Collection of Lies on the Peterson Case

[Babes]

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

Let's put it on this format :


Lies :
Link (If Any):


Thank You Folks

[Babes]

Lies: Famous Meringues

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

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

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

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11...on3/index.html

[Babes]

Lies : Scott Peterson Lies

Link: Too many to mention

[Babes]

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

Link : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_n14579081

[Babes]

Lies : Laci @ the Warehouse

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

Link : http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...on-trial_x.htm

[Babes]

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

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

Link : http://daily.stanford.edu/article/20...rsonsInnocence

[Babes]

Lies : Amber Frey is Lying?

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

Link : http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...crier_ctv.html

[GrandmaGA]

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

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...04-pm_ctv.html

[GrandmaGA]

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


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


© 2008, KTVU.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by Babes [*]Lies : Laci @ the Warehouse

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

Link : http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...on-trial_x.htm [/*]

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

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

If not, your point is moot....

Lies : Scott Peterson Lies

Owned a yacht and condo in Sacramento.




imo

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

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

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

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

Went sailing with Greg Rogue...

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

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

Lied to Amber and Karen about the polygraph...

Lied to Karen about the gun...

Lied to Rob about interview with Geraldo...

Lied about cat scratch (tree) fever...

Jackie lied on LKL about polygraph...

Lied about electricity in warehouse...

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

Originally posted by W_D_1 [*]


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

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Frydaddy [*]


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

Testimony isn't good enough for you?

Originally posted by GrandmaGA [*]

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

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

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

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

CK

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by higharm [*]

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

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

[/*]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Frydaddy [*]Went sailing with Greg Rogue...

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

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

Lied to Amber and Karen about the polygraph...

Lied to Karen about the gun...

Lied to Rob about interview with Geraldo...

Lied about cat scratch (tree) fever...

Jackie lied on LKL about polygraph...

Lied about electricity in warehouse...

These are all I can remember off the top of my head and IMO. [/*]

You are so co9rrect - there are far to many to lsit.


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

Originally posted by W_D_1 [*]

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

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

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

More lies from Scott:

"I died my hair in a swimming pool"

That was a classic! [/*]

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

Matt Dalton's book of lies:

Most glaringly:

Conner was cremated

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

Berkeley is the home of the Church of Satan

Satanists did it

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings [*]


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

http://books.google.com/books?id=78o...esult#PPA60,M1 [/*]

It's not a lie.

Testimony:

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings [*]


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

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings [*]

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

So tell me, what is "it"?

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

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

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

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by AngelWings [*]

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by AngelWings [*]

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

So tell me, what is "it"?

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

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

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

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

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

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

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

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

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

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

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

GROGAN: No.

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

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

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

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

GROGAN: Yes.

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

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

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

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

FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.


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

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

Not all residental burglaries qualify for 3 strikes:

Here are the crimes that qualify under 3 strikes:

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

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

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

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

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

[Mamie]

Originally posted by margaritaville [*]

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

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

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

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

[Mamie]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA [*]

It's not a lie.

Testimony:

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

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

Originally posted by AngelWings [*]


I love you, lol. [/*]

Another fantasy bites the dust.



imo

Originally posted by GrandmaGA [*]

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

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

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess [*]

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

Why is it unknown?

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

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

Originally posted by earth goddess [*]

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

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

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

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

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

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

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

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

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

GROGAN: No.

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

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

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

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

GROGAN: Yes.

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

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

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

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

FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.


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

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

It usually is effectively demolished by cross examination.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Mamie [*]

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

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

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

Originally posted by Babes [*]Lies: Famous Meringues

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

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

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

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11...on3/index.html [/*]

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

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

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

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

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