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/sh...7#post11758717

Did he ever deny making the anchor?

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/sh...7#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?

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)

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.

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.

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 [/*]

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.

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.

Originally posted by Ryder [*]

Speculation. [/*]

No. The anchor is real, exculpatory evidence.

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

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?

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?

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/TRANSCRIP...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.

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.

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.

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?

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/sh...7#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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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 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