, employers and so on. You can focus on one bad and state that makes everyone bad, but it's simply not true. [/*]

Exactly.

[wandering]

Originally posted by caphill


People certainly do die at early ages from any number of causes.

Darrin Grantski's father, though a private citizen, had become a public figure with his many public appearances regarding Laci Peterson.

I was just surprised the news of his son's death did not make media news. I am sure there are many people who offer condolences to Ron Grantski and his family for their loss. [/*]I fail to see why this death would garner media attention. I think that family had enough of the media and the spotlight.

Respect and dignity.

[Dominique]

Originally posted by Justice_Dawg


Prosecutors got caught in the hotel room showing photos to a witness a day before they testified. :tongue: [/*]

link?

[Dominique]

just getting started....

i have much to do so this will an ongoing project....the lies are "legion"


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/10/peterson.trial/index.html

[Dominique]

easy....

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/082504_ctv.html


such a wealth of primary sources...

[Dominique]

google Janet Isle and Katy Hanson.....


http://books.google.com/books?id=mPIltHhOV8IC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=janet+isle&source=web&ots=l2uh97T1wc&sig=8N1RwTVR1fQXlz701DqRQfDC2_k&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Eleven calls in the first 10 days is nothing in the scope of four months. [/*]


Those calls were to Grogan only. There were more calls to other officers involved. By the middle of January it was obvious the police were focusing on Scott. Brent Rocha knew the police weren't telling Scott anything, that was heard on a wiretap (also in Grogans testimony). Scott was calling Laci's family to find out if the police were talking to them since they weren't talking to him.

Bottom line....Scott tried to talk to the police.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Dominique


link? [/*]



HARRIS: You are right. Did he ask you to come look at any photographs?

McELROY: Well, last night.

HARRIS: Last night he did?

McELROY: Un-hun.

HARRIS: Did you go look at photographs?

McELROY: I'm sorry?

HARRIS: We'll get it straightened out.

McELROY: Okay.

HARRIS: Last night he asked you to go look at photographs?

McELROY: Yes.

HARRIS: And you did?

McELROY: Yes.

HARRIS: Where did you go?

McELROY: To the hotel.

HARRIS: Okay. You went through some photo albums?

McELROY: Yes, I did.



It's in Lissa McElroy's testimony.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Actually, the testimony quoted does not say that.

Maybe you should read it again. [/*]



GERAGOS: Let me show you, see if this refreshes your recollection. I've got, I've got a call, what looks like calls to Sergeant Cloward on 1/13, January 13th, again on January 13th to Sharon Rocha, January 13th to Sharon, then we've got calls Sergeant Cloward on the 13th again, Sergeant Cloward on the 13th, Sergeant Cloward on the 14th. Those are all calls that are picked up on the wiretap, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

GERAGOS: Okay. And, specifically, on the 14th you've got information that Scott is asking if Cloward can give him any direction, right?

GROGAN: As far as the search?

GERAGOS: Yeah. He states that the police department will give focus on the law enforcement stuff, such as tip lines and working with outside agencies, and Scott wanted to know what to do; get some direction from Cloward, correct?

GROGAN: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. On the 11th he's calling Sharon Rocha and Sharon Rocha's informing him what Cloward is telling her, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. On the 12th, calls Sharon again and they talk about what's going on with the investigation; do they not?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: On the 13th he calls, Scott calls Brent Rocha, and he says, he says: I'm just wondering how much contact do you, do you have? What's going on with the investigation, or are they keeping you out of it; right? That's what Brent's asking Scott?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Brent's asking him about the investigation, did they ever follow-up on the van or did they, and Scott is saying They won't tell me a damn thing; right?

GROGAN: That's what he's saying.

GERAGOS: And Brent says They won't let you, um, they won't tell you anything, huh? And Scott says The only one that there's even kind of talking to, that they're even kind of talking to is Kim Peterson; right?

GROGAN: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: Okay. Specifically on the 13th he calls Sergeant Cloward again, right?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then he calls, on the 13th, Sharon Rocha again, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. They start talking about things that are going on in the investigation; calls Sharon Rocha back again on the 13th, talking about that, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.



I've read the testimony. Scott called the police to ask about the investigation. He called Grogan, Brocchini, Cloward, possibly Steele and tried to call the chief who was too busy to talk to Scott.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Maybe I'm reading to fast, but I don't see anything there about Brocchini or Steele.

It says that he called Cloward a few times on the 13th, and then called him again on the 14th.

That would be...............three weeks after Laci went missing. [/*]


It would be impossible to post all of the testimony. Go read it and you'll see where Scott called the police to ask about the investigation. He called Grogan, Cloward, Brocchini, and the chief. He may have called Steele or talked to him at the volunteer center.

[bookie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
The whole point is Scott had called police, and tried to get information about Laci! Yet he has been strongly criticized for not calling the police!

Scott has been the focus of criticizm for not caring about Laci, despite the fact he had tried to contact police!

It is true Sharon couldn't get information from police, but neither could Scott!

mho [/*]

Correct.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


I'm reading transcripts right now, and right now I still don't see anything other than that he called a few times three weeks after Laci went missing. [/*]


He called/talked to Grogan 11 times in the first 10 days, he called Cloward repeatedly in the days after that. He talked to the officer/s at the volunteer center. He tried to get a meeting with the chief of police but the chief wouldn't make time for him. He also called Laci's family to see if the police were talking to them.

By week 3 the police were focusing on him. Why would he call when he knew they were trying to find evidence he murdered his wife? He'd already cooperated with them. Hiring a lawyer was the best thing he could have done.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


I'm reading and reading, but I still haven't found anything other than a few calls to Cloward on the 13th and 14th.

And what do you mean by "focusing on him"? Are you claiming that at that point, they weren't following any other tips or leads, and that there were no other searches except the bay searches?


I don't think so..................



Why would he call when he knew they were trying to find evidence he murdered his wife?

If he hadn't murdered his wife, why would he NOT call? Why would he NOT want to offer them every snippet of information he could that would help them?

Are you saying that if you thought LE was "focusing" on you, that you wouldn't want to talk to them and try to straighten it out?

You wouldn't be calling to check on the search for your missing spouse and child because you were being "focused" on?

But....but....but: Scott said that he didn't care what anyone thought about HIM.....that the only important thing was FINDING LACI!!!! Yup...........he looked right into the TV cameras and said that..............and that statement just doesn't mesh with "why should he call LE when he thought they were focusing on him?" [/*]



Read all of Grogan's cross. You'll see more then a couple of days. It blew his claim of once a month under direct out of the water.

Scott called or talked to the police at the volunteer center on a daily basis. It did him no good. He cooperated with the police, with the execption of Amber, but it did him no good. And yes, they focused on him. They didn't follow up on legitimate leads because those leads pointed away from Scott.

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I believe Scott went to the volunteer center early in the morning and left before it opened each day. He refused to be on camera, or to supply pictures of Laci with him in them. He didn't cooperate with the police at all. He was shady at every turn. Not my opinion, just the facts. [/*]


Scott let the police into his home that night. He took them to his warehouse and went with Brocchini to the police dept for questioning. He told them he would have let them search the warehouse the next day without a warrant if they'd asked.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He didn't give a fig about Amber. He told Amber flat out that he loved Laci. IMO, he kept talking to Amber trying to find out if she was involved in the disappearance of Laci. He asked her if she was involved.
mho [/*]

I don't remember Scott asking Amber if she was involved in the disappearance of Laci.

If he didn't give a fig about Amber they way did he beg her to met him at Lake Arrowhead?

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Exactly.

He only said he loved Laci after Amber came right out and asked him if he did or not.

Why didn't you cut and paste the question and just the answer.............to make it appear that it was a spontaneous statement from Scott, when it wasn't? [/*]


You are able to click on the link and read for yourself.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


He cared so much for Amber that he left his pregnant wife go to THEIR Christmas party alone while he went to Amber's Christmas party!

He cared so much for Amber that he memorized poetry to recite to her while in a "distraught" state over his missing wife!

You claim that he didn't want Amber to meet him at Arrowhead out of caring or love - well then, what was it?

I can only think of two other options, and those are, 1. To have sex with her, or 2. To kill her, too. [/*]


Oh puhleaze. He was the only suspect into the disappearance of his wife. He wouldn't take the chance of killing someone who was cooperating with the police. It's pure fantasy to claim he was going to kill Amber.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Then that only leaves sex.

He wanted to meet the woman who he suspected might have something to do with the murder of his wife and child, just so he could use her some more for sex.

Sure. Whatever............. [/*]


I haven't said he suspected her. But I do think he wanted to meet for sex. And if she'd shown up he wouldn't have been using her, it would have been mutual. She wanted to keep calling him and was willing to fake a pregnancy after the police decided to end the taps. She obviously didn't want to lose contact with him.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Laci picked out a wedding gift for herself that was going to hurt Scott's feelings when he found out what it was?

That doesn't sound like Laci to me: "Oh, Scott: here's the Christmas gift that YOU got for ME! Something that I was worried will hurt your feelings, but what the heck!".

I don't think so....................... [/*]



Nice twisting there. :rolleyes:

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Ahem: I'm not the one who claimed that Laci picked out a Christmas present for herself from Scott that she was worried would "hurt his feelings".

She was worried about his sensitivity about her having her engagement ring from him used as part of a bigger, better ring - and yet this was going to be what he gave her as a Christmas gift?

Nah....makes no sense. It just doesn't work.

If you're going to pick out something for yourself that you assign as a "gift" from another person, you're going to pick out something that it will DELIGHT them to give you - not something that will hurt their feelings. [/*]


She was worried about his feelings because she was having his ring broken down. It was being completely destroyed. She wasn't making a bigger ring, she was making a new ring out of the one he'd given her.

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I post this because it was testifed to that he was distraught!

He didn't turn it on and off. Nobody cries every minute, every second.

She was "creeped" out by a bottle of wine? Sounds like a drama queen. Nobody else seemed to "creep out." Sharon and the rest of the folks at dinner drank the wine.

He was talking to Amber to find out if she was involved in Laci's disappearance!

He told Amber that he loved Laci!

mho [/*]

man, you missed alot of testimony.

if he was concerned that AF was involved, he would have offered her name up and that of her friends, on 12/24. (which of course he lied on national tv that he DID tell LE on 12/24).

he didnt. now you are inferring SP was playing detective for LE regarding AF???? LOL LOL LOL!

Sharon and family were not in attendance on xmas day while SP and his family sat down and ate; opened wine, asked his neighbor to eat with him and his parents.....yeah, 'strongly insisted' by calling her after she declined and left, her begging off that she didnt eat meat...he offered to make pasta, WHICH HE DID.

the neighbor testified that his parents were upset, and SP was not.

on another note, SP was interviewed by DOJ Mansfield and he says he got LP a DIAMOND RING for xmas; on national tv he says an LV wallet.

that interview also yielded significant discrepancies regarding what LP was wearing, jewelry wise, as well as sneakers......LP was no longer barefoot according to that statement.

best regards,
Pru

[wandering]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Two of my relatives disappeared, both sisters, and were never found. We also had murders in our family. My grandmother was found shot to death in her backyard. Another relative was found shot to death in bed.

mho [/*]Dang. If I were you, I'd crawl into a cocoon.

My condolences. :rose:

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I am not inferring Scott played detective for "LE!" I said he was trying to find out if Amber was involved in the disappearance of Laci, but I never inferred he did it for LE! HE wanted to know if Amber was involved in Laci's disappearance! HE wanted to know, and that is why he kept talking to her, IMO.


MHO [/*]

you didnt infer...you said he was trying to find out if AF was involved....in your opinion which is based on what fact?

you knew SP mindset as to WHY he was talking to her?

its obvious why he was talking to her: the nite of the vigil he was lying to her to preserve "his relationship' with her...yes, it was a relationship, it wasnt a few rolls in the bedroom, he was cooking dinner for her, picking her kid up from daycare, going to dinners, socializing with her friends.

if he wanted to make pretend at least that she should be considered a suspect, he should have provided that information to LE for her to be investigated AT HIS INSISTENCE.

he wouldnt own up to Laci carrying HIS child: I cant talk about that when asked if it was HIS child.

sheesh.

his ruse was revealed. his 'relationship" was now common knowledge (worldwide). yet he still managed to lie.

psychopath. thats what they do.

best regards,
Pru

[vonna]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Do you have any guesses?

Why WOULD a man refuse to admit to his girlfriend that his wife's baby was, indeed, his?

And the fact that he told her he was overseas just COULDN'T have anything to do with the fact that he was in the public eye and couldn't just sneak off to see her, could it be?

And the lies to Amber about where he was spending his holidays before that just couldn't have been because he was married and couldn't get away as often as he'd like to, could they? [/*]

I don't think rational people are capable of understanding what goes on in a murder's head.

[vonna]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Because he wanted to find out if Amber was involved in Laci's disappearance.

mho [/*]

You can't possibly believe this so you must be kidding.

[bookie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Check your PM box. [/*]


Checked and replied.

[wandering]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


I've always questioned Amber's credibility and even more so after it was revealed after the trial that she had lied for years about the paternity of her daughter. Amber's focus was always on herself and how Scott wronged her. She didn't express any concern for Laci or Conner. It's chilling, imo. [/*]That is simply not true. She expressed concern at that first news conference.

[caphill]

To whoever told me to clear my PMs.....Done

[bookie]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


I'm not sure how you conclude questions about Conner's paternity were "perfectly natural" for Amber to ask. Scott wasn't involved with Amber when Conner was conceived. In fact, I think it was truly bizarre for her to be so focused on paternity rather than on the fact that innocent baby was missing and might be harmed. She displayed no compassion for Conner at that point whatsoever. [/*]


Amber was all about "me me me".

[bookie]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


What I read is that Scott didn't trust Amber to tell her. [/*]

In the majority of the calls Scott sounded like he was telling her anything just to keep talking to her, stringing her along.

[bookie]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


She certainly was. Conner's paternity was irrelevant. Scott and Laci were portraying the baby as "their's" and even if Scott divorced Laci and married Amber~a scenario he didn't seem to be contemplating~Conner would still be Scott's son. [/*]

Scott wasn't denying paternity to anyone else, just the woman he was lying to for sex.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Exactly.

He denied his own missing son for the sake of saving face with someone he wanted to have sex with again.

Just goes to show where his priorities are.

Thanks for at least admitting it. [/*]


Don't twist what I say with what you think I mean.

[CSloper]

Originally posted by wandering
That is simply not true. She expressed concern at that first news conference. [/*]

Oh, please. In front of the cameras. She expressed NO concern for Laci in her wiretapped phone calls. If she did, please quote the passage(s). I'm confident you won't find too many.

I believe Amber knew all about Scott and Laci. I don't believe Shawn Sibley when she says that her internet search on Scott was interrupted, and she never got back to it. Bull. It wouldn't surprise me if Amber's phone number was recorded on the Peterson caller ID, hence, "We knew about Amber from day one."

Did Laci get some of those ominous, dead silence calls in the three weeks before she disappeared, and after Sibley's search? That wouldn't surprise me, either. That's exactly the kind of woman she is.

[lsmith]

Originally posted by CSloper


Oh, please. In front of the cameras. She expressed NO concern for Laci in her wiretapped phone calls. If she did, please quote the passage(s). I'm confident you won't find too many.......

I agree CSloper. I am amazed when I listen to the Amber tapes at how stuck on "look at what this has done to me" she was. IF Scott was guilty - don't you think Amber would have had a better chance of getting a confession out of him if she had played the "I support you" "it's us against the world" routine? But she couldn't do it....because she could not get beyond what the entire situation had done to her. In my HONEST opinion.


Originally posted by CSloper

I believe Amber knew all about Scott and Laci. I don't believe Shawn Sibley when she says that her internet search on Scott was interrupted, and she never got back to it. Bull. It wouldn't surprise me if Amber's phone number was recorded on the Peterson caller ID, hence, "We knew about Amber from day one."

Did Laci get some of those ominous, dead silence calls in the three weeks before she disappeared, and after Sibley's search? That wouldn't surprise me, either. That's exactly the kind of woman she is. [/*]

How could she NOT have known about Scott and Laci? By Amber's own words....Scott was always running off - even on the phone. He hardly ever answered the phone when she called - she had to wait for a call back. He only gave her a cell phone number. When she asked him for an address - he gave her a P.O. Box. Her BEST friend was told that Scott was married. Wow....how many more indicators does one need? Aren't those all of the classic signs...and then some? I don't believe for a second that Shawn Sibley did not call up Amber the second she hung up the phone with Scott. What best friend wouldn't?

I wonder what it was that ended that best friendship?

[baytown babs]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


The age of most unknown fetus' is estimated!

Yes, I do understand "estimate," and I made sure it was included in the gestational age of Conner Peterson.

The fact remains his estimated 9 month gestational age is listed on the autopsy findings report, signed by Brian Peterson.

MHO [/*]

Funny in that five or six weeks time he hadn't grown any from his last ultrasound... now how his mother lived four or five months in a marine environment decomposing, prior to washing ashore, yet managed to deliver a live baby in February, is a real mystery.

[baytown babs]

What's up with the civil trial?

I saw Sharon on Larry King last week complaining about the blogging but did not hear when it is going forward, any lat breaking developments on that? Wasn't it meant to be this month?

[Pooh]

Originally posted by baytown babs
What's up with the civil trial?

I saw Sharon on Larry King last week complaining about the blogging but did not hear when it is going forward, any lat breaking developments on that? Wasn't it meant to be this month? [/*]
I was wondering the same thing. I had read an article that there was supposed to be a hearing today. Did that get rescheduled? Anyone?

[CSloper]

Originally posted by insighter


!LOL!

The very fact that "her wiretapped phone calls" were wiretapped by MPD with Amber assistance is concern enough. The calls and transcripts to the calls are available for your listening and reading pleasure.

As for Sibley, just exactly what kind of woman is she? Please do tell--with links. TIA [/*]

Wooossshhh....right over your head. No link.

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings


The autopsy report does not trump all. It was done before Laci was found. Dr. Peterson testified, and the link has been provided here many times, that when Laci was found he had much more information to utilize for Conner, and in fact, testified that it was his professional opinion that Conner died in the Laci's womb, and was released from the uterus in the bay. [/*]


The condition of the body and his expert opinion of his initial findings should change to try to match the condition of Laci's body?

I don't think so.

[ZumbaGirl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


No evidence he killed Laci.

The evidence of Conner's body proves his innocence. That is enough to prove Scott's innocence.

mho [/*]


I have a hard time believing if Conner's body proves Scott's innocence that the Judge upheld the conviction. Why didn't he toss the case out and release Scott? Makes no sense to me. And, I absolutely don't believe that that Judge would let an innocent man sit on death row. Therefore, I have to conclude Conner's body does not prove Scott's innocence.
IMO

[Pooh]

There was supposed to be a hearing today to set the trial date. Does anyone know if that hearing was held today as planned?

[bookie]

Originally posted by baytown babs
What's up with the civil trial?

I saw Sharon on Larry King last week complaining about the blogging but did not hear when it is going forward, any lat breaking developments on that? Wasn't it meant to be this month? [/*]


According to the articles about the July 8 date being postponed there was supposed to be a hearing today to set a new trial date.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Pooh
There was supposed to be a hearing today to set the trial date. Does anyone know if that hearing was held today as planned? [/*]


The hearing may be scheduled for later today. It's only 1pm in California.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965

The findings is what it is. ...and the ultimate conclusion is the autopsy findings report, signed by Brian, and his ultimate conclusion that he couldn't rule out live birth.

mho [/*]

You are absolutey correct that Dr. Peterson testified that he could not rule out a live birth but he also gave his expert opinion that Conner was not born alive.

So he can't rule ot a live birth but his expert opinion is that a live birth never happened.

Dr. Peterson gave an estimate on how old Conner was. Since Dr. Peterson isn't an expert at determine Conner's age you have to look at someone's testimony who is and that person was Dr. Greg DeVore who testified that Conner died on December 23.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy


You are absolutey correct that Dr. Peterson testified that he could not rule out a live birth but he also gave his expert opinion that Conner was not born alive.

So he can't rule ot a live birth but his expert opinion is that a live birth never happened.

Dr. Peterson gave an estimate on how old Conner was. Since Dr. Peterson isn't an expert at determine Conner's age you have to look at someone's testimony who is and that person was Dr. Greg DeVore who testified that Conner died on December 23. [/*]


LOL. Oops. The jury sure gave Dr Devore a little slack on his dat of death as Dec 23rd.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Stuy


You are absolutey correct that Dr. Peterson testified that he could not rule out a live birth but he also gave his expert opinion that Conner was not born alive.

So he can't rule ot a live birth but his expert opinion is that a live birth never happened.

Dr. Peterson gave an estimate on how old Conner was. Since Dr. Peterson isn't an expert at determine Conner's age you have to look at someone's testimony who is and that person was Dr. Greg DeVore who testified that Conner died on December 23. [/*]
Wait a minute...what about Alison Galloway.

:shrug:

[alter ego]

Originally posted by dan4081


You will have to forgive mcannie.
Although posters have repeatedly tried to explain what "estimated" means, some posters cant seem to grasp it.
These certain posters somehow continue to argue and claim that "estimated" is an exact date, and this somehow exonerates SP. [/*]Really? So Conner's DOD was testified to as being on 'exactly' 12/24?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by caphill



LOL. Oops. The jury sure gave Dr Devore a little slack on his dat of death as Dec 23rd. [/*]
Like the slack the Pros gave him when his initial report had the DOD as 12/25.

Oopsy.

[bookie]

Originally posted by alter ego

Like the slack the Pros gave him when his initial report had the DOD as 12/25.

Oopsy. [/*]


Amazingly when talking about Dr March and the "cut me some slack" it's always chopped up to make it sound sinister isn't it?



MARCH: Why not be -- sir, it was in error by two days. I would like everybody to cut me the same two-days slack that was cut Doctor DeVore, who moved his date -- the date of Conner's death from the 25th to the 23rd. I'm sorry, it was an error. I made a mistake. And if we make it June 9th, then we have a death date of Conner of the 29th. It's New Year's Eve if it's June 11th. I'm sorry, I made an error.

[bookie]

Originally posted by alter ego

Wait a minute...what about Alison Galloway.

:shrug: [/*]


Alison Galloway's measurements all came back at more than 33 weeks. Out of 14 11 came back as 35 weeks, the rest at 36+ weeks but that didn't fit Dr Devore's 12/24 DOD.

[bookie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Thank you for posting that! March's statement was blown way out of context!

mho [/*]


Your welcome.

[bookie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
I know exactly what "estimated" means! All unknown fetus' age is estimated.

The fact remains Conner Peterson's "estimated" age is listed as 9 months!

9 months--full term! He had the appropriate amount of cartilge in his ears, which means he was full term or close to full term.

I never once said it was an "exact" age: In every one of my posts I have stated it is an "estimated" age. And it was Dr. Brian Peterson who estimated his age at 9 months, and I am quoting his autopy findings report.

This exonerates Scott Peterson! Laci was 71/2 months pregnant when she went missing!

mho [/*]


Alison Galloway's measurements ranged from 35.1 weeks or higher.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by bookie



Amazingly when talking about Dr March and the "cut me some slack" it's always chopped up to make it sound sinister isn't it?



MARCH: Why not be -- sir, it was in error by two days. I would like everybody to cut me the same two-days slack that was cut Doctor DeVore, who moved his date -- the date of Conner's death from the 25th to the 23rd. I'm sorry, it was an error. I made a mistake. And if we make it June 9th, then we have a death date of Conner of the 29th. It's New Year's Eve if it's June 11th. I'm sorry, I made an error. [/*]
but but but, it was reported that way by the MEDIA, so what the trial transcripts show is immaterial.



:biggrin:

[bookie]

Originally posted by alter ego

but but but, it was reported that way by the MEDIA, so what the trial transcripts show is immaterial.



:biggrin: [/*]

We all know the media is allowed to lie. :tongue:

Your pm's are full.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Goodness..I cannot believe the gestational age by weeks of Connor is still being argued about..He was not born alive..he was decomposed and partially mummified by lying inutero after Laci's death...and Dr. Marches biggest mistake was to assume, and present such definative dates..and spin possibilities to factual..thus became "Incredible'..

Third trimester babies go by weight..maturity of many things..and to look at any baby in his condition..absolutely no way of knowing Time of Death..it was sufficient to show he was not born naturally as they had Laci's body to show how he was expelled..and it wasnt by vaginal birth nor an incision..So how else could he have been born or delivered or expelled..Non medical people here just have to accept the fact that babies do not materialize from nowhere..and when DNA proves where that baby came from and how it became removed from that source..it is immaterial as to anything else that a defense team would like to insinuate..Sorry folks..Connor became that little arm to point to his dad and Laci, minus her arms and head who was able to protect little Conner "within" for months!! Really common sense to me..but know not all wish to believe it...So sad really!!

LMS


:rose:

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


What the trial transcripts show in Dr. March is that he made a mistake (twice) admittedly. It is material. [/*]


It also shows Devore made a mistake by 2 days like March but he got a free pass.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y
Goodness..I cannot believe the gestational age by weeks of Connor is still being argued about..He was not born alive..he was decomposed and partially mummified by lying inutero after Laci's death...and Dr. Marches biggest mistake was to assume, and present such definative dates..and spin possibilities to factual..thus became "Incredible'..

Third trimester babies go by weight..maturity of many things..and to look at any baby in his condition..absolutely no way of knowing Time of Death..it was sufficient to show he was not born naturally as they had Laci's body to show how he was expelled..and it wasnt by vaginal birth nor an incision..So how else could he have been born or delivered or expelled..Non medical people here just have to accept the fact that babies do not materialize from nowhere..and when DNA proves where that baby came from and how it became removed from that source..it is immaterial as to anything else that a defense team would like to insinuate..Sorry folks..Connor became that little arm to point to his dad and Laci, minus her arms and head who was able to protect little Conner "within" for months!! Really common sense to me..but know not all wish to believe it...So sad really!!

LMS


:rose: [/*]


The gestational age is the medical and scientific crux of the case.

It is much more relevant evidence than Scott and his family throwing together a dinner and opening a bottle of wine on Christmas Day for goodness sakes.

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
The autopsy findings report list his estimated gestational age as 9 months. Nothing will erase it. It is a fact!

I have posted it over and over, and the 9 months estimated age is a fact. It is a documented report and, as I have stated over and over and over and over again, it is signed by Brian Peterson. I posted the report on this board.

mho [/*]


Check you PM

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He told Amber he loved Laci. He is going to tell his girlfriend he loves his wife if he has romantic feelings toward Amber? He didn't give one fig about Amber.

mho [/*]

refresh my memory: which audio tape captured SP telling AF he loves his wife?

best regards,
Pru

[bookie]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


refresh my memory: which audio tape captured SP telling AF he loves his wife?

best regards,
Pru [/*]



This one (http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap0108a.html?page=29)

[caphill]

Originally posted by alter ego

Wait a minute...what about Alison Galloway.

:shrug: [/*]


What about her? She was a witness for prosecution but her examinations bowed well for the defense.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Really?

Then why couldn't he resist still calling her after the Feb. conversation when Amber said she didn't think they should talk any more? He said okay.........Amber stopped calling him.........but then he started calling her again.

That certainly wasn't "stringing her along".......that was chasing her even after she told him it was over. [/*]


Did you miss this part of my post? "just to keep talking to her," :rolleyes:

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by bookie




This one (http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/docs/wiretap0108a.html?page=29) [/*]

thank you.....you are much stronger than me to go back and read these exchanges....ughhh....lol

it helped me recollect the grammar correction to: 'loved' past tense and the continuing avoidance with regard to discussing his 'real life', most notaby the inference that a mysterious situation existed between him and Laci and the pregnancy.

it didnt exist.

what did exist was his double life.

best regards,
Pru

[CSloper]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Bones do indeed go through changes.

The bones of a teenager will look differently that an adult's. A 60-year-olds will look different from a 30-year-olds.

We all base our judgements on the information we have at hand.

The doctor had probably never seen a fully-formed fetus of that age outside of the mother's body - how often does that happen? [/*]

Basing our judgements on the information at hand, Conner measured between 17and 1/2 to 17 and 3/4 inches long. You, too, can figure it out. He was between 35 and 36 weeks, basing our judgements on the information at hand.

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
[/*]


You are correct. That was the evidence that was presented to the jury. It was the States evidence. The jury didn't like that part of the evidence so they dismissed it.

During the jury interviews the jury never really discussed the scientific evidence and ruled on their speculations and emotions.

[bookie]

Originally posted by feathergirl


*Groan*

At the end of February, are you saying that he called her after she broke off contact because he was still trying to find out if she was "the real killer"?

And he wanted her to meet him at Arrowhead so that he could question her, not have sex with her?

Was there no other woman in the universe who would have had sex with him at that point? [/*]



Did you see any of that in my post? Nope. I didn't say that. I have said that I think he kept talking to her for one reason.....sex. He knew she was easy.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


thank you.....you are much stronger than me to go back and read these exchanges....ughhh....lol

it helped me recollect the grammar correction to: 'loved' past tense and the continuing avoidance with regard to discussing his 'real life', most notaby the inference that a mysterious situation existed between him and Laci and the pregnancy.

it didnt exist.

what did exist was his double life.

best regards,
Pru [/*]


I didn't have to read them all. It was on the main page that listed the calls on CTV.

Scott wasn't the only one correcting grammar. Sharon and Brent both did the same thing in the first couple of days. A reporter thought it was odd that Brent was correcting himself and called the MPD to report it.

Men having affairs don't talk about their wives to their lovers. They typically try to keep both lives seperate. Again, not odd.

[CSloper]

Originally posted by insighter


What part of Conner measured between 17 and 1/2 and 3/4 inches long? What are these numbers in CMs?

Also, where are you getting your info of "Conner measured..." from?

TIA [/*]

It's all in the testimony, IN CMs. That's where I got my info. Convert to inches.
More than one bone was measured.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


9 months estimated gestational age listed on the autopsy findings report, signed by Brian Peterson. It is DOCUMENTED!

mho [/*]


9 months estimated....He was very little for a full term baby.but then again I had big babies....My second child was 11 pounds, would they have considered him a two month old child??

These are not precise, they are estimates. Basically what Dr. Peterson was saying was that Conner could have lived out side of Laci's body had he been born.

IMO

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Please pinpoint. TIA [/*]

Alison Galloway and Devore. Alison Galloway measured the actual bones but Devore used ultrasound measurements. In his testing he obtained 3 different measurements of the same ultrasound bone but his testimony was obviously given more weight then Galloway's.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by insighter


So then, you do not know the cartilage of a 33 week gestation. [/*]

I simply cant believe these arguments..whoops debates based on this "ear cartilage".. but one must remember Connor although maybe intact he was by no means fully developed, as in New Born..which skin turgor abscent and much of his internal organs had been macerated..decomposed so to speak..and cartilage is a soft tissue..which does not grow after death, however doesnt maintain adequate cell structure to claim anything..all babies in 3rd trimester have all inventory that they are born with..so to claim appropriate amt..is disengenuous..appropriate amts of everything is there in the 3rd trimester of every baby unless genetic defects prevail..

Just when will some realize, that estimating or appropriateness used as terms..do not make the possibility of later death of fetus versus his mothers...Connor's weight was very light..but then again loss of cellular structure, fluids do mean he had deteriorated
way beyond what laypeople would ever recognize as a full term baby..It's difficult enough for experts to identify..I am just scratching my head at the continuous drum beat here claiming all sorts of things..which is not proveable..What is..is..and Scott is where he belongs..and Laci is with Connor is a much better place now looking down at all this..no doubt shaking their heads too!!

LMS:rose:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Lynda have you noticed I won't even bother posting about the ear cartlidge? Same thing as uterus horns (lol), ridiculous. [/*]

So True AW..These people claiming all these things have never ever seen a dead baby..not to mention one who had been maintained for 4 months before turning up..I venture to say that IF they saw close up pictures of Conner/Connor..they would lose their cookies..Well, I have seen this first hand and it is not easy for even the well seasoned professional to deal with!! Those images are literally etched in your head/mind forever and one never forgets it!!

I hate to badmouth anybody..however there are a handfull that keep on claiming things that are not factual let alone indicative of what they advocate to..

For me its not just debate..its argumentative to keep this same old innacurate information floating..and for what..to make themselves feel better..or to change a posters mind..I find it rather silly myself..childish in a sense..

Sorry, but for me to see written such claims that I know is not true or is mis-guided..I do get frustrated ..Once again, there seems to be nothing advocates wnt do to make themselves out to be right or important..

LMS...Nice to see you AngelWings!:rose:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Inaccurate information stems from your inaccurate spin of a few words, or estimates..It really is very simple..None of which you spin the facts to mean is possible to prove or disprove..To continue to claim truth to the spin is the inaccuracies of which I speak..Unless you have some extensive background with dealing with dead babies at all stages of gestational age..and those babies that have died and found 4 months after each stage of gestation...then..you make no headway in my books, nor in any court..experts do these things, and the defense expert made one huge..mistake..and attempted to prove or claim that baby Conner/Connor was a specific number of weeks..It cannot be done..plain and simple..and after decades of experience and viewing dead babies from 1st thru 3rd trimester..i do know of what i speak..One cannot simply apply their particular birthing of a child and designate that as their knowledge base..Wouldnt work in any medical debate..ever!

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Excellent post, and very informative.

mho [/*]

The post you are referring to is excellent in that it indicates averages..informative well, I wonder where the stats are that indicate all full term babies have x amt of cartilege..Man oh man, I view, delivered or assisted in over 1500 deliveries, not to mention cared for thousands of babies ..and rarely saw 2 babies with exactly the same ears, amt of cartilege, shape, curviature, size...and so on...This Ear cartilege science you speak to is ONLY examples of one baby at 28 weeks, and 33 weeks...get a grip and speak to any pediatician...they will describe the variables where ears are concerned...ears..are ears..and any cartilege , any shape, any size or configuration of them is based on inheritance or genetic factors or defects..Ear Cartilege Expert....their arent any..only those surgeons who correct deformaties or missing outer ears.

LMS

[lsmith]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


thank you.....you are much stronger than me to go back and read these exchanges....ughhh....lol

it helped me recollect the grammar correction to: 'loved' past tense and the continuing avoidance with regard to discussing his 'real life', most notaby the inference that a mysterious situation existed between him and Laci and the pregnancy.

it didnt exist.

what did exist was his double life.

best regards,
Pru [/*]

I agree with you on one point - those conversations do make me sick - but not for the same reason. I can't stand listening to Amber's whining.

Scott never discussed anything "deep" with Amber. We're supposed to believe that Scott made promises of a future together to Amber prior to their conversations being taped.....but the closest thing she could get to that on tape was "we COULD be good together"....."but"......"there are contentions"...."we shouldn't analyze our relationship"? Yeah right.

Don't read too much into all of the "Amber - I can't tell you that right now". Scott didn't answer that way to just her questions about what bed he and Laci slept in...or whether Conner was his.....he answered that way to the majority of her questions. IMO, it's a polite way of saying - it's none of your business.....most women would be on their way after receiving answers like that.....which is what Scott was most likely hoping for.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by lsmith


I agree with you on one point - those conversations do make me sick - but not for the same reason. I can't stand listening to Amber's whining.

Scott never discussed anything "deep" with Amber. We're supposed to believe that Scott made promises of a future together to Amber prior to their conversations being taped.....but the closest thing she could get to that on tape was "we COULD be good together"....."but"......"there are contentions"...."we shouldn't analyze our relationship"? Yeah right.

Don't read too much into all of the "Amber - I can't tell you that right now". Scott didn't answer that way to just her questions about what bed he and Laci slept in...or whether Conner was his.....he answered that way to the majority of her questions. IMO, it's a polite way of saying - it's none of your business.....most women would be on their way after receiving answers like that.....which is what Scott was most likely hoping for. [/*]

To use your term..Amber's whining, and Scott's whooing of her is only sickening to those that listen to them...because it shows Scott's mindset..and yes it does not prove his gult of murder...but it does show the moral fiber of the man..and his mindset at the time of this case...timeline of Scott's activities proved to be very important in the deliberations..and what Scott, did, said, and how he acted before, during and after was important..

I dont really care one bit how Amber lived, talked like or her intentions where Scott was concerned...it is enough that she got drawn into this mess by Scott..she did not insert herself there!

These tapes did more damage to Scott in finding for the death penalty..more than a guilty verdict for murder..It was testimony my Scott himself that indicated what was in his heart and mind.. his ability to lie and conceal truth of the situation..No one seemed to be able to read his demeanor or presentations..was it the Salesman forte..or a cold callus mentality..I dont care..Those tapes did himin along with the totality of the evidence presented in the case against him>

LMS

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by bookie



I didn't have to read them all. It was on the main page that listed the calls on CTV.

Scott wasn't the only one correcting grammar. Sharon and Brent both did the same thing in the first couple of days. A reporter thought it was odd that Brent was correcting himself and called the MPD to report it.

Men having affairs don't talk about their wives to their lovers. They typically try to keep both lives seperate. Again, not odd. [/*]

ummm....it certainly is "ODD" given the whole set of circumstances.

men having affairs: there certainly are men that talk about their wives...and in this case: once he was confronted about being married, he could have wiggled out of it with the 'truth' he kept spewing at her on the phone for months after LP was considered missing and a possible homicide:

his new and improved truth told to the WORLD: Laci was fine with him and his lover.

so why lie to his lover?

lol

best regards,
Pru

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by lsmith


I agree with you on one point - those conversations do make me sick - but not for the same reason. I can't stand listening to Amber's whining.

Scott never discussed anything "deep" with Amber. We're supposed to believe that Scott made promises of a future together to Amber prior to their conversations being taped.....but the closest thing she could get to that on tape was "we COULD be good together"....."but"......"there are contentions"...."we shouldn't analyze our relationship"? Yeah right.

Don't read too much into all of the "Amber - I can't tell you that right now". Scott didn't answer that way to just her questions about what bed he and Laci slept in...or whether Conner was his.....he answered that way to the majority of her questions. IMO, it's a polite way of saying - it's none of your business.....most women would be on their way after receiving answers like that.....which is what Scott was most likely hoping for. [/*]

I dont have any pom-poms for AF...... :)

SP had an out: IM MARRIED AND MY PREGNANT WIFE IS MISSING. gotta go baby, its been nice. sowwwwwwwwy, yeah Im an A$$, etc etc.

instead, he placed himself in France.

that is where I disagree with your opinion, however, I do understand your reasoning. but based on the facts, he had a chance before that to come clean with the truth that he told the world on TV: LP was fine with his affair.

so why not tell his girlfriend if it was so fine?

best regards,
Pru

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by MandyMutton


I needed to give birth to only one premature child to know he didn't "look" full-term and it wasn't just his ears. Ear cartilage of a 32-week fetus is not as fully developed as a full-term infant. A full-term infant may develop more slowly but never does a NORMAL fetus develop cartilage or bone at such an accelerated rate ahead of schedule.

Ear cartilage development as a measure of gestational age is based on SCIENCE and why it was mentioned by the pathologist at trial. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Conner's development was in any way deviant of normal gestation. Not only did the pathologist consider him a full-term baby, the witnesses who found and saw his body described him as looking full-term. [/*]

I rest my case..just because you give birth to a premature infant does not make an authority..Plain and simple..It is your experience with one baby..Speak to any Peadiatrician..you'll get the exactness of your claims blown out your your world of conviction..no baby is cookie cuttered..just like DNA..each precious baby is UNIQUE..!!

LMS

[caphill]

Didn't Dr. Peterson testify there was no lanugo on the baby?

Also I think a correction is due for a previous post that gave the length of the baby. Was the length around 48cc which is 19 inches.

I will stand corrected if the testimony shows differently than my recall.

[wandering]

I just finished Keith Ablow's book about Scott. He says Connor's body was deteriorated, and they IDed him by DNA. I never heard that before. :confused:

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y


The post you are referring to is excellent in that it indicates averages..informative well, I wonder where the stats are that indicate all full term babies have x amt of cartilege..Man oh man, I view, delivered or assisted in over 1500 deliveries, not to mention cared for thousands of babies ..and rarely saw 2 babies with exactly the same ears, amt of cartilege, shape, curviature, size...and so on...This Ear cartilege science you speak to is ONLY examples of one baby at 28 weeks, and 33 weeks...get a grip and speak to any pediatician...they will describe the variables where ears are concerned...ears..are ears..and any cartilege , any shape, any size or configuration of them is based on inheritance or genetic factors or defects..Ear Cartilege Expert....their arent any..only those surgeons who correct deformaties or missing outer ears.

LMS [/*]


Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Excellent post...

My first born was born with what I call Limp ears. During his physical examine it was discussed with us. his ears are paper thin. If I put a hat on his head or glasses his ears fold down.
It is just the way god made him. So for anyone to tell me there is a certain amount of cartilage in everyone's ears is complete BS.
And by the way my son was 1 week late and weighed 9 lbs 2 ounces.


imo

[wandering]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



Yes, they IDed him by DNA because he was an unknown fetus. Dr. Peterson did not know he was Conner Peterson when he autopsied him. Thus DNA was done.

mho [/*]I already knew that. I'm talking about the deterioration of the body.

[wandering]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


His ograns were decomposed, but his gender and anus was intact. He was macerated, and his body was floppy.

mho [/*]So much for those theories that he was born and recently put in the water.

[wandering]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


Thanks, but that site is not credible at all. The owner has been known to alter the transcripts to suit her outrageous theories. mho [/*]TY! :cool: