then why was he making AN anchor?

[California]

GrandmaGA
Member

Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 311

Prosecution Witness #50: Eric Olsen, former Trade Corp employee Testimony

The Prosecution played the adultery card again, calling attention to the conversation between Scott and Shawn Sibley the first time they met. Scott and Eric Olsen, his employee, had gone to the trade show in Anaheim together. Eric knew Shawn from a previous employment. He also knew a David Fernandez, and setup a dinner for the four of them (Scott, Eric, David, and Shawn) so David and Shawn could meet. However, Scott and Shawn became involved in a steamy "sex position" conversation that both Eric and David said made them very uncomfortable. Eric is the one Shawn called on December 2 to find out if Scott was married. He said he did not want to become involved, and he told her she'd have to talk to him. The Defense drew out of Eric that Scott admitted he had made a mistake and done something stupid with his conversation with Shawn.

Eric also testified that he was at the warehouse at the end of November of first of December, but the boat was not there. He noted a partial bag of cement, and some old dried cement patches on the flat-bed trailer, like someone had been working with cement on the trailer.
That would seem to diffuse the Prosecution claim that cement on that flat-bed trailer related to the making of anchors for weighting down Laci. Scott had not yet even purchased the boat.



http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=11758717#post11758717

Did he ever deny making the anchor?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by California
GrandmaGA
Member

Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 311

Prosecution Witness #50: Eric Olsen, former Trade Corp employee Testimony

The Prosecution played the adultery card again, calling attention to the conversation between Scott and Shawn Sibley the first time they met. Scott and Eric Olsen, his employee, had gone to the trade show in Anaheim together. Eric knew Shawn from a previous employment. He also knew a David Fernandez, and setup a dinner for the four of them (Scott, Eric, David, and Shawn) so David and Shawn could meet. However, Scott and Shawn became involved in a steamy "sex position" conversation that both Eric and David said made them very uncomfortable. Eric is the one Shawn called on December 2 to find out if Scott was married. He said he did not want to become involved, and he told her she'd have to talk to him. The Defense drew out of Eric that Scott admitted he had made a mistake and done something stupid with his conversation with Shawn.

Eric also testified that he was at the warehouse at the end of November of first of December, but the boat was not there. He noted a partial bag of cement, and some old dried cement patches on the flat-bed trailer, like someone had been working with cement on the trailer.
That would seem to diffuse the Prosecution claim that cement on that flat-bed trailer related to the making of anchors for weighting down Laci. Scott had not yet even purchased the boat.



http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=11758717#post11758717

Did he ever deny making the anchor? [/*]

Scott made an anchor because Bruce Peterson kept the anchors that he had in the Gamefisher boat he sold to Scott.

Scott never denied making the anchor. And to pick up on a point that Grandma made regarding Eric Olsen's testifying that the trailer in the warehouse was stained with cement/concrete in November, that is, indeed, exculpatory. Additionally, what many people like to overlook is that the alleged cement circles on the trailer were never said to have been a for for the Home Depot paint bucket that was the true mold for Scott's single anchor.

The State's alleged submerging weights were not only never found by LE, they were never proven to have existed. They're more case mythology.

[California]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Scott made an anchor because Bruce Peterson kept the anchors that he had in the Gamefisher boat he sold to Scott.

Scott never denied making the anchor. And to pick up on a point that Grandma made regarding Eric Olsen's testifying that the trailer in the warehouse was stained with cement/concrete in November, that is, indeed, exculpatory. Additionally, what many people like to overlook is that the alleged cement circles on the trailer were never said to have been a for for the Home Depot paint bucket that was the true mold for Scott's single anchor.

The State's alleged submerging weights were not only never found by LE, they were never proven to have existed. They're more case mythology. [/*]Did Scott make the anchor(s) before he bought the boat?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Scott made an anchor because Bruce Peterson kept the anchors that he had in the Gamefisher boat he sold to Scott.

Scott never denied making the anchor. And to pick up on a point that Grandma made regarding Eric Olsen's testifying that the trailer in the warehouse was stained with cement/concrete in November, that is, indeed, exculpatory. Additionally, what many people like to overlook is that the alleged cement circles on the trailer were never said to have been a fit for the Home Depot paint bucket that was the true mold for Scott's single anchor.

The State's alleged submerging weights were not only never found by LE, they were never proven to have existed. They're more case mythology. [/*]

..Edited ("fit" added)

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by California
Did Scott make the anchor(s) before he bought the boat? [/*]

He made but one anchor after he bought the boat.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex


Just because they were not found doesn't mean they never existed or were a myth. There was circumstantial evidence presented that anchors were made in his warehouse.

SNIP

]

The alleged submerging weight are mythology, because they were never found and no one has ever been able to structure valid and true premises that would create a conclusion (at the level of proved beyond a reasonable doubt) that Scott made any such weights.

Net, the submerging weights exist only in the prosecution's twi-light zone of speculation.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by TexMex


Just because they were not found doesn't mean they never existed or were a myth. There was circumstantial evidence presented that anchors were made in his warehouse.

Even Scott is smart enough to realize that after telling people your wife is "lost" (he later confirmed he meant "recently dead")
and buying a boat to use to dump her body after killing her...he would need to weigh down the body. So he made some weights:shrug: [/*]I remember at the time thinking the unbrella stands would work better. Thought that was why he was looking for new stands.



MOO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Wudge+


He made but one anchor after he bought the boat. [/*]

Why would anyone go through the trouble of buying cement to make a single anchor when they can buy one?

Scott bought the cement instead because he would have drawn attention to himself if he'd bought 5 anchors.

There were outlines of the anchors he made, which he didn't have time to clean, and when he returned to do so, couldn't enter the warehouse because LE was there.

IMO

[mariah79]

Originally posted by TexMex


He CLAIMS he made one.

He also claimed to have gone duck hunting in Kennebunkport and to Paris (while he was really at a vigil for his wife and kid) and to be in one place when really in another while talking to his supportive Mother. I don't believe him. He needed more that one anchor to keep his wife on the floor of the Bay so he made several. [/*]

And when did he make these claims to the people who really count (LE)? Men lie to the woman they are having an affair with all the time. Usually the affair being based on a lie ie he claims not to be married.

I am not saying SP didn't kill his wife and child. I am saying the state didn't prove it. CE to me is on the same par as gossip.

IMO

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Why would anyone go through the trouble of buying cement to make a single anchor when they can buy one?

Scott bought the cement instead because he would have drawn attention to himself if he'd bought 5 anchors.

There were outlines of the anchors he made, which he didn't have time to clean, and when he returned to do so, couldn't enter the warehouse because LE was there.

IMO [/*]
Eric Olsen also testified that he was at the warehouse at the end of November of first of December, but the boat was not there. He noted a partial bag of cement, and some old dried cement patches on the flat-bed trailer, like someone had been working with cement on the trailer.

[mariah79]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Why would anyone go through the trouble of buying cement to make a single anchor when they can buy one?

Scott bought the cement instead because he would have drawn attention to himself if he'd bought 5 anchors.

There were outlines of the anchors he made, which he didn't have time to clean, and when he returned to do so, couldn't enter the warehouse because LE was there.

IMO [/*]

Maybe because buying cement was cheaper than buying an anchor. He just bought a boat after all. Most people don't have a lot of money left after making a big purchase.

IMO

ETA: I see he didn't buy the cement but already had some.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by mariah79



I am not saying SP didn't kill his wife and child I am saying the state did prove it. CE to me is on the same par as gossip.

IMO [/*]In the state of California, CE must be given the same weight as direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. (Look it up on Wiki or any law board)

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+


He made but one anchor after he bought the boat. [/*]

Speculation.

[mariah79]

Originally posted by Ryder
In the state of California, CE must be given the same weight as direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. (Look it up on Wiki or any law board) [/*]

Albeit CE is allowed but In My Eyes it amounts to gossip. The DA can make CE mean what they want it to mean. Doesn't make it the truth.

IMO

[caphill]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I remember at the time thinking the unbrella stands would work better. Thought that was why he was looking for new stands.



MOO [/*]

That is as good a speculation and possible theory as the making of the anchors. LOL.

If I already owned a truck I would likely have developed a little easier method of disposing of a body considering there were deep lakes and many bridges much closer to home. A good standard shovel and an isolated spot in the woods could have been a possibility.

This would not have required any investments in purchasing a little boat, buying cement to make anchors, driving 90 miles to motor out in broad daylight to heave a very pregnant and likely rigored body weighted down with many anchors into shallow water.

Digging a hole in the ground would have required less physical effort and allowed more time for creating a good alibi. Another method would be taking the body out of the bed of the truck and tossing it over a bridge into a body of water.

What difference does it make if the body is found if one is clever enough to leave no forensics in the house or in the truck.

This murder was a tragedy and certainly no laughing matter. The complicated method and premeditation of how and why Scott killed and disposed of the body according to LE is laughable, IMO.

[caphill]

Originally posted by feathergirl


You call it "gossip" that a man took an unregistered boat/trailer for a 90-mile impromptu fishing trip with a handgun in his glovebox on the same day this his wife never opened the blinds but had decided to walk a dog she had stopped walking a month before? [/*]


I call it myth that Laci who was having a normal and healthy pregnancy was practically an invalid who was unable to walk a dog.

Every woman who has been pregnant knows there are certain side effects to the condition. There are many times morning sickness and momentary bouts of dizziness. Swollen ankles is quite common.

Show me a Dr who advises a healthy pregnant patient to cease physical activity and exercise and I'll you a quack.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Why would anyone go through the trouble of buying cement to make a single anchor when they can buy one?

Scott bought the cement instead because he would have drawn attention to himself if he'd bought 5 anchors.

There were outlines of the anchors he made, which he didn't have time to clean, and when he returned to do so, couldn't enter the warehouse because LE was there.

IMO [/*]

No one testified that those alleged outlines fit the Home Depot paint bucket in which Scott made his anchor, much less testifying to anything specific about the mythical weights.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Ryder


Speculation. [/*]

No. The anchor is real, exculpatory evidence.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by feathergirl


You call it "gossip" that a man took an unregistered boat/trailer for a 90-mile impromptu fishing trip with a handgun in his glovebox on the same day this his wife never opened the blinds but had decided to walk a dog she had stopped walking a month before? [/*]

The state knew that Scott bought and took possession of a boat. Thus, the State could not claim, logically, that the boat was a secret.

HTH

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex



So you are saying Scott went to all that trouble to kill Laci, put her in his new boat, drive 90 miles and dump her overboard without any weights on her?

SNIP

[/*]

What evidence proved Laci was in Scott's boat or truck?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA

Eric Olsen also testified that he was at the warehouse at the end of November of first of December, but the boat was not there. He noted a partial bag of cement, and some old dried cement patches on the flat-bed trailer, like someone had been working with cement on the trailer. [/*]What did someone make then?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by TexMex


Her hair was in his pliers found in his boat. [/*]

Who testified that was Laci's hair?

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by feathergirl


You call it "gossip" that a man took an unregistered boat/trailer for a 90-mile impromptu fishing trip with a handgun in his glovebox on the same day this his wife never opened the blinds but had decided to walk a dog she had stopped walking a month before? [/*]

"GRACE: Now, was it her normal M.O. to take the dog for a walk in the mornings?

S. ROCHA: Yes. Yes. She always took her dog for a walk. Not necessarily every single morning. Because she is far along in her pregnancy, but yes, that was her normal routine, to take the dog for a walk in the park. "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/03/lkl.00.html

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+


The state knew that Scott bought and took possession of a boat. Thus, the State could not claim, logically, that the boat was a secret.

HTH [/*]The State did NOT know Scott owned the boat. The boat was NOT registered in Scott's name - the current registration was in Bruce Peterson's name. While Bruce may have filled out the SELLER information on the pink slip thereby transferring ownership, it doesn't mean much until the BUYER actually re-registers the vehicle and pays the taxes.

Thus, yes, the boat was registered, but not to Scott. The State may have had the BUYER information, but it doesn't do anything with it until the vehicle is re-registered. The slip merely serves as a confirmation that the vehicle was not stolen.

In California, as recall reading, the license stays with the vehicle when it is sold. All that changes is the ownership of record.

[caphill]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Why aren't you asking why John Wayne Gacy went to all the time & trouble to bury those bodies under his house, when he could have simply dumped them in the river and perhaps gotten away with it?


Replaying all a murderer's "mistakes" and setting up a "simpler, more fool-proof" scenario for them doesn't make them less guilty - it just makes them stupid murderers who THOUGHT they were smart. [/*]

I would think that all such killers go to some effort to hid evidence and bodies if possible. Actually he buried 27 bodies under his house and threw 4 bodies in the Des Plaines River and 1 in the Illinois River.

How he disposed of the bodies had nothing to do with how he was discovered to be a serial killer. The last victim had last been seen with Gacy. That lead the LE to doing a background check on him which showed prior history and incarceration of homosexual assualts. That was when a search warrant was obtained and evidence found in the house linked him to Robert Piest, his last victim. Gacy confessed to 33 murders and told the police of the bodies in the crawl space and the ones he dumped in the rivers.

What was your logical to use the Gacy case as any reference to the Petterson case? Considering Gacy took the path of least resistence in hiding and disposing of his victims. None of his victims bodies were found until he was linked to his last victim and he confessed.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Scott made an anchor because Bruce Peterson kept the anchors that he had in the Gamefisher boat he sold to Scott.

Scott never denied making the anchor. And to pick up on a point that Grandma made regarding Eric Olsen's testifying that the trailer in the warehouse was stained with cement/concrete in November, that is, indeed, exculpatory. Additionally, what many people like to overlook is that the alleged cement circles on the trailer were never said to have been a for for the Home Depot paint bucket that was the true mold for Scott's single anchor.

The State's alleged submerging weights were not only never found by LE, they were never proven to have existed. They're more case mythology. [/*]

He makes a ridiculously small "qanchor" wehn he could have gone 2 miles up the road to Bob's Marine and got an anchor that would have worked for about $20. That THING that the defense calls an anchor would not anchor that boat - read Cuanany on it. It would have been useless in the currents in the Bay.

That's not an anchor - it wasn't attached to a rope or anything. It was a POS imo

And it's not lsurprising that nothing was found in the bottom of the Bay. The bottom is very soft. Cars have gone into the bay and were never seen again - so what makes you think they can find those "things.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Did Scott make the anchor(s) before he bought the boat? [/*]

Is there any proof of that? I don't think so.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by TexMex


He CLAIMS he made one.

He also claimed to have gone duck hunting in Kennebunkport and to Paris (while he was really at a vigil for his wife and kid) and to be in one place when really in another while talking to his supportive Mother. I don't believe him. He needed more that one anchor to keep his wife on the floor of the Bay so he made several. [/*]

Didn't he claim to be rfishing in Alaska, too? Did he have a license for that?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
GrandmaGA
Member

Registered: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 311

Prosecution Witness #50: Eric Olsen, former Trade Corp employee Testimony

The Prosecution played the adultery card again, calling attention to the conversation between Scott and Shawn Sibley the first time they met. Scott and Eric Olsen, his employee, had gone to the trade show in Anaheim together. Eric knew Shawn from a previous employment. He also knew a David Fernandez, and setup a dinner for the four of them (Scott, Eric, David, and Shawn) so David and Shawn could meet. However, Scott and Shawn became involved in a steamy "sex position" conversation that both Eric and David said made them very uncomfortable. Eric is the one Shawn called on December 2 to find out if Scott was married. He said he did not want to become involved, and he told her she'd have to talk to him. The Defense drew out of Eric that Scott admitted he had made a mistake and done something stupid with his conversation with Shawn.

Eric also testified that he was at the warehouse at the end of November of first of December, but the boat was not there. He noted a partial bag of cement, and some old dried cement patches on the flat-bed trailer, like someone had been working with cement on the trailer.
That would seem to diffuse the Prosecution claim that cement on that flat-bed trailer related to the making of anchors for weighting down Laci. Scott had not yet even purchased the boat.



http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=11758717#post11758717

Did he ever deny making the anchor? [/*] Testinmony please, not media reports/

The cement dust on the trailer was not dried. Read the testiomny

[Ryder]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Didn't he claim to be rfishing in Alaska, too? Did he have a license for that? [/*]He also claimed he was in Paris. Wonder if he went there for fishing? :biggrin:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mariah79


And when did he make these claims to the people who really count (LE)? Men lie to the woman they are having an affair with all the time. Usually the affair being based on a lie ie he claims not to be married.

I am not saying SP didn't kill his wife and child. I am saying the state didn't prove it. CE to me is on the same par as gossip.

IMO [/*] Do you feel the same way about DNA evidence? It is ALSO circumstantial evidence.

The other kind of evidence is direct evidence (whitnesses) yet is it THIS evidence that is usually overturned on appeal, NOT circumstantial evidence.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mariah79


Albeit CE is allowed but In My Eyes it amounts to gossip. The DA can make CE mean what they want it to mean. Doesn't make it the truth.

IMO [/*] It was proven Scott went on the Bay on the 24th.

LAci's remains and Conner's remains wash up within a couple of miles of his location in a Bay that has well over 100 miles of shoreline. That alone is enough circumstances for most people.

Add to that mix the fact he had a mistrees that he continued to keep on the hook even AFTER she ended it. He changed his appearance (and now in the way he claimed), and he was found in a new vehicle that he had lied about the registration to and had some serious camping equipment with him and then led LE on a 160 mile round trip before heading into a parking lot at a golf course where he was allegedly going to go golfind - with no equipment - was he going to camp out on the greens? All of that is prety damning evidence.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mariah79


Albeit CE is allowed but In My Eyes it amounts to gossip. The DA can make CE mean what they want it to mean. Doesn't make it the truth.

IMO [/*]

I hope you never have to serve on a jury then. You obviously cannot follow judge's instructions. Is it gosip that Scot was at the Bay that day? Is it gossip that Laci's body washed up within a few miles of the Marina? Is it gossip that EXPERTS testified that her body was in a condition of being in the water for 3-6 months? Is it gossip that Laci disappeared?

Just tell a judge you can't deliberate in good faith. They won't use you.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Testinmony please, not media reports/

The cement dust on the trailer was not dried. Read the testiomny [/*]What was made?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by earth goddess
It was proven Scott went on the Bay on the 24th.

LAci's remains and Conner's remains wash up within a couple of miles of his location in a Bay that has well over 100 miles of shoreline. That alone is enough circumstances for most people.

Add to that mix the fact he had a mistrees that he continued to keep on the hook even AFTER she ended it. He changed his appearance (and now in the way he claimed), and he was found in a new vehicle that he had lied about the registration to and had some serious camping equipment with him and then led LE on a 160 mile round trip before heading into a parking lot at a golf course where he was allegedly going to go golfind - with no equipment - was he going to camp out on the greens? All of that is prety damning evidence. [/*]How was it proven?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by caphill


That is as good a speculation and possible theory as the making of the anchors. LOL.

If I already owned a truck I would likely have developed a little easier method of disposing of a body considering there were deep lakes and many bridges much closer to home. A good standard shovel and an isolated spot in the woods could have been a possibility.

This would not have required any investments in purchasing a little boat, buying cement to make anchors, driving 90 miles to motor out in broad daylight to heave a very pregnant and likely rigored body weighted down with many anchors into shallow water.

Digging a hole in the ground would have required less physical effort and allowed more time for creating a good alibi. Another method would be taking the body out of the bed of the truck and tossing it over a bridge into a body of water.

What difference does it make if the body is found if one is clever enough to leave no forensics in the house or in the truck.

This murder was a tragedy and certainly no laughing matter. The complicated method and premeditation of how and why Scott killed and disposed of the body according to LE is laughable, IMO. [/*]

Ther are no woods around Modesto. Just farm fields and orchards. The problem with deep lakes is that there's no chance the body might wash out to sea.

Buried bodies still have forensic evidence on them. She would have been easier to identify because she would have still had her head and hands. There may have been skin under her fingernails. And it takes a lot of work to dig a grave and it takes some time - more time for discovery. Dog trailers. He would have had to dispose of the shovel and equipment he used. Too riskyk. Orchards are not isolated places - there is watering and weeding going on all the time. He would have had to go uphill about as far as SF Bay to find some woods, It didn't work for Cary Stayner and he was more wilderness-oriented than Scott

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by caphill



I call it myth that Laci who was having a normal and healthy pregnancy was practically an invalid who was unable to walk a dog.

Every woman who has been pregnant knows there are certain side effects to the condition. There are many times morning sickness and momentary bouts of dizziness. Swollen ankles is quite common.

Show me a Dr who advises a healthy pregnant patient to cease physical activity and exercise and I'll you a quack. [/*]

She was told by her DOCTORS to stop walking as she was getting faint and nauseous. Not all women suffer from those symptoms. Some women feel their best when pregnant. And the remedy for swollen ankle is:
a. walk the dog,
*. do aeorbics,
c. rest and elevate the ankles

If you reaqd the testimony, she was told not to walk in the ams. Every pregnancy is different. She was obviously concerned enough about her problem to call her doctor for advice. They did not tell her to cut out physical activity, merely NOT to walk the dog in teh am.

Laci was short. Her advaqncing pregnancy was obviously pushisng on her lungs to fcause shortness of breath. I think you are being terribly judgmental. This was her FIRST pregnancy. Not everyone has the benefits of vast knowledge regarding the same.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by TexMex


Well said.

Scott joins Rabbi Neulander (had a guy come to his house and beat his wife to death with a lead pipe),

Dr. Dirk Greineder (beat his wife to death with a hammer while on a walk and claimed a stranger did it)

Michael Peterson (staged a fall down stairs) and

Roger Skaggs a church deacon who beat his wife to death while she sat at their piano...

as just another guy who happened to be lying about an affair who then decided to just kill their wife. All thought they were smart enough to get away with it and were wrong. [/*]

Michael Fletcher staged a suicie for his pregnant wife Lee Ann - it didn't work.

Charles Stuart claimed a bushy-haired black guy shot his pregnant wife.

Warren Powell dumped his wife in a river after killing her but wanted to keep the boat he had used.

Eric Bechtel claimed his wife was washed overboard by a 2 ft wave and drowned.

Mark Hacking claimed his pregnant wife went missing while jogging.

The list goes on and on and one

[Ryder]

Originally posted by earth goddess


I hope you never have to serve on a jury then. You obviously cannot follow judge's instructions. Is it gosip that Scot was at the Bay that day? Is it gossip that Laci's body washed up within a few miles of the Marina? Is it gossip that EXPERTS testified that her body was in a condition of being in the water for 3-6 months? Is it gossip that Laci disappeared?

Just tell a judge you can't deliberate in good faith. They won't use you. [/*]ITA Earth Goddess. It is the LAW that says CE must be given the same weight as direct evidence. The Peterson case was, for the most part, a case based on Circumstantial evidence. That does not make it any more, or any less, valid or important than a case based on Direct evidence.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess


She was told by her DOCTORS to stop walking as she was getting faint and nauseous. Not all women suffer from those symptoms. Some women feel their best when pregnant. And the remedy for swollen ankle is:
a. walk the dog,
*. do aeorbics,
c. rest and elevate the ankles

If you reaqd the testimony, she was told not to walk in the ams. Every pregnancy is different. She was obviously concerned enough about her problem to call her doctor for advice. They did not tell her to cut out physical activity, merely NOT to walk the dog in teh am.

Laci was short. Her advaqncing pregnancy was obviously pushisng on her lungs to fcause shortness of breath. I think you are being terribly judgmental. This was her FIRST pregnancy. Not everyone has the benefits of vast knowledge regarding the same. [/*]

S. ROCHA: Yes. Yes. She always took her dog for a walk. Not necessarily every single morning. Because she is far along in her pregnancy, but yes, that was her normal routine, to take the dog for a walk in the park. "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI.../03/lkl.00.html

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
How was it proven? [/*]He volunteered his parking receipt to the detective as proof of his whereabouts that day.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Ryder
The State did NOT know Scott owned the boat. The boat was NOT registered in Scott's name - the current registration was in Bruce Peterson's name. While Bruce may have filled out the SELLER information on the pink slip thereby transferring ownership, it doesn't mean much until the BUYER actually re-registers the vehicle and pays the taxes.

Thus, yes, the boat was registered, but not to Scott. The State may have had the BUYER information, but it doesn't do anything with it until the vehicle is re-registered. The slip merely serves as a confirmation that the vehicle was not stolen.

In California, as recall reading, the license stays with the vehicle when it is sold. All that changes is the ownership of record. [/*]

Geragos' Cross Examination Of Detective Grogan

382. Well, did he put his name down -- we've got these DMV documents
that were marked as People's Exhibit 263; is that correct? These were marked by
Ms. Fladager.
383. Yes. There's a release of liability completed.
384. Okay. And specifically these documents show that that boat's
been registered for a while, correct?
385. Yes. It appears so.
386. Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott
Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that
right?
387. That’s correct

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Ryder
He volunteered his parking receipt to the detective as proof of his whereabouts that day. [/*]The receipt does not prove he was fishing.


MOO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


He makes a ridiculously small "qanchor" wehn he could have gone 2 miles up the road to Bob's Marine and got an anchor that would have worked for about $20. That THING that the defense calls an anchor would not anchor that boat - read Cuanany on it. It would have been useless in the currents in the Bay.

That's not an anchor - it wasn't attached to a rope or anything. It was a POS imo

And it's not lsurprising that nothing was found in the bottom of the Bay. The bottom is very soft. Cars have gone into the bay and were never seen again - so what makes you think they can find those "things. [/*]

Are you claiming Scott dumped Laci's body overboard without anchoring?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
What did someone make then? [/*]




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

Cross Examination by Pat Harris

P. HARRIS: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Olsen. You mentioned going to the warehouse and seeing a bag of cement. Do you recall telling the police that it was actually, it was a half-used bag of cement?

OLSEN: It was a partial bag.

P. HARRIS: And you were in the warehouse at that point; is that correct?

OLSEN: At what point?

P. HARRIS: You were in the warehouse when you saw the bag of cement?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: You were not in the office part, were you.

OLSEN: No.

P. HARRIS: The warehouse, this was an opportunity where you were actually in the warehouse. Did you see a boat there?

OLSEN: No, I did not.

P. HARRIS: So you were there before there was any boat parked in that warehouse?

OLSEN: On my first visit to the warehouse, before, it was middle to the end of November is when I saw the partial bag of concrete, not on December 20th when we went to the meeting.

P. HARRIS: Right. In fact, you testified, I believe you actually told the police officer that you were there, the first visit, you were there around the end of November or early December; is that right?

OLSEN: That is correct.

P. HARRIS: When you told the police officer that that's when you said you were actually in the warehouse and saw the half used bag of cement, correct?

OLSEN: Partial bag, yes.

P. HARRIS: Partial bag. In fact, what you told the police officer was the partial bag of cement was next to a flatbed trailer, wasn't it?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: I want you to take a look at a picture. This icepick, if you are on search warrant 12-27-02, do you recognize that is a flatbed trailer?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: And you notice there are numerous, all over it, cement patches that look like they are dry, don't they?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: In fact, several old, if you look again, several older, worn-in cement patches, like somebody has doing cement work on the flatbed trailer?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: Okay. Like to show the jury.

JUDGE: Has that been marked, Mr. Harris?

P. HARRIS: It's about to be.

P. HARRIS: And the partial bag of cement indicated to you that someone had most likely using cement prior to November, prior to the November date that you were there; is that correct? Is that correct?

D. HARRIS: Objection. Speculation.

JUDGE: He can answer that.

OLSEN: The question?

P. HARRIS: Fact that it was a partial bag indicated to you that somebody had been using cement in that warehouse prior to your visit at the end of November, correct?

OLSEN: No, not necessarily.

P. HARRIS: You just thought it was a partial bag of cement sitting there?

JUDGE: That's TT.

Photograph of Trailer Marked as Exhibit TT

for identification.

JUDGE: That's a photo of what?

P. HARRIS: It's a photo of a flatbed trailer.

JUDGE: Flatbed trailer.


I don't see where he says that it what it looked like in November

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by feathergirl


How long do you think it takes cements to set? [/*]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
The receipt does not prove he was fishing.


MOO [/*]That's ture - it doesn't. It just proves he was at the bay, at that time.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Hi Ryder.

Here is the question: Who did Scott tell about the boat?

Here is the answer: No one.

Everyone knows this, it can't be any clearer, but we have to keep hearing about Bruce Peterson.

Scott did not tell a single person that he was buying or bought a boat.

He didn't even tell his own father when he was hauling it home when on the phone with him at the same time. Now that is weird. [/*]


It's well known that, shortly before she disappeared, Laci had visited the warehouse while the boat was there and might well have seen the boat. Also, the Department of Motor Vehicles recorded that Scott had bought the boat on 12/9. It's records showed Scott as the new owner -- Detective Grogan testified that Scott was registered with the state as the buyer of the boat -- and the state had Scott's address as Covena Ave in Modesto, which was his proper home address. Moreover, the previous owner, Bruce Peterson, had seen nothing untoward whatsover in Scott's purchase of the boat. Further, Jody Migili told Detective Brocchini that Scott had mentioned a boat one to three weeks before Thanksgiving. Further yet, Bruce Ulrich testified that he told Detective Brocchini that Scott had talked about a boat months prior to its purchase. Still further and importantly, Scott immediately told everyone in LE about the boat and the fact that he had taken it to the bay earlier that day. As regards the boat, the evidence in the trial record establishes that it cannot be reliably and/or validly adduced that Scott's purchase of the boat was meant to be a secret.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Ryder
That's ture - it doesn't. It just proves he was at the bay, at that time. [/*]

It is in his own words that he was "fishing" before he changed it to "just getting the boat into the water"

I think he was afraid he was seen and had to cover himself He didn't have time to come up with anything else.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess





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

Cross Examination by Pat Harris

P. HARRIS: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Olsen. You mentioned going to the warehouse and seeing a bag of cement. Do you recall telling the police that it was actually, it was a half-used bag of cement?

OLSEN: It was a partial bag.

P. HARRIS: And you were in the warehouse at that point; is that correct?

OLSEN: At what point?

P. HARRIS: You were in the warehouse when you saw the bag of cement?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: You were not in the office part, were you.

OLSEN: No.

P. HARRIS: The warehouse, this was an opportunity where you were actually in the warehouse. Did you see a boat there?

OLSEN: No, I did not.

P. HARRIS: So you were there before there was any boat parked in that warehouse?

OLSEN: On my first visit to the warehouse, before, it was middle to the end of November is when I saw the partial bag of concrete, not on December 20th when we went to the meeting.

P. HARRIS: Right. In fact, you testified, I believe you actually told the police officer that you were there, the first visit, you were there around the end of November or early December; is that right?

OLSEN: That is correct.

P. HARRIS: When you told the police officer that that's when you said you were actually in the warehouse and saw the half used bag of cement, correct?

OLSEN: Partial bag, yes.

P. HARRIS: Partial bag. In fact, what you told the police officer was the partial bag of cement was next to a flatbed trailer, wasn't it?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: I want you to take a look at a picture. This icepick, if you are on search warrant 12-27-02, do you recognize that is a flatbed trailer?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: And you notice there are numerous, all over it, cement patches that look like they are dry, don't they?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: In fact, several old, if you look again, several older, worn-in cement patches, like somebody has doing cement work on the flatbed trailer?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: Okay. Like to show the jury.

JUDGE: Has that been marked, Mr. Harris?

P. HARRIS: It's about to be.

P. HARRIS: And the partial bag of cement indicated to you that someone had most likely using cement prior to November, prior to the November date that you were there; is that correct? Is that correct?

D. HARRIS: Objection. Speculation.

JUDGE: He can answer that.

OLSEN: The question?

P. HARRIS: Fact that it was a partial bag indicated to you that somebody had been using cement in that warehouse prior to your visit at the end of November, correct?

OLSEN: No, not necessarily.

P. HARRIS: You just thought it was a partial bag of cement sitting there?

JUDGE: That's TT.

Photograph of Trailer Marked as Exhibit TT

for identification.

JUDGE: That's a photo of what?

P. HARRIS: It's a photo of a flatbed trailer.

JUDGE: Flatbed trailer.


I don't see where he says that it what it looked like in November [/*]

"OLSEN: On my first visit to the warehouse, before, it was middle to the end of November is when I saw the partial bag of concrete, not on December 20th when we went to the meeting."


HTH

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings



I believe she is talking about the anchor to hold the boat still. The real purpose of anchors? [/*]

LE thought that Scott would have had to have anchored the boat.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Yes, I believe that's what EG and I already said. He did not have the proper anchor to do so, however, as Cunage testified, it didn't matter. [/*]

They found fifty feet of rope in the back of Scott's truck.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you recall the later testimony with photographs showing the bag of cement at Scott's house? [/*]

Of course, that picture was taken by Katie and Gordy, two of the case followers who posted here during the trial. That was taken far, far after Scott was arrested.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by earth goddess





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

Cross Examination by Pat Harris

P. HARRIS: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Olsen. You mentioned going to the warehouse and seeing a bag of cement. Do you recall telling the police that it was actually, it was a half-used bag of cement?

OLSEN: It was a partial bag.

P. HARRIS: And you were in the warehouse at that point; is that correct?

OLSEN: At what point?

P. HARRIS: You were in the warehouse when you saw the bag of cement?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: You were not in the office part, were you.

OLSEN: No.

P. HARRIS: The warehouse, this was an opportunity where you were actually in the warehouse. Did you see a boat there?

OLSEN: No, I did not.

P. HARRIS: So you were there before there was any boat parked in that warehouse?

OLSEN: On my first visit to the warehouse, before, it was middle to the end of November is when I saw the partial bag of concrete, not on December 20th when we went to the meeting.

P. HARRIS: Right. In fact, you testified, I believe you actually told the police officer that you were there, the first visit, you were there around the end of November or early December; is that right?

OLSEN: That is correct.

P. HARRIS: When you told the police officer that that's when you said you were actually in the warehouse and saw the half used bag of cement, correct?

OLSEN: Partial bag, yes.

P. HARRIS: Partial bag. In fact, what you told the police officer was the partial bag of cement was next to a flatbed trailer, wasn't it?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: I want you to take a look at a picture. This icepick, if you are on search warrant 12-27-02, do you recognize that is a flatbed trailer?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: And you notice there are numerous, all over it, cement patches that look like they are dry, don't they?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: In fact, several old, if you look again, several older, worn-in cement patches, like somebody has doing cement work on the flatbed trailer?

OLSEN: Yes.

P. HARRIS: Okay. Like to show the jury.

JUDGE: Has that been marked, Mr. Harris?

P. HARRIS: It's about to be.

P. HARRIS: And the partial bag of cement indicated to you that someone had most likely using cement prior to November, prior to the November date that you were there; is that correct? Is that correct?

D. HARRIS: Objection. Speculation.

JUDGE: He can answer that.

OLSEN: The question?

P. HARRIS: Fact that it was a partial bag indicated to you that somebody had been using cement in that warehouse prior to your visit at the end of November, correct?

OLSEN: No, not necessarily.

P. HARRIS: You just thought it was a partial bag of cement sitting there?

JUDGE: That's TT.

Photograph of Trailer Marked as Exhibit TT

for identification.

JUDGE: That's a photo of what?

P. HARRIS: It's a photo of a flatbed trailer.

JUDGE: Flatbed trailer.


I don't see where he says that it what it looked like in November [/*]I don't see where it says what was made.

:shrug:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings




What is well known and document Wudge is that no one took the stand and said they saw Laci inside Trade Corps warehouse.

Secondly, detective Grogan's testimony that Scott was registered by the state was referring to Bruce Peterson submitting his paperwork, and why wouldn't he, he didn't know about any murder.

My question was: Who did Scott tell about the boat.

The answer will never change: Nobody.

Urlich testified that months before they were all talking about going in on a race boat together. No relation at all.

Scott told the LE about his trip to the bay because as he said himself, people saw him. [/*]

The state of California knew about the boat. Scott told every police officer and detective about the boat.

Who testified that Scott did not tell them about the boat even though he would always tell them everything he bought?

Who testified that the mortiser Scott bought was a sinister purchase because nobody knew about the mortiser?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you have a link to support "far far" because that's not what I've heard. [/*]

Exactly what did you hear?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you recall the later testimony with photographs showing the bag of cement at Scott's house? [/*]No. There was a stipulation read by the court, but no testimony.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you have a link to support "far far" because that's not what I've heard. [/*]

You heard wrong. That photo was taken while the trial was underway.

Ask Katie.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Oh dear Wudge, you just go on believing this, I think it's good for your soul.

The state recieved Bruce Peterson's paperwork.

Scott did not tell a single person about his boat. No one single person took the stand and testified that they knew Scott bought a boat. Even when the LE went to the warehouse that night, Scott said the electricity didn't work, when it did because he was on the computer and faxing that morning. Wonder what he was trying to hide, lol.

A mortiser is right up there with a Big Mac. No comparison.

He didn't even tell his father he was towing his boat while he was doing just that and on the phone with him. Obviously he didn't want anyone to know.

So go ahead, post back that Bruce Peterson submitted his paperwork, we'll go another round. [/*]

The State knew about the boat. It had Scott properly recorded as the owner at his Covena address. Moreover, Scott immediately and freely told everyone in LE about the boat.

Given those truths, structure your true and valid premises that force your conclusion that the boat was a secret. The level of reliability required is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Yes, I believe that's what EG and I already said. He did not have the proper anchor to do so, however, as Cunage testified, it didn't matter. [/*]ROFLMAO - Can you see Scott tossing that untethered anchor overboard? What good would that do?

Itr was NOT attached to teh boat in any way shape or form.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


What I asked for was a link. If I knew who Katie was I'd phone her right now. [/*]

This link might still work.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-01-13/news/katie-jordy-s-excellent-adventure/1

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


What I asked for was a link. If I knew who Katie was I'd phone her right now. [/*]

It was stipulateed that the concrete bags in the driveway belonged to the construct ion company putting something in next door. It had nothing to do with Scott. I have to wonder tho, what was done with all the empty O2 canasters littering the driveway?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


You heard wrong. That photo was taken while the trial was underway.

Ask Katie. [/*]

Rookies.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by earth goddess


It was stipulateed that the concrete bags in the driveway belonged to the construct ion company putting something in next door. It had nothing to do with Scott. I have to wonder tho, what was done with all the empty O2 canasters littering the driveway? [/*]

Thank you.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you have a link to support "far far" because that's not what I've heard. [/*]The bag o'concrete picture was taken Aug 2004. Scott was arrested April 2003.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I don't see where it says what was made.

:shrug: [/*]

You asked this question: "I don't see where he says that it what it looked like in November".

I posted Olsen's testimony that showed he saw a partial bag of cement in the warehouse in November.

No one testified that Scott made his single anchor prior to buying the boat, nor did anyone ever claim that was true.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Who did Scott Peterson tell that he bought a boat?

Nobody.

No family.

No friends.

No co-workers.

No strangers.

Didn't ask Trade Corp if he could use their warehouse, when he had a perfectly fine driveway at home.

Who did he tell?

Nobody.

When he got caught, who did he tell? He told LE, after he told several people he went golfing.

They asked him to take them to his warehouse.

They arrived and Scott LIED and said the electricty didn't work.

lol, he didn't tell a soul he bought a boat. The testimony proves it.

You will never convince a jury that Scott wasn't hiding that boat. [/*]


Since the boat was known to the State and LE, and since no one testified that Scott would always tell them what he bought, your conclusion is invalid.

HTH

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Well Alter, I have been googling for over 20 mintues now to find where Geregos knocked the cement out of the park with that testimony, and so far all I'm finding is that Geregos tried to get the jury to believe that Scott used the cement to patch the driveway, but the cement didn't match up and there's 80 pounds missing. [/*]

Read Distaso's closing argument. He never claimed 80 pounds of cement was unaccounted for.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


No, I'm afraid it's your personal opinion that's invalid. The jury agreed it was kept secret, I believe that's the final word. [/*]

No juror that I know of claimed that either they or the jury thought the boat was a secret.

Name of juror or link?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Oh, and you are? You still have not provided the link I asked you for about the cement testimony. [/*]

I have the transcript on my computer. I'm told you can obtain a copy at Scottisinnocent.com

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Well Alter, I have been googling for over 20 mintues now to find where Geregos knocked the cement out of the park with that testimony, and so far all I'm finding is that Geregos tried to get the jury to believe that Scott used the cement to patch the driveway, but the cement didn't match up and there's 80 pounds missing. [/*]:confused:

Originally posted by AngelWings
Do you recall the later testimony with photographs showing the bag of cement at Scott's house?

isn't this the pic you are talking about?
http://i30.tinypic.com/11mahht.jpg

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Read their book. Now, may I have the link to the testimony you posted? Thank you. [/*]

Nowhere in the jurors' book was there a claim that the boat was proven to be a secret.

Page or quote you are referring to?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings


No, I'm afraid it's your personal opinion that's invalid. The jury agreed it was kept secret, I believe that's the final word. [/*]If that was the final word, there wouldn't be appeals.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


What I asked for was a link. If I knew who Katie was I'd phone her right now. [/*]

Sure, read it up.

lKatie and Jordy's Adventure (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-01-13/news/katie-jordy-s-excellent-adventure/full)

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Beebee


He had left over cement from the driveway.

Do you think he made cement anchors on the 24th?? Therefore didn't have time to clean up the murder evidence?

Then dumped them in the Bay that day?? [/*]

I suppose everyone has their own thoughts about how Scott carried out his deed, but I believe Scott truly did plan to golf that day, where he would have been seen, or he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself by offering to pick up the fruit basket at Vella Farms, and then not notifying Amy of his change in plans.

Perhaps Scott had a problem with the manufacture of those anchors. Maybe some didn't set properly or needed more time to set.

IMO

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Oh, and you are? You still have not provided the link I asked you for about the cement testimony. [/*]

Wudge is definitely not a rookie to this board. Nor are many, many people on here.

The vast majority of us paid to have access to the trial transcripts (back when it was underway) and have them saved on our computers.

There might still be a site with transcripts available. I'd suggest Google.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I have never seen the picture Alter, I was asking because it was mentioned in the article I posted. I'm sure it is the one. [/*]Then what photographs are you talking about?

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


I suppose everyone has their own thoughts about how Scott carried out his deed, but I believe Scott truly did plan to golf that day, where he would have been seen, or he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself by offering to pick up the fruit basket at Vella Farms, and then not notifying Amy of his change in plans.

Perhaps Scott had a problem with the manufacture of those anchors. Maybe some didn't set properly or needed more time to set.

IMO [/*]

Problem. I'd say so. From the very beginning Scott told the cops what he used as a mold.

But it didn't fit their "circle theory" so they dismissed it and manufactured the photo with the pitcher (that was definitely not used as the mold).

The problem with "manufacturing those anchors" is that no one has provided any evidence whatsoever that anchors were made other than the one Scott admitted and told them how he made it.

"Concrete circles" are not evidence of anchor manufacturing. Just as crop circles are not evidence of Martians landing in the field for a potty break while on their way to Venus.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by AngelWings



I believe the appeals are automatic for anyone recieving the death penalty. I don't think it automatically means the court is assuming the first trial was incorrect. [/*]Yes for DP cases there is an automatic appeal. But that isn't the only one that can be filed.

Didn't say it automatically means any assumptions at all. But if the jurors verdict was the 'final say', then there wouldn't be any appeal at all.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


I suppose everyone has their own thoughts about how Scott carried out his deed, but I believe Scott truly did plan to golf that day, where he would have been seen, or he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself by offering to pick up the fruit basket at Vella Farms, and then not notifying Amy of his change in plans.

Perhaps Scott had a problem with the manufacture of those anchors. Maybe some didn't set properly or needed more time to set.

IMO [/*]


I'm confused. What does the the setting up of the cement have to do with Scott changing his plans.

These phantom archors carry so much weight( pardon the pun) with the belief that they were used sink and to anchor down the body. Can someone tell us how much weigh would be needed to pull down and anchor the body on the floor of the Bay. Wasn't the body allegely wrapped up in chicken wire, a tarp with 5-6 anchors attached?

Of course the belief of weighing down of the body flies in face of those who have stated that Scott was counting on the body floating out to sea. Can't have it both ways!

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Problem. I'd say so. From the very beginning Scott told the cops what he used as a mold.

But it didn't fit their "circle theory" so they dismissed it and manufactured the photo with the pitcher (that was definitely not used as the mold).

The problem with "manufacturing those anchors" is that no one has provided any evidence whatsoever that anchors were made other than the one Scott admitted and told them how he made it.

"Concrete circles" are not evidence of anchor manufacturing. Just as crop circles are not evidence of Martians landing in the field for a potty break while on their way to Venus. [/*]

The photo of Detective Brocchini inserting the anchor into the water pitcher was alleged to represent the anchor mold. Both Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee were told that the water pitcher was not the mold for Scott's anchor. The prosecutors certainly had the same knowledge or should have known that too.

That represented a blatant attempt to prepetrate a false evidence fraud upon the Court. Judge Delucchi knew what Dave Harris and Detective Hendee had done.

Right after Judge Delucchi chewed Dave Harris out rumors started to make the rounds that Dave Harris and Rick Distaso were going to be removed as prosecutors.

Supposedly, Dave Harris became sick. Birgit Fladager came in and Distaso ended up sitting in gallery and taking notes from there. (snicker)

Both Dave Harris and Rick Distaso should have been brought before the bar. Detectives Brocchini and Hendee should have been kicked off out of MPD for their false testimony.

[caphill]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Problem. I'd say so. From the very beginning Scott told the cops what he used as a mold.

But it didn't fit their "circle theory" so they dismissed it and manufactured the photo with the pitcher (that was definitely not used as the mold).

The problem with "manufacturing those anchors" is that no one has provided any evidence whatsoever that anchors were made other than the one Scott admitted and told them how he made it.

"Concrete circles" are not evidence of anchor manufacturing. Just as crop circles are not evidence of Martians landing in the field for a potty break while on their way to Venus. [/*]


ROTFLMAO! Say it ain't so, BFD. I never thought they were taking a potty break. I always thought they were just checking out us primitive Earthlings.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


No, I'm afraid it's your personal opinion that's invalid. The jury agreed it w

was kept secret, I believe that's the final word. [/*]But Wudge knows more about CA law than the twelve jurors who live in this state. I gave an example of a case where a release of liability was submitted and the vehicle was never registered and it was used in a crime. Did the police go after the name on the release of liabilityh? No, they went after the REGISTERED OWNER. Don't worry Wudge, the Jurors know how to register a vehicle even if you can't get it through your head.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by caphill



I'm confused. What does the the setting up of the cement have to do with Scott changing his plans.

These phantom archors carry so much weight( pardon the pun) with the belief that they were used sink and to anchor down the body. Can someone tell us how much weigh would be needed to pull down and anchor the body on the floor of the Bay. Wasn't the body allegely wrapped up in chicken wire, a tarp with 5-6 anchors attached?

Of course the belief of weighing down of the body flies in face of those who have stated that Scott was counting on the body floating out to sea. Can't have it both ways! [/*]

You are listening to the media, not the testimony.

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings



This is so silly. They're not psychic, and in the big picture, none of this matters. If anyone should have been brought before the bar, it would be Geregos. And the Petersons, lol. [/*]


Now its your turn. Post a link that shows it is silly and in the big picture it doesn't matter if an officer of the court attempts to perpetuate a false evidence fraud.

Also please note anything the defense said or did in that courtroom that should have been brought up to the BAR. The Petersons are not attorneys, so I doubt the BAR would be willing to sit for any hearing on their conduct .

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings



I believe the correct terminology is "pulled out to sea", and it's happened before. Scott is not a pioneer. [/*]

Sounds like Scott was quite the pioneer if he thought he should weigh down the body enough to keep on the floor of the Bay for 4 months while really expecting and hoping it to be "pulled out to sea"

Seems rather counter productive. But that just me and my logic.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by caphill



Now its your turn. Post a link that shows it is silly and in the big picture it doesn't matter if an officer of the court attempts to perpetuate a false evidence fraud.

Also please note anything the defense said or did in that courtroom that should have been brought up to the BAR. The Petersons are not attorneys, so I doubt the BAR would be willing to sit for any hearing on their conduct . [/*]

Can you spell G-A-G O-R-D-E-R?????

What about Geragros's stupid little boat stunt that bafckfired on him?

[caphill]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Originally posted by caphill



I'm confused. What does the the setting up of the cement have to do with Scott changing his plans.

These phantom archors carry so much weight( pardon the pun) with the belief that they were used sink and to anchor down the body. Can someone tell us how much weigh would be needed to pull down and anchor the body on the floor of the Bay. Wasn't the body allegely wrapped up in chicken wire, a tarp with 5-6 anchors attached?

Of course the belief of weighing down of the body flies in face of those who have stated that Scott was counting on the body floating out to sea. Can't have it both ways! [/*]

You are listening to the media, not the testimony. [/*]


earthgoddess, "You are listening to the media not the testimony" is your quote. Please be careful that you properly post and don't make your words a part of my post.

I think if you read the transcripts you would know the prosecution took up court time with testimony re Scott's purchase of chicken wire . There was much discussion of tarps. What was the purpose of testimony regarding chicken wire, tarps and anchors? What message or inference do you think the prosecution was trying give to jury about this items.?

[caphill]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Actually - it wasn't counter productive and it could have worked. Scott just got unlucky.

That IS how something would get "pulled out to sea" without being seen. There are strong currents under water, and an object would have to be heavy.........but not TOO heavy....in order to keep from coming to the surface before being pulled out.

The fact that the head and limbs were never found is proof that Scott could have gotten away with this. [/*]

I am slapping my hands that I even respond to this.

Do you think the head, hands and feet got pulled out to sea and the rest of the body took a U turn and got pulled to shore. Do you think the anchors were "pulled to sea" along with the other body parts.

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I know you're not talking to me, but I don't see your point. The tarp, anchors, and chicken wire were an issue. Why wouldn't they bring them up? [/*]

What was the issue? There was 0 evidence presented that Laci had been achored down with cement archors and 0 evidence she had ever been wrapped in chicken wire and tarps.

If think there was any evidence of this, you need link to any testimony from any witness of that fact.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Wudge+



Since the boat was known to the State and LE, and since no one testified that Scott would always tell them what he bought, your conclusion is invalid.

HTH [/*]

The State and/or LE don't track every transfer of ownership notification they receive. If that were true, it wouldn't be necessary for the new owner to register the item themselves, as it will have occurred through the prior owner's notification.

Only when things happen (accident, crime, etc) and the item is noted as having played a role in the occurrence, is attention drawn to it; the State and LE then taking note that liability was relinquished by the former owner on the date the item was sold.

IMO

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. After 6 months of trial, over 40,000 pages of investigation, thousands of interviews, and who knows what else, there is a margin for error. To say there isn't is ridiculous. Saying cement rings came from a pitcher, a bucket, or even a shoe is not perpetuating false evidence, it is a mistake. [/*]


When a police officer get on the stand and swears under oath to the evidence he/she is presenting I would think there is no room for error.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings



I disagree. Scott knew exactly what he was going. He was weighing her body down, hoping she would never be discovered, be it that she was pulled out to sea or as he stated to a friend years earlier, her hands, feet, and head would pull off and there would be no way to identify her. [/*]

Even Brochinni didn't believe that "tip" not to mention that tipster didn't testify.

The tipster alleged that, in 1995, Scott Peterson said he would dispose of a body by sinking it in the ocean. Brocchini testified last month he didn't consider the information credible and shelved it.
He also said the tipster alleged Peterson would "tie a bag around the neck with duct tape" -- a potentially damaging assertion because police said duct tape was found on Laci Peterson's badly decomposed torso.

A source who has heard a tape of Brocchini's interview with the tipster told The Associated Press that the man never mentioned duct tape, implying Brocchini lied on the stand.

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Brochinni didn't even try to bring it into the trial, so why would he lie? Why would he care?

I admit, I didn't buy into it altogether either. It's not impossible, but probably not probable.

However, Scott weighing Laci's body down and tossing her over the side of his secret boat is 100% probable, IMO. [/*]

You stated something as fact and I posted a link it was NOT fact.
Originally posted by AngelWings



*snipped* as he stated to a friend years earlier, her hands, feet, and head would pull off and there would be no way to identify her.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by AngelWings


There was zero evidence that burglars held her captive for four months too.

The chicken wire, cement anchors, and certainly the tarp found in the shed covered in gasoline, is right up there with umbrella's put in truck to supposedly store. Which even after two trips were never stored. It's all evidence. [/*]

At one time I recall reading an account Todd gave and it, along with the days events of 12/24, convinced me the Medinas were burglarized during the wee hours of 12/26. Todd, driving his bike on Covena, noticed there was no activity at the Medina house and believing they'd left to spend Christmas elsewhere, went back later to burglarize the house.

I wonder why the two petty burglars didn't harm Diane Jackson, who claims to have seen everything, including the safe on the lawn? Why kill Laci? Where did they store her body? Why did they store it? How did they know the location of where Scott went trolling would ever be released? Why frame Scott and risk getting caught doing it?

IMO

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings


There was zero evidence that burglars held her captive for four months too.

The chicken wire, cement anchors, and certainly the tarp found in the shed covered in gasoline, is right up there with umbrella's put in truck to supposedly store. Which even after two trips were never stored. It's all evidence. [/*]

NO one held her captive for 4 months and no one said the burglars or anyone else ever did. :rolleyes:

No one ever proved there was chicken wire, cement anchors, tarps or umbrellas used on Laci's body.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you have a link to support "far far" because that's not what I've heard. [/*]The trial had started IIRC.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Wudge+


The state of California knew about the boat. Scott told every police officer and detective about the boat.

Who testified that Scott did not tell them about the boat even though he would always tell them everything he bought?

Who testified that the mortiser Scott bought was a sinister purchase because nobody knew about the mortiser? [/*]Scott mentioned it after Laci was dead.


MOO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by caphill



Now its your turn. Post a link that shows it is silly and in the big picture it doesn't matter if an officer of the court attempts to perpetuate a false evidence fraud.

Also please note anything the defense said or did in that courtroom that should have been brought up to the BAR. The Petersons are not attorneys, so I doubt the BAR would be willing to sit for any hearing on their conduct . [/*]

caphill,

If I am not mistaken, I recall your familiarity with evidence manipulation and fraud on a board where the Jeffrey MacDonald case was discussed. I don't believe the general public truly appreciates the breadth of this problem across our nation.

A few such instances in this case are: the knowingly false representation of the water pitcher by Detective Hendee and Dave Harris, the knowing excising of Laci's visit to the warehouse bathroom by Detective Brocchini in his report, the willfull and false addition of "duct tape" by Detective Brocchini to a statement given by a student who attended college with Scott, the willful blindness to Martha Stewart having said "meringue" by Detective Brocchini so as to obtain a search warrant, the willful failure to either make or turn over field notes or otherwise report on "Aponte et al" by the MPD, the willful lie Distaso told the jury regarding Laci's curling iron, Cindy Valentine lying in the preliminary hearing as regards her not knowing whether or not she changed gloves between the handling of Laci's eyeglass case and Scott's slippers, the mystical multiplying hair compliments of Detectives Hendee and Brocchini, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Well he is on death row, so I think they did. IMO [/*]

If you think Scott or anyone else "held her captive" for 4 months as you said, you missed quite a bit of the trial. :rolleyes:

Could bes or maybes is NOT proof.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Wudge+


You asked this question: "I don't see where he says that it what it looked like in November".

I posted Olsen's testimony that showed he saw a partial bag of cement in the warehouse in November.

No one testified that Scott made his single anchor prior to buying the boat, nor did anyone ever claim that was true. [/*]Do you know what was made with the concrete then?

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Geragos' Cross Examination Of Detective Grogan

382. Well, did he put his name down -- we've got these DMV documents
that were marked as People's Exhibit 263; is that correct? These were marked by
Ms. Fladager.
383. Yes. There's a release of liability completed.
384. Okay. And specifically these documents show that that boat's
been registered for a while, correct?
385. Yes. It appears so.
386. Okay. And specifically these documents show that Scott
Peterson's name is registered with the DMV as the buyer of the boat; isn't that
right?
387. That’s correct [/*]
All this proves is what I originally posted. The boat was registered. In fact, it was still registered to Bruce Peterson.
The release of liability had been completed. No arguement there.
Yes, the boat had been registered for awhile - to BRUCE Peterson, not Scott.
So far as Scott's name on file with the DMVB, yes. But, SCOTT NEVER REGISTERED THE BOAT IN HIS NAME.
*HAVING A RELEASE OF LIABILITY ON FILE WITH DMV IS NOT THE SAME AS REGISTERING THE VEHICLE.*

The trial testimony you continually quote is typically misleading.

Remember, the trial was in California and the DMV there has different rules than other states. For example, in my state, when you sell a vehicle the plates stay with the owner. In CA, the plates remain with the vehicle.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Wudge+



Since the boat was known to the State and LE, and since no one testified that Scott would always tell them what he bought, your conclusion is invalid.

HTH [/*]LE didn't know before Laci ent missing.


MOO

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by AngelWings


No, I'm afraid it's your personal opinion that's invalid. The jury agreed it was kept secret, I believe that's the final word. [/*]DITTO!

MOO

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Wudge+



Since the boat was known to the State and LE, and since no one testified that Scott would always tell them what he bought, your conclusion is invalid.

[/*]It was only known after the fact.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


No one held her captive for 4 months?

Then where was Laci for 4 months, working under the assumption that she was taken by Todd & Co. ? [/*]


According to the prosecution Scott "dumped" her body on Dec. 24th and she went missing on the 24th.


If Todd and Co or if anyone else had her they certainly didn't have her for 4 months held captive or her body wouldn't have been in such bad condition.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. After 6 months of trial, over 40,000 pages of investigation, thousands of interviews, and who knows what else, there is a margin for error. To say there isn't is ridiculous. Saying cement rings came from a pitcher, a bucket, or even a shoe is not perpetuating false evidence, it is a mistake. [/*]

How is it a "mistake" when the prosecution's own experts advised them that the pitcher was not used to make the anchor.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


If you're agreeing with the testimony that Conner was 9 months, then you can't have it both ways and also assume that Laci wasn't kept alive.

There was no estimated time of death for Laci given at the trial as far as I remember. [/*]

Come on think. If Laci was held captive for 4 months Conner would have been much older than he was. He was older IMO than her pregnancy indicated but certainly NOT 4 months older. I do think Laci was kept alive for a while but NOT 4 months.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


Come on think. If Laci was held captive for 4 months Conner would have been much older than he was. He was older IMO than her pregnancy indicated but certainly NOT 4 months older. I do think Laci was kept alive for a while but NOT 4 months. [/*]Oh? Where and how do you suppose she was kept? Why did they end up killing her? What was their purpose? How long do you think she was kept alive?

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings


He weighed 3.5 pounds. How old is that? [/*]

Ask the ME. He said he couldn't rule out the baby was born alive.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


How is it a "mistake" when the prosecution's own experts advised them that the pitcher was not used to make the anchor. [/*]


"Two days ago, the district attorney attempted to convince the court and the jury that the anchor fit the pitcher. They were clearly arguing that the anchor was made in the pitcher. Today, we learned not only that it doesn't fit, but the police and district attorney knew it didn't fit."

-- Jim Hammer

[Ryder]

Originally posted by AngelWings


He weighed 3.5 pounds. How old is that? [/*]Given that babies usually put on most of their weight before they are born, I'd say a 3.5 baby was about 6 weeks premature. That is purely a guess though since babies weigh anywhere from 6 to 10 pounds, usually.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


Then what are you assuming that happened to Laci all of that time? [/*]

Possibly held in or near Tracy for a while. Sadly LE was too afraid to investigate the tip and because the case was all over the news they had to get rid of her, but i do beleive she was held for a while by someone.

"Prosecution Witness #121: Detective Paul Mears, San Joaquin County Sheriff's Deputy

Testimony

These two witnesses provided information about the follow-up on the Tracy tip that was sent to the tip line via the California Highway Patrol. The tip said a pregnant woman resembling Laci was being kept hostage at a rural setting near Tracy, with 2 white houses and an old abandoned pickup. Beffa first went to find the houses, but could not. He enlisted the aid of Mears, San Joaquin Sheriff's Dept, who was familiar with the area. They were not able to find the location described in the tip, but Mears continued to follow-up in all the rural areas he was familiar with, which led him to the compound, a flop house for drug users. Mears called in the helicopter with heat sensor devices, and heat was detected in some of the buildings, but Mears was advised by his supervisor not to go into the compound. "

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I have never heard about the prosecution's experts advising them that the pitcher was not used to make an anchor. I also don't see why the prosecution would care what he made the anchors in, only that he did make them. [/*]

Then why attempt to mislead the jury if the truth would suffice?

Is that how you hope prosecutor's work when it's you or a family member being tried?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I have never heard about the prosecution's experts advising them that the pitcher was not used to make an anchor. I also don't see why the prosecution would care what he made the anchors in, only that he did make them. [/*]

Sept 15th testimony of Robert O’Neill, petrographer

Direct by David Harris

306. Now, as you made this determination, did you contact Detective Grogan and advise him that, in your examination, that pitcher had been excluded?

307. Yes.
308. And did you have some discussion as to what it was that you
found in terms of the corners and that particular dimple?
309. We spoke on the phone, and I told him of my findings. And I
said that there is no way that that pitcher is the mold for the concrete anchor.
And then he asked me, well, what other things might the mold be? So we talked about that briefly.
310. After the discussion, did he eventually send something to you
for you to make a comparison of?
311. Actually he called me from Home Depot. And he was in Home Depot on his cell phone, and had pulled out of the shelves a white plastic painter's bucket. And then he had a tape measure with him. And he was -- I believe it was a tape measure. He was describing to me the dimensions and the shape of that bucket. And also had noticed that there was a dimple, or a raised surface on the bottom of the bucket. And we talked about that. And I said why don't you send me one? Buy one, and send me one, and see if it's a match.
312. MR. DAVID HARRIS: If I could have marked next in order.

313. THE COURT: 256.
314. MR. DAVID HARRIS: Box and contents.
315. MR. DAVID HARRIS: If you can make room for this one up here.
If you can go ahead and take a look at 256, and tell me if you recognize that particular item.
316. I do.
317. And what is that particular item?
318. It is a two and a half quart bucket made by the RG Corporation.

319. You can go ahead and take it out of the box. And is this the
plastic bucket that Detective Grogan sent to you?
320. It is.
321. If you could describe for the record what that is.
322. It's a white two and a half quart bucket, painter's bucket. The
dimensions of this are very similar to the concrete anchor. Obvious visual appearance. Also on the bottom of this bucket, again, is the indentation that's roughly 25 millimeters in diameter, and about two millimeters in depth.
323. And, again, just to complete this, does this have a wire holder
or handle of some kind?
324. It does. It's got a wire handle to it.
325. So when you received this particular item, did you -- you said
that you were making a visual inspection. Did you compare the anchor, again, to this particular item?
326. I did. I looked at the interior of this painter's bucket to
look at the curvature along the bottom. I looked at the positioning and the dimensions of that dimple. And after looking at that and comparing it, I then placed the anchor in the bucket.
327. What did you find?
328. I found that it was a perfect match.


Cross of O’Neill by Geragos

53. Okay. And is it a fair statement also that the amount of --
I don't want to diminish your obvious technical expertise. But --
54. Thank you.
55. Did not require a whole lot of technical expertise to take
that -- the anchor and put it into this two and half quart painter's bucket and see that it makes a pretty good fit?
56. I'll agree with you.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Ryder
Given that babies usually put on most of their weight before they are born, I'd say a 3.5 baby was about 6 weeks premature. That is purely a guess though since babies weigh anywhere from 6 to 10 pounds, usually. [/*]

Then you tell the ME he was wrong.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


I've always believed that she was in Tracy, but I guess my question to you was, where do you suppose Laci was after they murdered her, until they dropped her in the Bay?

Where did they keep her? It had to have been in water, and given the testimony about the wet/dry cycles on her pants, they apparently took her in and out of water several times? So where was she? [/*]

Could have been anywhere, I certainly don't know.

[Luke Davis]

I missed some today, did we ever get the answer to the thread? What was made in Novemebr in the warehouse? Why build an anchor before buying the boat?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


My son didn't read the statistical book in Utero.

I'll have to speak with him about that. [/*]Are we going to the baby Conner discussion in this thread?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Let's hope not. [/*]I think it deserves its own thread.


MOO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by AngelWings


BFD, I see your point, and I don't disagree. At the same time I am saying that what the anchors were made in had no revelence on his guilt or the verdict, it really does not matter what they were made in, only that they were made. [/*]

ITA! There was plenty of CE to support Scott having made multiple anchors including the cement purchase, the circular outlines in cement dust, Laci's remains having been disarticulated at her limbs and head, Scott claiming there was a power failure (another lie) so LE wouldn't see the mess he left behind, which he later tried to clean but couldn't gain access because LE was posted outside the warehouse.

IMO

[caphill]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


Then you tell the ME he was wrong. [/*]

Grandma, if this baby was a full or close full term baby and he was due Feb 16th(IIRC) that means he had been dead around 2 months before he was found.

I am no expert on the physiological changes decomposition causes to internal organs, water loss, blood loss etc and what effect it has on the weight of a body. I would assume a body that has been dead 2 month would lose body weight from decomposition and fluid loss. IIRC the baby was 19" inches long.

The baby charts will show that 19 to 21 inches is a normal standard range for length of a newborn. Without question there are exceptions to this average range.

My 3 children were 19", 20" and 21" full term healthy little squealers.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


BFD, I see your point, and I don't disagree. At the same time I am saying that what the anchors were made in had no revelence on his guilt or the verdict, it really does not matter what they were made in, only that they were made. [/*]

It does matter what the alleged submerging weights were made in, because the Home Depot paint bucket that the anchor was made in was never shown or established to have fit the alleged cement circles on the trailer. Since the cement circles are the only alleged evidence of the State's mythical weights, there is absolutely nothing in evidence to support that the State's theoretical submerging anchors ever existed other than as pure speculation.

HTH

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


ITA! There was plenty of CE to support Scott having made multiple anchors including the cement purchase, the circular outlines in cement dust, Laci's remains having been disarticulated at her limbs and head, Scott claiming there was a power failure (another lie) so LE wouldn't see the mess he left behind, which he later tried to clean but couldn't gain access because LE was posted outside the warehouse.

IMO [/*]Is it possible Scott made anchors in November but they were defective? So, he made more in December that were the proper weight and size?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


ITA! There was plenty of CE to support Scott having made multiple anchors including the cement purchase, the circular outlines in cement dust, Laci's remains having been disarticulated at her limbs and head, Scott claiming there was a power failure (another lie) so LE wouldn't see the mess he left behind, which he later tried to clean but couldn't gain access because LE was posted outside.

IMO [/*]

I followed this case pretty closely and I don't recall any evidence that Scott later tried to clean up the mess. He couldn't gain access to his warehouse so how does anyone know of his intentions to clean up.

Could you link or direct us to the evidence or testimony of Scott wanting to clean his mess. I do recall the testimony of his employee seeing cement in warehouse in Nov or early Dec. Wonder why Scott took so long to want to clean up.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Is it possible Scott made anchors in November but they were defective? So, he made more in December that were the proper weight and size? [/*]

That's possible, but I think he might have made them after he and Laci returned from their visit to the Petersons. I say that only because he might have felt uncomfortable about having 5 anchors lying around with only one boat to use them.

IMO

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by AngelWings


If he made one anchor, he easily could have made 5. There was no evidence to support that he only made one, and there was plenty of missing cement to support the possibility that he made more than one. [/*]If it was me, I might make 5 anchors, keep one and throw the rest away. Then use something else for anchoring Laci and Conner. If LE found Laci and Conner they wouldn't find my anchors.



MOO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Is it possible Scott made anchors in November but they were defective? So, he made more in December that were the proper weight and size? [/*]

The anchor Scott made weighed 8 pounds. If you were to dimension that circle based on average concrete weight, it would be an anchor no more than 5 1/2 inches in diameter and 4 inches high.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by caphill


I followed this case pretty closely and I don't recall any evidence that Scott later tried to clean up the mess. He couldn't gain access to his warehouse so how does anyone know of his intentions to clean up.

Could you link or direct us to the evidence or testimony of Scott wanting to clean his mess. I do recall the testimony of his employee seeing cement in warehouse in Nov or early Dec. Wonder why Scott took so long to want to clean up. [/*]

Why did Scott lie to LE about a power failure? He didn't want the overhead lights shining brightly on the mess he made with the anchors. That's why he went back to the warehouse so quickly before LE would return when "the power" came back on.

I don't think Scott had time to clean the mess before to went trolling.

IMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


If he made one anchor, he easily could have made 5. There was no evidence to support that he only made one, and there was plenty of missing cement to support the possibility that he made more than one. [/*]

Possibilities are not incriminating evidence.

HTH

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Why did Scott lie to LE about a power failure? He didn't want the overhead lights shining brightly on the mess he made with the anchors. That's why he went back to the warehouse so quickly before LE would return when "the power" came back on.

I don't think Scott had time to clean the mess before to went trolling.

IMO [/*]

Eric Olsen saw Scott's trailer bed stained with concrete in November. I think it's fair to say that he would have had time to clean up had it been sinister.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Why did Scott lie to LE about a power failure? He didn't want the overhead lights shining brightly on the mess he made with the anchors. That's why he went back to the warehouse so quickly before LE would return when "the power" came back on.

I don't think Scott had time to clean the mess before to went trolling.

IMO [/*]


DO you are anyone else here recall when he some fence posts work. Also he sprinkled some concrete around his driveway for a quick repair.

This is certainly a rehashing old testimony. Back a few posts there was also testimony posted about the concrete in the driveway.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


BFD, I see your point, and I don't disagree. At the same time I am saying that what the anchors were made in had no revelence on his guilt or the verdict, it really does not matter what they were made in, only that they were made. [/*]

That's the whole point. Their "evidence" of the pitcher as the mold is an outright falsehood.

They were just hoping they wouldn't get caught. But they did get caught.

So then it was off to the "circles".

I bet any amount of money in the world every single person on this forum could go about pouring concrete/cement into a bucket and NONE of us would leave "circles" all over the work surface. It doesn't make sense.

Hell, that's like saying anyone making cupcakes and pouring the batter into the cups, will leave 12 round circles of batter on their kitchen counter.

It just wouldn't happen. It isn't logical or common sense.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Eric Olsen did not testify to seeing five cement rings. [/*]


Cross of Eric Olsen

19 Q. And you notice there are numerous -- all over it,
20 cement patches that look like they are dry, don't they?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In fact, several old -- if you look again, several
23 older, worn-in cement patches, like somebody has doing cement
24 work on the flatbed trailer?
25 A. Yes.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Then who made the cement rings? There's a numbered evidence photograph of them in the back of Catherine Crier's book. [/*]

There are not five clear circles in any picture anywhere.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Wudge, if I can't have a link, I discount all of it. Besides, this goes against what BFD just posted.

And worn-in cement patches are not the same thing as five cement rings. [/*]

You will never find any picture anywhere that shows five cement rings.

HTH

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Eric Olsen saw Scott's trailer bed stained with concrete in November. I think it's fair to say that he would have had time to clean up had it been sinister. [/*]Is it known that it wasn't cleaned up and then new rings formed?

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by caphill



DO you are anyone else here recall when he some fence posts work. Also he sprinkled some concrete around his driveway for a quick repair.

This is certainly a rehashing old testimony. Back a few posts there was also testimony posted about the concrete in the driveway. [/*]

I recall what I call the "rain dance" testimony of the missing cement having been sprinkled dry on the cracks in the driveway and hoping it would rain.

Scott also lied to Brent Rocha about turning homemade anchors into cement for his driveway.

IMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Did you look? I will be honest and say I haven't looked in a long time, but I will tonight, and I would have sworn there were five, but I know the picture is in there. [/*]

Yes.

There was never a picture put into evidence that showed five cement rings. That's more urban legend.

The trailed bed was a flat out mess.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Wudge+


caphill,

If I am not mistaken, I recall your familiarity with evidence manipulation and fraud on a board where the Jeffrey MacDonald case was discussed. I don't believe the general public truly appreciates the breadth of this problem across our nation.

A few such instances in this case are: the knowingly false representation of the water pitcher by Detective Hendee and Dave Harris, the knowing excising of Laci's visit to the warehouse bathroom by Detective Brocchini in his report, the willfull and false addition of "duct tape" by Detective Brocchini to a statement given by a student who attended college with Scott, the willful blindness to Martha Stewart having said "meringue" by Detective Brocchini so as to obtain a search warrant, the willful failure to either make or turn over field notes or otherwise report on "Aponte et al" by the MPD, the willful lie Distaso told the jury regarding Laci's curling iron, Cindy Valentine lying in the preliminary hearing as regards her not knowing whether or not she changed gloves between the handling of Laci's eyeglass case and Scott's slippers, the mystical multiplying hair compliments of Detectives Hendee and Brocchini, etc., etc., ad nauseum. [/*]


Could be you have seen me ranting and raving about prosecutorial misconduct.

These many things and testimony such as you have mentioned above that were impeached in front of the jury. How any jurors would not question the integrity of these investigating officers and make a decision to put a man to death based on their tainted testimony is mind boggling.

It shows the power of the media, the whipped emotions, the far fetched speculations and suppositions to those who want to believe anything the gov't asks them to believe.

Laci was made into a saint and Scott into a demon. It was all over when the jury and the public was taught to love and hate these two. Facts and/or no facts was not going to pierce through the emotions and sympathy for Laci and family.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by ~DaddysGirl~


"Being around babies" doesn't give you the education or experience (as I have had, personally) with babies under average weight.

You certainly don't know more than I do seeing as how I've given birth to a full-term, 4# infant who was perfectly healthy at birth, but you especially do not know more than the ME who examined Conner and made a clear and concise declaration.

Those are the facts, and if you perceive that as an "attack", then you need to get over it. [/*]Did you smoke or do drugs?
I'm glad your son was healthy because that is an extremely low birth weight.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


That's possible, but I think he might have made them after he and Laci returned from their visit to the Petersons. I say that only because he might have felt uncomfortable about having 5 anchors lying around with only one boat to use them.

IMO [/*]



LOL> Why would he feel uncomfortable if he had 5 or 25 anchors lying around this "secret" boat.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Then who made the cement rings? There's a numbered evidence photograph of them in the back of Catherine Crier's book. [/*]

I've yet see "all" these rings. There are a few spots that look like they could be rings.

But the vast majority of the "rings" are nothing more than seeing images in an inkblot.

It's a phenomenon called pareidolia.

I suggest next time you're near a construction site and they're using any type of concrete, take a look around. See how many "circles" or "rings" you find. And then guess how many anchors they made due to those rings.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Is it possible Scott made anchors in November but they were defective? So, he made more in December that were the proper weight and size? [/*]

How would one determine the proper weight and size of an anchor to hold down a body?

Is this common knowledge, or would someone need to figure out the buoyancy of a particular body in a particular type of water at a particular water temperature?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


I've yet see "all" these rings. There are a few spots that look like they could be rings.

But the vast majority of the "rings" are nothing more than seeing images in an inkblot.

It's a phenomenon called pareidolia.

I suggest next time you're near a construction site and they're using any type of concrete, take a look around. See how many "circles" or "rings" you find. And then guess how many anchors they made due to those rings. [/*]


People remember seeing numbers, not rings. They get an impression that the numbers must evidence a ring. People's exhibit 122E shows what a mess Scott's trailer was.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


What ever happened to means, motive and opportunity? He had all three for the anchors and the murder. [/*]

Hate to say it, but means, motive and opportunity applies to about half of Modesto.

Motive is a way for people to try to "understand" the inexplicable.

I've seen people killed for no reason other than the murderer wanting to get his jollies.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


How would one determine the proper weight and size of an anchor to hold down a body?

Is this common knowledge, or would someone need to figure out the buoyancy of a particular body in a particular type of water at a particular water temperature? [/*]I would imagine Scott might have had the information from Laci's exams. Body Mass Index. I would have to do some research but would rather do the experiment.


MOO

[Luke Davis]

I never thought the photo of the trailer was that great. I wonder if the jury saw enlargements? I think it would have been nice to take photos from many positions.



MOO

[caphill]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I would imagine Scott might have had the information from Laci's exams. Body Mass Index. I would have to do some research but would rather do the experiment.


MOO [/*]


Surely you jest.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I would imagine Scott might have had the information from Laci's exams. Body Mass Index. I would have to do some research but would rather do the experiment.


MOO [/*]

You're kidding, right?

I would love to do the experiment also. Because it is clear (by previous cases where the victim was KNOWN to have been submerged with weights attached) that it would take a MASSIVE amount of weight to keep a body underwater for any length of time.

Scott could have bought a few bags of concrete and it wouldn't have done the job.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


You're kidding, right?

I would love to do the experiment also. Because it is clear (by previous cases where the victim was KNOWN to have been submerged with weights attached) that it would take a MASSIVE amount of weight to keep a body underwater for any length of time.

Scott could have bought a few bags of concrete and it wouldn't have done the job. [/*]I've always believed the possible myth that their are people woho have drowned in Lake Tahoe who never come to the surface because of the cold but never sink to the bottom because of pressure. The bouyancy would have much to do with gases from decay.


MOO

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I've always believed the possible myth that their are people woho have drowned in Lake Tahoe who never come to the surface because of the cold but never sink to the bottom because of pressure. The bouyancy would have much to do with gases from decay.


MOO [/*]

Lake Tahoe and the San Francisco Bay are 2 different things. That's like comparing apples to rocketships.

But I do understand what you're saying.

Just no comparison.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Lake Tahoe and the San Francisco Bay are 2 different things. That's like comparing apples to rocketships.

But I do understand what you're saying.

Just no comparison. [/*]Right, opposites rather than comparable.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I've always believed the possible myth that their are people woho have drowned in Lake Tahoe who never come to the surface because of the cold but never sink to the bottom because of pressure. The bouyancy would have much to do with gases from decay.


MOO [/*]It isn't a myth. People have drowned in the lake and due to the depth and temperature, they never resurfaced. Some time ago, bodies were found that were perfectly preserved after a long period of time. I'll look for the link, because it is really interesting.

However, it isn't saltwater, is colder than the bay and has no current. No comparison whatsoever.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Hate to say it, but means, motive and opportunity applies to about half of Modesto.

Motive is a way for people to try to "understand" the inexplicable.

I've seen people killed for no reason other than the murderer wanting to get his jollies. [/*]I just don't see 1/2 of Modesto as having a motive to kill Laci. Motive is something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act Further, I don't see 1/2 of the residents of Modesto as owning boats and not wanting children.

[Ryder]

This talks about why bodies don't decompose in Tahoe. It's an interestng article.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/7068578/detail.html


"When people drown, their lungs fill with water, dropping them into the depths of the lake. Decomposition starts, and during that process gases such as methane, nitrogen and oxygen are produced.

In warmer water, the gases would allow a body to rise "like a balloon. The body buoys up to the top," Sohn said. But since Lake Tahoe is so cold, bodies don't decompose, gases don't form, and the bodies stay submerged."

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Ryder
I just don't see 1/2 of Modesto as having a motive to kill Laci. Motive is something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act Further, I don't see 1/2 of the residents of Modesto as owning boats and not wanting children. [/*]

Typical logic.

You supply the motive and then find someone who fits it. You work for the Modesto Police Department?

LMAO


Motive is a myth. Half the time the perp doesn't even know why he or she did something. A string of events happened very quickly and they made a split second decision.

Life isn't about everything being all planned out and put into some type of order for other people to dissect and make sense of.

As someone who has investigated and arrested many criminals, I can tell you the vast majority had no "motive" that would people would understand. (Or even dream of being a motive)

If you were to ask the majority of confessed murderers why they killed their victim, in my opinion very few are going to give you a motive. And then those that do, I will bet any amount of money the vast majority would say murder was used as a way to hide another crime.

[Ryder]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Typical logic.

You supply the motive and then find someone who fits it. You work for the Modesto Police Department?

LMAO


Motive is a myth. Half the time the perp doesn't even know why he or she did something. A string of events happened very quickly and they made a split second decision.

Life isn't about everything being all planned out and put into some type of order for other people to dissect and make sense of.

As someone who has investigated and arrested many criminals, I can tell you the vast majority had no "motive" that would people would understand. (Or even dream of being a motive)

If you were to ask the majority of confessed murderers why they killed their victim, in my opinion very few are going to give you a motive. And then those that do, I will bet any amount of money the vast majority would say murder was used as a way to hide another crime. [/*]Good thing motive isn't required for a conviction. I still don't see where you feel 1/2 of the people in Modesto had a motive to kill Laci. However, when someone is PLANNING to murder someone (as in premeditate) there generally is a motive. Just letting you know motive isn't a myth. As you just said, "I will bet any amount of money the vast majority would say murder was used as a way to hide another crime" - well, THERE IS YOUR MOTIVE. :-)

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Ryder
Good thing motive isn't required for a conviction. I still don't see where you feel 1/2 of the people in Modesto had a motive to kill Laci. However, when someone is PLANNING to murder someone (as in premeditate) there generally is a motive. Just letting you know motive isn't a myth. As you just said, "I will bet any amount of money the vast majority would say murder was used as a way to hide another crime" - well, THERE IS YOUR MOTIVE. :-) [/*]

If half of Modesto had a motive to kill Laci, how much more of a motive did Scott have?

Here's two motives: 1) Scott told Amber he lost his wife and Christmas 2002 would be his first holiday without her. It happened! 2) Scott Peterson didn't want children (and hoped for infertility) . It happened when Laci and Conner were murdered.

I never quite understood the ABS theory to make things fit that it had to have been Anybody But Scott when the CE against Scott Peterson was overwhelming and wasn't forced to make it fit. It is what it is. Evidence doesn't lie; people lie, and Scott Peterson was the king of all liars.

IMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


If half of Modesto had a motive to kill Laci, how much more of a motive did Scott have?

Here's two motives: 1) Scott told Amber he lost his wife and Christmas 2002 would be his first holiday without her. It happened! 2) Scott Peterson didn't want children (and hoped for infertility) . It happened when Laci and Conner were murdered.

I never quite understood the ABS theory to make things fit that it had to have been Anybody But Scott when the CE against Scott Peterson was overwhelming and wasn't forced to make it fit. It is what it is. Evidence doesn't lie; people lie, and Scott Peterson was the king of all liars.

IMO [/*]

The jury did not find motive.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Wudge+


The jury did not find motive. [/*]

Neither the Pros, nor the jury, is required to state what they believe motivated Scott. But I have no doubt they followed the evidence and Scott's own statements which clearly express his motives.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I agree Paula, and the jurors did say after the trial that Scott wanted to be free, to make his fantasy of the world traveler with champane and strawberries a reality.

It was clear to me that he had no interest in Laci and his marriage, and in no way wanted to be a father. IMO [/*]

Hi Angel !

Yes, the jury did make those statements. They know why Scott murdered Laci and Conner. Most of the murders perpetrated by spouses and SOs are motivated by freedom, fear and/or finances. There are more and more cases of pregnant women being murdered than I ever recall in the past. With this mindset, it seems murder is their Divorce American Style.

IMO

[Raven]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Do you have a link to support "far far" because that's not what I've heard. [/*]

Those photos were taken in early August while the trial was underway. Neither Katie nor Jordy drew seats in the lottery that Friday, so they drove to Modesto and took photos without setting a foot on the Covena property.

Then they re-created his drive to the bay, with photos, and posted all 83 or so photos on photobucket for the CTV members. The concrete bag photos were towards the end of the group and stuck out like a HUGE red flag I remember at the time. MPD saw the photos and subpoened Jordy to testify as to when those photos were taken.

Geragos stipulated to the bag rather than have Jordy's testimony entered as his "investigators" didn't go to the Peterson driveway until late September, 6 weeks later. Such sterling lawyering.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


If Scott wanted "infertility," all he had to do is abstain! Instead he came home at Laci's "fertile" time of the month! Connor was a planned baby. Scott and Laci both wanted a baby.

mho
" [/*]

I honestly believe Scott thought Laci would never become pregnant. I also believe narcissistic sociopaths can't fall in love because they lack emotional connection. So they "choose" a partner whom they feel will most benefit them.

IMO

[roytoy]

Originally posted by Beebee



Well, to me the point is ..... THERE WAS NO MOTIVE.


How many people out there kill for no reason?? (serial killers aside because we know Scott is not a serial killer or insane with homicidal tendencies) [/*]

No motive needed though seems pretty obvious, IMO, and the jury DID find him guilty and sentenced him to death, which IMO, jurors do not do cavalierly.

As to your second comment-who knows? MOO.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


I honestly believe Scott thought Laci would never become pregnant. I also believe narcissistic sociopaths can't fall in love because they lack emotional connection. So they "choose" a partner whom they feel will most benefit them.

IMO [/*]

What you or anyone "believe" is not proof to find a man guilty of murder.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


What you or anyone "believe" is not proof to find a man guilty of murder. [/*]

No, but the overwhelming evidence against Scott is proof to find Scott guilty of double murder, most of which came directly from his own mouth, actions and lack of actions.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


What you or anyone "believe" is not proof to find a man guilty of murder. [/*]

Likewise, what you "believe" will not set him free.


And what the jury believed resulted in a guilty verdict and a death sentence.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Two of the jurors taunted him with the verdict on national television.

It was a hate verdict. He was convicted of adultery!

mho [/*]


Please show a link that he was convicted of ADULTERY. He was convicted of murder.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson7/index.html
a jury convicted Scott Peterson Friday of first-degree murder in the slaying of his pregnant wife.

The jurors also found the Modesto fertilizer salesman guilty of second-degree murder in the death of the son his wife, Laci, was carrying when he killed her in December 2002.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


No, but the overwhelming evidence against Scott is proof to find Scott guilty of double murder, most of which came directly from his own mouth, actions and lack of actions. [/*]

There was no evidence, overwhelming or not IMO. How on earth can anyone think he wiggled his nose and got Laci's body to the bay without leaving any forensic evidence in the house, car, boat, or truck? Houdini he is not.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by AngelWings


The jury, by law, was not required to do so, so what is your point? [/*]

The point was and remains that they jury did not find any motive whatsoever to be probative of guilt.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


No, but the overwhelming evidence against Scott is proof to find Scott guilty of double murder, most of which came directly from his own mouth, actions and lack of actions. [/*]

The People's real evidence amounted to what?

[roytoy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That is correct: "belief" will not set him free! The condition of Connor Peterson will set his daddy free.

It was a hate verdict. Scott was convicted of adultery.

As to the jurys "belief," they believed speculation, supposition, and theory was evidence!



mho [/*]

My belief is that Scott Peterson will be set free when you’re handing out lollipops and riding unicorns through cotton-candy forests.

Again, I ask for a link to show where the fertilizer salesman was convicted of adultery cuz the only ones I can find says he was convicted of double murder.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


There was no evidence, overwhelming or not IMO. How on earth can anyone think he wiggled his nose and got Laci's body to the bay without leaving any forensic evidence in the house, car, boat, or truck? Houdini he is not. [/*]

Whoever killed Laci left no forensic evidence of their crime. In cases where victims are murdered by members of their household, it is the lack of evidence of foreign DNA which is noted, as was in this case. Do you believe the blood found on Scott's car was the result of a job-related injury? (Another coincidence).

How did Scott know he will have lost his wife two weeks before Laci disappeared? How did Scott know Christmas would be his first holiday without Laci? Do you merely chalk this to coincidence along with so much other coincidence in this case? If so, why? Why do you think someone else killed Laci where there is so much evidence proving Scott's guilt?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


Katie and Jordy, LMAO!!

Oh the memories. Remember when Jordy's camera got taken and she was kicked out for taking pictures of the jurors?

"subpoened Jordy to testify"

:lol:

I almost forgot some of the totally ridiculous things that went down -- Distaso was desperate. He makes me sick.

Note she never testified. But boy she wanted to.... didn't she also try to get Gloria Allred as a lawyer, or was that just a rumor/joke? [/*]

Gloria did represent her, pro bono.

[Luke Davis]

Good to know. Just think there are many factors, even for experts. BMI, current, temperature, decomposition, manner of death, salinity, local disturbances, sea life, etc.



MOO

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Whoever killed Laci left no forensic evidence of their crime. In cases where victims are murdered by members of their household, it is the lack of evidence of foreign DNA which is noted, as was in this case.

How did Scott know he will have lost his wife two weeks before Laci disappeared? How did Scott know Christmas would be his first holiday without Laci? Do you merely chalk this to coincidence along with so much other coincidence in this case? If so, why? Why do you think someone else killed Laci where there is so much evidence proving Scott's guilt? [/*]

Where else did LE even LOOK for forensic evidence besides Scott?
There was no blood, body fluids or anything to point that Laci's BODY was in the house, car, truck, tool box or boat. HOW did he get her to the bay with no forensics and why there when there were other closer places he could have burried her?? Why buy a boat and mess around with anchors when a simple burial would have been much easier and safer for him? NO anchors found or proven to ever have existed.

Think about it, if you were going to kill someone would you tell anyone those things he supposedly said to Amber? IMO the "lost my wife" remark was put in his mouth by Amber and when she repeated it, he questioned it, not admitted it.

Do you chalk up the burglarly, the Aponte tip, the Jackson call, the Tracy tip all leading to the same thing "coincindences"? I sure don't.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


There is no LINK to MY OPINION.

mho [/*]

You did not state it was an opinion, you just keep posting that he "was convicted of adultery" and he was not. He was convicted of double murder, so lets get that straight unless you want to deny he is sitting on death row in San Quentin, judged and sentenced.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Whoever killed Laci left no forensic evidence of their crime. In cases where victims are murdered by members of their household, it is the lack of evidence of foreign DNA which is noted, as was in this case. Do you believe the blood found on Scott's car was the result of a job-related injury? (Another coincidence).

How did Scott know he will have lost his wife two weeks before Laci disappeared? How did Scott know Christmas would be his first holiday without Laci? Do you merely chalk this to coincidence along with so much other coincidence in this case? If so, why? Why do you think someone else killed Laci where there is so much evidence proving Scott's guilt? [/*]

"Lost my wife" was not inculpatory evidence per Judge Delucchi.

David Harris asked for CalJIC 2.71 to be included, which says it's a pre-trial statement of a defendant that's received that tends to establish guilt by placing himself where the bodies are found. Delucchi said he thought it was not justified under the evidence.

Geragos objected to inclusion of 2.71, 2.71.5, 2.71.7, and 2.72. Delucchi commented that he didn't see any pre-offense statement that indicates any intent, plan, motive or design that he may have uttered. D. Harris replied that the statements to Shawn Sibley and Amber Frey that he had just lost his wife qualified, but Delucchi said that was not persuasive.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Ryder
This talks about why bodies don't decompose in Tahoe. It's an interestng article.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/7068578/detail.html


"When people drown, their lungs fill with water, dropping them into the depths of the lake. Decomposition starts, and during that process gases such as methane, nitrogen and oxygen are produced.

In warmer water, the gases would allow a body to rise "like a balloon. The body buoys up to the top," Sohn said. But since Lake Tahoe is so cold, bodies don't decompose, gases don't form, and the bodies stay submerged." [/*]Careful now... Someone will suggest Laci was stored in Lake Tahoe for a month, then taken in a grocery cart to the Bay.:biggrin:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by roytoy


You did not state it was an opinion, you just keep posting that he "was convicted of adultery" and he was not. He was convicted of double murder, so lets get that straight unless you want to deny he is sitting on death row in San Quentin, judged and sentenced. [/*]

MHO means my humble opinion.


HTH

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He came home at the "fertile" time of the month!

Belief is not proof.

mho [/*]

Laci had one ovary and Scott never thought she would become pregnant. But I have no doubt he enjoyed the sex during those "fertile" times while he "hoped for infertility".

IMO

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Raven


Geragos stipulated to the bag rather than have Jordy's testimony entered as his "investigators" didn't go to the Peterson driveway until late September, 6 weeks later. Such sterling lawyering. [/*]What trial were you watching? Geragos didn't stipulate to anything about the pictures. The Pros had to stipulate that the bag o'concrete had nothing to do with anything, tho.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Laci had one ovary and Scott never thought she would become pregnant. But I have no doubt he enjoyed the sex during those "fertile" times while he "hoped for infertility".

IMO [/*]

It must be nice to know what someone else "thought". If he was that desperate to not have a baby all he had to do was not have sex with Laci. If he didn't want a baby why go to Lamaze with her, got to docors appointments with her, fix up the nursery, talk to his friend about baby clothes.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


If half of Modesto had a motive to kill Laci, how much more of a motive did Scott have?

Here's two motives: 1) Scott told Amber he lost his wife and Christmas 2002 would be his first holiday without her. It happened! 2) Scott Peterson didn't want children (and hoped for infertility) . It happened when Laci and Conner were murdered.

I never quite understood the ABS theory to make things fit that it had to have been Anybody But Scott when the CE against Scott Peterson was overwhelming and wasn't forced to make it fit. It is what it is. Evidence doesn't lie; people lie, and Scott Peterson was the king of all liars.

IMO [/*]1) Scott told Amber he lost his wife and Christmas 2002 would be his first holiday without her.

That will always bother me. Amber meets a man who lost his wife after Thanksgiving and jumps in the sack with him. Just seems unbelieveable! Of course, we know Scott lies but how could Amber believe this? And did Amber get set up with Scott before Laci was lost according to Scott?

MOO:hat:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


Why did she need representation?

(I also have this huge urge to laugh) [/*]

Jordy had been gagged. She just felt uncomfortable as best I can tell.

Jordy and Kathy became unwittingly involved in a high-profile case. They wanted to help the prosecutors, and they tried to ensure they did not unknowingly do something that might have been considered afoul of the Court or that might have damaged their ability to assist the prosecutors.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by W_D_1



I never did understand the big hoopla over that cement. The police had been all over that house. What was a bag of concrete supposed to prove almost two years later? That the police were so incompetent that they missed it sitting there? [/*]The Pros was trying to prove there was concrete work on the Peterson property that affected the samples Gebler analyzed.

And it blew up in their face.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Beebee


Paula,

Laci did ovulation tests. Don't you think her and Scott knew what was going on? They both went to the doctors appointments. Having one ovary doesn't prohibit pregnancy in the least or the release of an egg EACH month. The ovulation predictor test measure hormones that control the release of an egg.
Conner was most definitely planned by both!! Why can't you see that?? [/*]

Hi Beebee,

I'm not trying not to see it. I don't see because Scott has a history of stating he did not want children. He has said this to other women, and Scott himself stated he'd hoped for infertility after he learned Laci was pregnant.

Why do you believe Scott planned on having Conner and wanted him when his own words defy and deny it? It was Laci who wanted Conner, not Scott.

IMO

[roytoy]

Originally posted by alter ego
What trial were you watching? Geragos didn't stipulate to anything about the pictures. The Pros had to stipulate that the bag o'concrete had nothing to do with anything, tho. [/*]

"The bottom line is, that photograph went to impeach the story about what Scott used the concrete for," says Karas, the Court TV reporter. "The prosecutors were able to say, 'You didn't take your [driveway] samples until September 2004 -- a year and a half after the murder. And we know there was contamination, because here was this cement bag there.'" Adds Karas, "The defense was so mad at Court TV, because they thought we'd had something to do with it."

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



Connor Peterson was a planned baby! Laci would take her temperature at the fertile time of the month and Scott would come home. He went to lamaz classes with Laci. He went to the doctor's office with Laci!

He made a nursery for Connor; he looked in a catalogue for baby clothes for Connor. He wanted a child as much as Laci wanted Connor!

mho [/*]That just makes it more tragic! How trusting were Laci's family and friends, how hopeful for the new arrival, all the more crushing when all was dashed.


MOO

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Raven


Those photos were taken in early August while the trial was underway. Neither Katie nor Jordy drew seats in the lottery that Friday, so they drove to Modesto and took photos without setting a foot on the Covena property.

Then they re-created his drive to the bay, with photos, and posted all 83 or so photos on photobucket for the CTV members. The concrete bag photos were towards the end of the group and stuck out like a HUGE red flag I remember at the time. MPD saw the photos and subpoened Jordy to testify as to when those photos were taken.

Geragos stipulated to the bag rather than have Jordy's testimony entered as his "investigators" didn't go to the Peterson driveway until late September, 6 weeks later. Such sterling lawyering. [/*]I wonder if the DA is still monitoring the CTV/InSession board?

[BFD - v2.0]

Jiminy Freaking Christmas.

Link Police are in hot pursuit again?

I used to love how that was about half the responses on every thread during the criminal trial.

Got a link?

Where's your link?

Link it!!

It's not true unless there is a link!!


Get a grip folks. It's almost 5 years later and the same people are posting the exact same things. Pro and con. There is nothing new here.

Half of the "links" used during the criminal trial don't even work now.

We're all here to argue. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Half the posters are "victim advocates" (term for melodramatic forum junkies that see guilt in every perp) and the other half are "working for the defense". (term for those who look at law in a logical, methodical approach).

It is what it is.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Beebee



their ability to assist the prosecutors..... is why I want to laugh :D


Oh well, the end result was a big nothing. What I find amazing is it was based on imagined cement anchors. The lengths the prosecution went to in order to keep that myth alive is scary. I would love to sit down with Distaso and ask him what on earth he was thinking??? Some people will argue that defense lawyers are paid to lie, but what about prosecutors? Why do they lie??

The difference is they can lie under the color of "justice". [/*]

Prosecutor's Immunity and Elected Official Making Big Money.

That's why prosecutor's lie. DA's office is there to get the popular results the public wants. And the Peterson trial was one of the biggest ever. The stakes were enormous.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
1) Scott told Amber he lost his wife and Christmas 2002 would be his first holiday without her.

That will always bother me. Amber meets a man who lost his wife after Thanksgiving and jumps in the sack with him. Just seems unbelieveable! Of course, we know Scott lies but how could Amber believe this? And did Amber get set up with Scott before Laci was lost according to Scott?

MOO:hat: [/*]

Hi Luke!

That statement was certainly a WHOPPER, rivaling the predictions of Nostradamus in the exactness of their timing.

IMO

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Prosecutor's Immunity and Elected Official Making Big Money.

That's why prosecutor's lie. DA's office is there to get the popular results the public wants. And the Peterson trial was one of the biggest ever. The stakes were enormous. [/*]

Link?

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert


Link? [/*]

Don't hold your breath or you might really turn blue! :biggrin:

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert


Link? [/*]

Sure, look up your local DA's website and see what their mission statement says.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Beebee


Link?? [/*]

It's in the court transcripts. See Rose Rocha's testimony.

I no longer have access to the transcripts.

I found this link:

EXCERPT:

O'BRIEN: We don't have a ton of time, but I want to get this final question in. Apparently, Laci Peterson's sister-in-law, Rose Marie Rocha (ph), says that she was talking to Scott after Laci got pregnant and he said something about, he -- the quote was, "I was kind of hoping for infertility."


LINK:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/10/ltm.05.html

[Wudge+]

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/s...threadid=240007

Please read above link which includes:


Q-Must a poster use IMO if stating a fact?

A -These are by nature OPINION BOARDS,
therefore anything said by a poster is to be considered their opinion & you are free to debate it (and present proof they are wrong) or you can believe it or not, that is your CHOICE.

Any quoted statement or a statement from anything printed MUST BE accompanied by a link for proof. If any statement is posted that could be libelous it should be identified as their opinion, IE:
He killed Mr X, or She is a prostitute, or Mr. Politician stole from the funds, etc etc. If it was required to have every post list IMO it would most certainly become ridiculous.

Posters accept and signed that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for what they post. So it's the chance they take by making a statement of fact that is not true and do not state it as their opinion.

Using it after ALL your posts is unnecessary and can be annoying.
**********************************
Once again requesting links is getting ridiculous. A link is ONLY needed if something is quoted from a person or article. Paraphrasing or giving your interpretation of what you heard on TV or read somewhere or post as a memory of something is not quoting. If someone heard differently you can discuss or debate it on the forum.

Anything else posted as a fact & is not true, THE POSTER IS RESPONSIBLE for any actions taken against them.

It is your decision to believe or not to believe what is not "quoted" or not from an article. It is NOT your duty to ask for a link.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


Yes, they were and I believe you just explained why they ALL lied. Those people are not stupid. They know he is innocent, imo. They don't care. It doesn't trump their concern for themselves. [/*]

TITCR

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Don't hold your breath or you might really turn blue! :biggrin: [/*]

heh, heh, heh, evil little grin-----------> :tongue:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by caphill



earthgoddess, "You are listening to the media not the testimony" is your quote. Please be careful that you properly post and don't make your words a part of my post.

I think if you read the transcripts you would know the prosecution took up court time with testimony re Scott's purchase of chicken wire . There was much discussion of tarps. What was the purpose of testimony regarding chicken wire, tarps and anchors? What message or inference do you think the prosecution was trying give to jury about this items.? [/*]

I am sorry about the quote thing. I can't read the small print very well .

Ever heared of "red herring Thursadays?

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Sure, look up your local DA's website and see what their mission statement says. [/*]

IMO, we could search till the cows come home and nowhere, in any DA website would we find the OPINION not fact that you posted here:

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


(snipped)

That's why prosecutor's lie. DA's office is there to get the popular results the public wants. And the Peterson trial was one of the biggest ever. The stakes were enormous.

:cool:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


The State and/or LE don't track every transfer of ownership notification they receive. If that were true, it wouldn't be necessary for the new owner to register the item themselves, as it will have occurred through the prior owner's notification.

Only when things happen (accident, crime, etc) and the item is noted as having played a role in the occurrence, is attention drawn to it; the State and LE then taking note that liability was relinquished by the former owner on the date the item was sold.

IMO [/*]

Wude does not know aCA law and procedures although he's been told on many other boards/ If a release of liability DOES retgister a vehicle, WHY did Scott say he was Jacqueline Peterson and lived in Florida when he bought the Mercedes? That PROVES he knew what he knew the transfer of liability meant nothing. He gave phone information to the owner of the Mercedes, but it didn't register the vehicle in Florida, did it? The new registrati(according to Wudge) would have been mailed to the address (phony) in Florida. No CHANGE in ownership occurs utnil NEW owner pays the fees and puts it in their name.

FLADAGER: Whose responsibility is it to fill out a change of registration form when a vehicle is purchased?

GROGAN: The seller completes that form.

FLADAGER: How about the release of liability versus the registration? Can you give me the difference between the two?

GROGAN: Well, the release of liability is a document that's filled out by someone who sells a vehicle or a vessel, and, and it releases them from civil liability for the vehicle. They complete it, they send it in to the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that, then it's up to the person who has, has title or has purchased the, the vehicle or vessel to get it registered.

FLADAGER: So it's the buyer who has the duty to register?

GROGAN: Correct.


Registration argument is dropped.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I know you're not talking to me, but I don't see your point. The tarp, anchors, and chicken wire were an issue. Why wouldn't they bring them up? [/*]

To show that the police lookied into every possibility and did not RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by earth goddess


To show that the police lookied into every possibility and did not RUSH TO JUDGMENT. [/*]

How did gasoline get all over the boat cover in less than 24 hours - leaky leafr blower couldn't cover that., He had just used the leaf blower two days earlier and no one reported a smell of gasoline.

The boatq cover was hung on the fense to air it out yet it STILL smelled strongly of gasoline when given to DOJ.

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by Beebee


Regina! :D

I look forward to discussing this case with you. Just don't look at my location because I don't want you to get cranky in your posts :biggrin: [/*]

:lol:

We're cool, my crankiness is a thing of the past now that I have gone thru all the stages of grief over my Hillary not getting the nod. Still leary, but I cannot vote for the Republicans and their values. So, barring any weird boneheaded blunder, I will be voting for Obama.

Can you tell me when the trial is scheduled to start?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Ryder
Did you smoke or do drugs?
I'm glad your son was healthy because that is an extremely low birth weight. [/*]

Fiur pounds is an low full term birth rate, but four pounds is NOT the same thing as 2.5 A four pound baby is almost twoice as much as what Conner weighed. Considering that the final months of maturation in a fetus, the majority of what happens in the fine tuning of the organs and WEIGHT GAIN. Until someone gtives me a link to a 2.5 lb baby at FULL TERM, I will stick by my statement that it is impossible for a 2.5 baby to be full term.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Wudge, if I can't have a link, I discount all of it. Besides, this goes against what BFD just posted.

And worn-in cement patches are not the same thing as five cement rings. [/*]

I posted the testimony. Wudge is posting what Eric sees IN THE PICTURE, NOT WHAT HE SAW IN NOVEMBER

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert


IMO, we could search till the cows come home and nowhere, in any DA website would we find the OPINION not fact that you posted here:

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


(snipped)

That's why prosecutor's lie. DA's office is there to get the popular results the public wants. And the Peterson trial was one of the biggest ever. The stakes were enormous.

:cool: [/*]

You haven't looked.

Fladager's own website says she's there to "serve the people".

How does an elected official "serve the people"?

If you can't pass that test, you have no business being allowed to vote.

Or are we being obtuse because there is no better way to argue?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by W_D_1



I never did understand the big hoopla over that cement. The police had been all over that house. What was a bag of concrete supposed to prove almost two years later? That the police were so incompetent that they missed it sitting there? [/*]More to do with the defense.


MOO

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I don't think it blew up in their faces. [/*]

You're absolutely right.

Because the majority of idiots still don't understand what the stipulation was about.

When one knows the desired end product, common sense can go out the door and items totally overlooked to make sure that end product comes to fruition.

By the time that stipulation was entered, the trial was over, the jury had made up their mind and it wouldn't have mattered if the prosecution stipulated they made up 95% of the evidence in the trial; the jury would have still found the way they did.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Ryder
I just don't see 1/2 of Modesto as having a motive to kill Laci. Motive is something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act Further, I don't see 1/2 of the residents of Modesto as owning boats and not wanting children. [/*]

Hey, everyone I know had a alibi, INCLUDING THE DONNIE I KNOW THAT DRIVES A BROWN VAN. And I disagree that half of Modesto haqd a motive. to kill Laci. She had dealings with many people and the sheer numbers of people who turned out to search for her are evidence of that.

People gave up their Christmases to search for Laci while Scott was warm and cozy drinking wine and eating his. Sad, when a community cares more than the spouse, isn't it?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Ryder
This talks about why bodies don't decompose in Tahoe. It's an interestng article.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/7068578/detail.html


"When people drown, their lungs fill with water, dropping them into the depths of the lake. Decomposition starts, and during that process gases such as methane, nitrogen and oxygen are produced.

In warmer water, the gases would allow a body to rise "like a balloon. The body buoys up to the top," Sohn said. But since Lake Tahoe is so cold, bodies don't decompose, gases don't form, and the bodies stay submerged." [/*]

I don't know the temperature of Lake Tahoe, but the Bay is pretty cold too. Adipocere is formed in cold water and Laci had adipocere. Conner did not.

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


You haven't looked.

Fladager's own website says she's there to "serve the people".

How does an elected official "serve the people"?

If you can't pass that test, you have no business being allowed to vote.

Or are we being obtuse because there is no better way to argue? [/*]


:lol: I think you've finally rounded the bend............................... :rose:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


If Scott wanted "infertility," all he had to do is abstain! Instead he came home at Laci's "fertile" time of the month! Connor was a planned baby. Scott and Laci both wanted a baby.

mho
" [/*]
Then WHY did Scott make that comment?????? Why was he carrying Viagra. Someone who uses Vaigra does NOT abstain.

He knew Laci only had one ovary. He spun the wheel and lost.

[Raven]

Originally posted by Beebee


Katie and Jordy, LMAO!!

Oh the memories. Remember when Jordy's camera got taken and she was kicked out for taking pictures of the jurors?

"subpoened Jordy to testify"

:lol:

I almost forgot some of the totally ridiculous things that went down -- Distaso was desperate. He makes me sick.

Note she never testified. But boy she wanted to.... didn't she also try to get Gloria Allred as a lawyer, or was that just a rumor/joke? [/*]

Wow....good to know who is REALLY posting here.....your reply is a dead give away.

Her camera WAS taken and WAS returned after the police determined NO photos showed the jurors. She didn't get "kicked out" as she wasn't inside, but outside the courtroom. And GA did offer to represent them pro bono as there were "threats", but I'm sure you will laugh at that too.

She DIDN'T have to testify since MG stipulated to her photos showing the opened bag of cement mix in the Peterson driveway in August, when he DIDN'T have the foresight to send his investigators out there for another 6 weeks. LMAO at his concrete "experts" sprinkle defense!!!

[earth goddess]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GrandmaGA


There was no evidence, overwhelming or not IMO. How on earth can anyone think he wiggled his nose and got Laci's body to the bay without leaving any forensic evidence in the house, car, boat, or truck? Houdini he is not. [/*]

No, but it is normal to find forensics of a person in teh place they reside. Scott lived at 523 Covena. There SHOULD be forensic ebidence of him at that place.

That's NO-BRAINER

[Raven]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


It is MY OPINION he was convicted of adultery and that it was a hate verdict. The tapes won the case for the prosecution!

Some of the jurors were so riddled with hate that Jurors taunted him with the verdict on national television.

mho [/*]

I find it endlessly fascinating that you assign that awful "h" word and emotion to 12 people you DON'T know.........mmmm, projection maybe?

I do not recall a single one of them who used that word towards him.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert



:lol: I think you've finally rounded the bend............................... :rose: [/*]

There we go... poor little shrimp shows his/her true motive.

I like the fact I get under your skin. Because when I irritate someone while telling the truth, it shows me they have another agenda.

(Of course I've known your agenda 4 years ago. Never met an innocent man in your life.)

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by earth goddess


I don't know the temperature of Lake Tahoe, but the Bay is pretty cold too. Adipocere is formed in cold water and Laci had adipocere. Conner did not. [/*]

Because he was kept warm in his mommy's tummy?

The most ridiculous hogwash ever about this case.

The "sterile" decomposing uterus that kept a fetus in pristine condition while the mother's body rotted into pieces.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Raven]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


Where else did LE even LOOK for forensic evidence besides Scott?
There was no blood, body fluids or anything to point that Laci's BODY was in the house, car, truck, tool box or boat. HOW did he get her to the bay with no forensics and why there when there were other closer places he could have burried her?? Why buy a boat and mess around with anchors when a simple burial would have been much easier and safer for him? NO anchors found or proven to ever have existed.

Think about it, if you were going to kill someone would you tell anyone those things he supposedly said to Amber? IMO the "lost my wife" remark was put in his mouth by Amber and when she repeated it, he questioned it, not admitted it.

Do you chalk up the burglarly, the Aponte tip, the Jackson call, the Tracy tip all leading to the same thing "coincindences"? I sure don't. [/*]


Did Shawn Sibley ALSO put it in his mouth? He said the same exact thing to her in that bawling call that he later repeated to Amber so as to not lose her.

Yah, everyone but Scott is guilty!!!

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Wudge+


COLDWATER POSTED POSTED IN THE APONTE THREAD


http://boards.insessiontrials.com/s...threadid=240007

Please read above link which includes:


Q-Must a poster use IMO if stating a fact?

A -These are by nature OPINION BOARDS,
therefore anything said by a poster is to be considered their opinion & you are free to debate it (and present proof they are wrong) or you can believe it or not, that is your CHOICE.

Any quoted statement or a statement from anything printed MUST BE accompanied by a link for proof. If any statement is posted that could be libelous it should be identified as their opinion, IE:
He killed Mr X, or She is a prostitute, or Mr. Politician stole from the funds, etc etc. If it was required to have every post list IMO it would most certainly become ridiculous.

Posters accept and signed that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for what they post. So it's the chance they take by making a statement of fact that is not true and do not state it as their opinion.

Using it after ALL your posts is unnecessary and can be annoying.
**********************************
Once again requesting links is getting ridiculous. A link is ONLY needed if something is quoted from a person or article. Paraphrasing or giving your interpretation of what you heard on TV or read somewhere or post as a memory of something is not quoting. If someone heard differently you can discuss or debate it on the forum.

Anything else posted as a fact & is not true, THE POSTER IS RESPONSIBLE for any actions taken against them.

It is your decision to believe or not to believe what is not "quoted" or not from an article. It is NOT your duty to ask for a link. [/*]Anything else posted as a fact & is not true, THE POSTER IS RESPONSIBLE for any actions taken against them.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Laci had one ovary and Scott never thought she would become pregnant. But I have no doubt he enjoyed the sex during those "fertile" times while he "hoped for infertility".

IMO [/*]

IIRC Laci complained to one of her friends that Scott was never around at her fertile times - that he AVOIDED being around at that time of the month. He did have convient excuses for not being there imo

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Wudge I'm surprised that you of all people are posting this. You consistently post snipits of testimony or information to back up what you're saying, but no link. If I'm reading this right, Coldwater is saying you can't do that. [/*]A link is ONLY needed if something is quoted from a person or article. Does this mean from testimony too? Sounds like it, because testimony is quoting a person.


MOO:hat:

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by earth goddess


IIRC Laci complained to one of her friends that Scott was never around at her fertile times - that he AVOIDED being around at that time of the month. He did have convient excuses for not being there imo [/*]

By some accounts here, Scott made himself totally available to Laci during those fertile times. Your version is more in line with the facts of this case and Scott's own statements.

IMO

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Wude does not know aCA law and procedures although he's been told on many other boards/ If a release of liability DOES retgister a vehicle, WHY did Scott say he was Jacqueline Peterson and lived in Florida when he bought the Mercedes? That PROVES he knew what he knew the transfer of liability meant nothing. He gave phone information to the owner of the Mercedes, but it didn't register the vehicle in Florida, did it? The new registrati(according to Wudge) would have been mailed to the address (phony) in Florida. No CHANGE in ownership occurs utnil NEW owner pays the fees and puts it in their name.

FLADAGER: Whose responsibility is it to fill out a change of registration form when a vehicle is purchased?

GROGAN: The seller completes that form.

FLADAGER: How about the release of liability versus the registration? Can you give me the difference between the two?

GROGAN: Well, the release of liability is a document that's filled out by someone who sells a vehicle or a vessel, and, and it releases them from civil liability for the vehicle. They complete it, they send it in to the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that, then it's up to the person who has, has title or has purchased the, the vehicle or vessel to get it registered.

FLADAGER: So it's the buyer who has the duty to register?

GROGAN: Correct.


Registration argument is dropped. [/*]Is a link needed when quoting people? Or is that what you are doing?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
1) Scott told Amber he lost his wife and Christmas 2002 would be his first holiday without her.

That will always bother me. Amber meets a man who lost his wife after Thanksgiving and jumps in the sack with him. Just seems unbelieveable! Of course, we know Scott lies but how could Amber believe this? And did Amber get set up with Scott before Laci was lost according to Scott?

MOO:hat: [/*]

I believe this was told to Amber with great emotion and tears. And yes, Shawn was told in Ocrober at the conference in Anaheim I believe that Scott told HER he had lost his soul mate and thought he'd never find another one and did Shawn know anyone yada yada yada That's in the testimony. Soi the 'loss" was put into play over a MONTH before Scott was hooked up with Amber.

Scott only seemed to manage tears with Amber. Oh, and on national TV. I have never seen a man sit there with tears stream down his face. Men tend to wipe them away.

I believe, if you see the uncut tape, you will see him get up and go to the bathroom right before his 'tears'

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


If Scott "never around" Laci at "fertile" times of the month, how then did Laci get pregnant?

mho
" [/*]

Maybe Laci wanted desperately to have a child, believed Scott would feel differently once she got pregnant, and stopped telling Scott when it was her fertile time.

IMO

[Raven]

Originally posted by W_D_1


They may not have used the word but I'd say one juror standing on the courthouse steps immediately following the verdict and screaming at Scott that he was an a-hole qualifies as hate. [/*]

Didn't Geragos call him one too? IIRC it was 14K gold a..hole?

Does that mean Geragos has that same emotion for his client? LMAO!!

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GrandmaGA


There was no evidence, overwhelming or not IMO. How on earth can anyone think he wiggled his nose and got Laci's body to the bay without leaving any forensic evidence in the house, car, boat, or truck? Houdini he is not. [/*]

No, but it is normal to find forensics of a person in teh place they reside. Scott lived at 523 Covena. There SHOULD be forensic ebidence of him at that place.

That's NO-BRAINER [/*]

DUH, no blood or body fluids ANYWHERE including the house, car, truck, tool box or boat. How did he get her body to the bay without any forensics being found in any of those things? Houdini?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


You're absolutely right.

Because the majority of idiots still don't understand what the stipulation was about.

When one knows the desired end product, common sense can go out the door and items totally overlooked to make sure that end product comes to fruition.

By the time that stipulation was entered, the trial was over, the jury had made up their mind and it wouldn't have mattered if the prosecution stipulated they made up 95% of the evidence in the trial; the jury would have still found the way they did. [/*]

In the first trial, I said that if Judge Delucchi did not allow Eloise Anderson to testify (Trimble was her dog), he would have been faced with acquitting Scott via a directed verdict. That directed verdict would have been required, because the only evidence that could have reasonably corroborated Laci being in the truck, in the boat or at the bay on Xmas Eve was Eloise's dog.

I maintained then that Judge Delucchi was scared to face, much less cross, that bridge. That's why he allowed Eloise to take the stand. However, like Cindy Valentine's impeachment in the preliminary hearing -- she was never again seen -- Eloise went down in flames too.

Given Eloise's impeachment, I can't see a Judge allowing her to re-take the witness in a second trial. So in a re-trial, allowing or not allowing Eloise Anderson to re-take the witness stand should basically determine if the State can make a murder case.

Of course, a second jury could do what the first jury did, which is to convict Scott without sufficient evidence. That's why I'm hoping for a bench trial where the defense ask the judge to make specific finding of facts that are to be read aloud in court.

[earth goddess]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AngelWings



WD1, that's fine, post away without links. You just jumped all over me for not posting a link. It shouldn't take too much effort for you to not be nice, you're doing a fine job effortlessly. [/*][/QUOTE

Of course, the transcrips are available at the sii site still.

But tht would require some work to find them....lol

[Raven]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



I don't need to know the jurors to gauge their verdict. There actions spoke louder than words. They taunted Scott with the verdict on national television. The tapes won the case for the prosecution.

Kindly don't make this personal, and accuse me of "projection."

mho



mho [/*]

I didn't accuse you of anything....I was musing about possible reasons why you would make a statement about 12 people you DON'T know, accusing them of such strong sentiment.

I would never make say something personal to you cuz I don't know you.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by roytoy


"The bottom line is, that photograph went to impeach the story about what Scott used the concrete for," says Karas, the Court TV reporter. "The prosecutors were able to say, 'You didn't take your [driveway] samples until September 2004 -- a year and a half after the murder. And we know there was contamination, because here was this cement bag there.'" Adds Karas, "The defense was so mad at Court TV, because they thought we'd had something to do with it." [/*]Except there was no contaimination from an unopened bag of cement.

:lol:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Maybe Laci wanted desperately to have a child, believed Scott would feel differently once she got pregnant, and stopped telling Scott when it was her fertile time.

IMO [/*]

I think many women think that way.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess


IIRC Laci complained to one of her friends that Scott was never around at her fertile times - that he AVOIDED being around at that time of the month. He did have convient excuses for not being there imo [/*]

HOW did she get pregnant then? :rolleyes:

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Oh, please! I seriously doubt Laci would trick Scott into getting her pregnant! That is an insult to Lac's memory.



MHO [/*]

Laci and Scott were married. How can a wife trick her husband?

I disagree completely! It's a tribute to Laci's memory as a loving woman, who was loved by many and wanted Scott to feel a parent's love for his child and the child for his father.

IMO

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Raven


Didn't Geragos call him one too? IIRC it was 14K gold a..hole?

Does that mean Geragos has that same emotion for his client? LMAO!! [/*]Nope.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


It's in the court transcripts. See Rose Rocha's testimony.

I no longer have access to the transcripts.

I found this link:

EXCERPT:

O'BRIEN: We don't have a ton of time, but I want to get this final question in. Apparently, Laci Peterson's sister-in-law, Rose Marie Rocha (ph), says that she was talking to Scott after Laci got pregnant and he said something about, he -- the quote was, "I was kind of hoping for infertility."


LINK:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/10/ltm.05.html [/*]

Here's the info from the transcripts:


HARRIS: And they were trying to get pregnant. At some point in time when you were expecting one of your children did the defendant make any particular comment about Laci being pregnant or her getting pregnant?

ROCHA: Yes. We were talking about pregnancy or having a family, and I believe I said something to the effect of, to Scott, "Are you ready for this," and he looked at me and said, "I was kind of hoping for infertility."

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Here's the info from the transcripts:


HARRIS: And they were trying to get pregnant. At some point in time when you were expecting one of your children did the defendant make any particular comment about Laci being pregnant or her getting pregnant?

ROCHA: Yes. We were talking about pregnancy or having a family, and I believe I said something to the effect of, to Scott, "Are you ready for this," and he looked at me and said, "I was kind of hoping for infertility." [/*]

Thanks for posting that portion of the transcript, EG!

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Maybe Laci wanted desperately to have a child, believed Scott would feel differently once she got pregnant, and stopped telling Scott when it was her fertile time.

IMO [/*]


:lol: Another maybe.:rolleyes:

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by Raven


Wow....good to know who is REALLY posting here.....your reply is a dead give away.

Her camera WAS taken and WAS returned after the police determined NO photos showed the jurors. She didn't get "kicked out" as she wasn't inside, but outside the courtroom. And GA did offer to represent them pro bono as there were "threats", but I'm sure you will laugh at that too.

She DIDN'T have to testify since MG stipulated to her photos showing the opened bag of cement mix in the Peterson driveway in August, when he DIDN'T have the foresight to send his investigators out there for another 6 weeks. LMAO at his concrete "experts" sprinkle defense!!! [/*]

:eek: LTNS!!



:seeya:

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA



:lol: Another maybe.:rolleyes: [/*]

At least mine are logical. :biggrin:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by alter ego
The Pros was trying to prove there was concrete work on the Peterson property that affected the samples Gebler analyzed.

And it blew up in their face. [/*]
tHAT IS WRONG!!!!

The neighbor to the north (the old Reed house) was having concete work down in their back yard. The construction crew had removed a part of the fence between the houses and was accessing their back yard by way of the Peterson driveway. They, NOT SCOTT left the bag of concrete in the Peterson driveway. It was indeed a photograph by Katie and Jordy that showed this. The photograph was taken in August and the concrete samples the defense used in their testimony was taken in September. Geragos stipulated to this in the court - a wise move because Jordy was ready to tesify tso seeing that bag in her picture

[Raven]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert


:eek: LTNS!!



:seeya: [/*]

Hello you little scamp!! LOL!! Same old, same old, huh?

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by Raven


Hello you little scamp!! LOL!! Same old, same old, huh? [/*]

Oh boy, I'll say it is. Tho we are among the many who can rest assured the wife and baby killer is enjoying them historical buildings and will be till his dying breath. imo.


:D

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Oh, I just noticed that it's not our duty to ask for a link. WD1, did you see that too? [/*]Yes, and they are responsible, as I read it.


MOO:hat:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert


:lol:

We're cool, my crankiness is a thing of the past now that I have gone thru all the stages of grief over my Hillary not getting the nod. Still leary, but I cannot vote for the Republicans and their values. So, barring any weird boneheaded blunder, I will be voting for Obama.

Can you tell me when the trial is scheduled to start? [/*]

It was scheduled for July 8 but defense filed motion and they are meeting teh end of July to reschedule. Am monitoring the Modesto Bee on it.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


That's what the expert testified to, and I think is the one with the experience. [/*]

Experience?

Wow.

See, what people are missing is they keep thinking of Laci and the fetus as two separate individuals with 2 separate set of circumstances. And in fact, that is exactly what the physical evidence of their bodies would indicate.

BUT, the FACT of the matter is, the fetus and Laci were organism in a biological sense. If the theory about them being together in deep water, blah, blah, blah is true, then there is no explanation for the different rates and types of decomposition.

They were subjected to 2 different environments. And there is a very simple explanation.