Seriously????

[ChocHollyK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This time Pasqual and Francois will provide an alibi.



MOO

Originally posted by dan4081 [*]

Are they testifying? [/*]

yes, by phone

[ChocHollyK]

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



MOO [/*]

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

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

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

-snipped-
[/*]

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

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

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

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

ROCHA: Right.

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

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

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

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

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

GERAGOS: Yeah.

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

[ChocHollyK]

Originally posted by alter ego [*]
Amy testified the pants Laci was found in were not the ones she wore at the salon the night before.

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

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

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

ROCHA: Right.

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

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

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

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

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

GERAGOS: Yeah.

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

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

Originally posted by ChocHollyK [*]

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

Well, if there were news reports that Amy didn't find the clothes Laci was in when she was at the salon, they were inaccurate as evidenced by the trial record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by ChocHollyK [*]

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

I think, but will check that they brought Amy through the house in the February search, not the one in December

Originally posted by ChocHollyK [*]

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

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

Originally posted by MandyMutton [*]

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

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

Originally posted by Beebee [*]

It's all laid out right here:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/S...cis_Pants.html [/*]

Another biased source

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

ROCHA: I think it was February 18th.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Like a light creamy,

DISTASO: Okay.

ROCHA: color.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And what about the other pair?

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

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

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

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: No.

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

ROCHA: Like a light tan, creamy color.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: The color is similar.

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

ROCHA: Um, no.

DISTASO: Okay. What's different about it?

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

DISTASO: Okay.

ROCHA: Or the cargo pockets on the side.

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

ROCHA: And the length is too long, too.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

ROCHA: Those are longer than what I remember.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: The color is similar, too.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

ROCHA: Yes.

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

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

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

ROCHA: I'm pretty sure in my mind.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess [*] I think, but will check that they brought Amy through the house in the February search, not the one in December [/*]

Didn't a Kim break in and steal things before that?

[California]

Originally posted by Beebee [*]

Yes, sometime in January.

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

What kind of police work is that??

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

They didn't know it was that nutball Kim. It could have been Laci's abductor. [/*]

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


IIRC

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




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

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



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

GERAGOS: Okay. When did Scott tell you that?

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

mho [/*]

: T H U D :

Originally posted by earth goddess [*]

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

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

[California]

Originally posted by MandyMutton [*]

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

Could he have killed Laci the morning of the 24th as she was getting dressed?

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



transcript of the 911 call

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

OPERATOR: Hi, can I help you?

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

OPERATOR: So the dog came back without your daughter?

GRANTSKI: Right.

OPERATOR: OK, what is your address there sir?

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

OPERATOR: Is that where she is?

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

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

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

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

GRANTSKI: Her address is (INFORMATION WITHHELD).

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

GRANTSKI: Yes.

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

GRANTSKI: That's a house.

OPERATOR: What is your name?

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

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

GRANTSKI: Grantski.

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

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

OPERATOR: What's your stepdaughter's name?

GRANTSKI: Scott Peterson.

OPERATOR: No, no, no, your stepdaughter.

GRANTSKI: Laci Peterson.

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

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

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

GRANTSKI: She's Portuguese and white.

OPERATOR: How old is she?

GRANTSKI: She's 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

GERAGOS: Okay. When did Scott tell you that?

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

mho [/*]

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

[California]

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

Because he thought it was too cold to fish.


IMO

[California]

Originally posted by MandyMutton [*]

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

How did he know the dog came home with just the leash on?

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

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

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]

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

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

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

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

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

EVERS: Yes.

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

EVERS: That's correct.

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

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

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

EVERS: Yes.

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

EVERS: Yes, that's what I remember.

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

EVERS: No.

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

EVERS: No.

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

EVERS: I heard some sort of news report.

GERAGOS: Recently, during this trial?

EVERS: Yes.

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

EVERS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

JUDGE: I don't think so. Sustained.

GERAGOS: Did you believe that Ron Grantski was joking?

EVERS: No.

mho [/*]

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

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]

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

mho [/*]

Did Ron use a boat on San Francisco Bay?

Originally posted by MandyMutton [*]

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

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

[California]

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]

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

mho [/*]

Did the neighbor who found McKensie tell him?

Originally posted by alter ego [*]

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

Thanks, AE!

Originally posted by W_D_1 [*]



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

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

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

[GrandmaGA]

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

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

She was advised to do that by LE, IIRC. To put out the media fire.

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

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

Originally posted by MandyMutton [*]

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

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by W_D_1 [*]


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

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

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

Originally posted by MandyMutton [*]

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

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by mcannie1965 [*]

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

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

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

MHO [/*]

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

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


IIRC [/*]

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

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

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

[GrandmaGA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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