Laci: Trying to figure out this whole jewelry thing
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
The news reports are really confusing. Who inherited the jewelry?
What part of it was Laci's? When did she take posession of her share
and how much of it was kept at her house?
To wit:
Laci Peterson, along with other family members, had inherited more than $100,000
worth of jewelry from her grandmother in the months before she vanished Dec. 24,
2002, witnesses have testified.
On Thursday, prosecutors questioned a jewelry store clerk who said she remembered
Laci Peterson bringing in various items to be appraised.
--- Ok, but did she ever actually bring in the whole cache? Did the jewelers
keep a running total?
Mary Anna Felix testified that Laci Peterson told her it was her husband who
wanted to know how much the jewelry was worth -- and when Felix estimated the
jewelry to be worth more than $100,000, "she said that he would be very happy."
---How was this estimate arrived at? Was this what the store was prepared
to pay for the jewelry, or just a guess at what Laci might be able to get for
it?
Felix also said Laci Peterson wore a diamond pendant, and told her she never took
it off, even when she slept, for fear of losing it.
Prosecutors showed a picture of the pendant sitting atop a dresser in the
Petersons' home. The photo was taken after Laci Peterson vanished.
Robin Rocha, Laci Peterson's aunt, also testified that she and Laci inventoried
the jewelry when the grandmother died and that after Laci disappeared, a watch and
a pair of two-carat diamond earrings were missing.
---What inventory was Robin Rocha working from? The Dec 26 house search?
The Feb 18 house search? Was Scott ever asked about this and if so, what
was his answer?
Hard to tell what to make of this. I'm guessing the jewelry was mostly
chaff except for a few valuable pieces: the watch, the rock Laci was having
set in her wedding ring, and perhaps those earrings. I can't tell if the pendant
was part of the cache or not. Makes sense that Scott would keep the jewelry
to his bad self and not dump it in the Bay, but unless you truly believe the
G found the watch (and decided to play hide-the-name with the receipt) then
it sounds like the watch is missing. And Scott never mentioned any watch
on his "missing" description, did he?
RstJ
flick
<robert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:G6vAc.48413$2i5.46284@attbi_s52...
> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3432111/detail.html
>
> The news reports are really confusing. Who inherited the
jewelry?
> What part of it was Laci's? When did she take posession of her
share
> and how much of it was kept at her house?
[...]
> ---How was this estimate arrived at? Was this what the store
was prepared
> to pay for the jewelry, or just a guess at what Laci might be
able to get for
> it?
I've had jewelry appraised before. Usually the value is more
like replacement cost, bec. appraisal is done for insurance
purposes. You'd probably only get a fifth of the value, or less,
if you sold it.
If the store did a formal appraisal, they'd have issued a written
report and probably have a copy of it in their files.
flick 100785
> Hard to tell what to make of this. I'm guessing the jewelry was
mostly
> chaff except for a few valuable pieces: the watch, the rock
Laci was having
> set in her wedding ring, and perhaps those earrings. I can't
tell if the pendant
> was part of the cache or not. Makes sense that Scott would keep
the jewelry
> to his bad self and not dump it in the Bay, but unless you
truly believe the
> G found the watch (and decided to play hide-the-name with the
receipt) then
> it sounds like the watch is missing. And Scott never mentioned
any watch
> on his "missing" description, did he?
>
>
>
> RstJ
>
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004
Maggie
***Jewelry stores are in the business of appraising jewelry--primarily for
insurance purposes. The sale value of jewelry appraised would typically be
much less than the appraised value.
>
>
>Felix also said Laci Peterson wore a diamond pendant, and told her she never
>took
>it off, even when she slept, for fear of losing it.
>
>Prosecutors showed a picture of the pendant sitting atop a dresser in the
>Petersons' home. The photo was taken after Laci Peterson vanished.
>
>Robin Rocha, Laci Peterson's aunt, also testified that she and Laci
inventoried
>the jewelry when the grandmother died and that after Laci disappeared, a
>watch and
>a pair of two-carat diamond earrings were missing.
>
>---What inventory was Robin Rocha working from? The Dec 26 house search?
>The Feb 18 house search? Was Scott ever asked about this and if so, what
>was his answer?
***What's hard to understand here? All the jewelry inherited is accounted for
except for the watch and earrings--exactly the things (minus, maybe, the
pendant) you'd expect her to be wearing when walking the dog.
>
>Hard to tell what to make of this. I'm guessing the jewelry was mostly
>chaff except for a few valuable pieces: the watch, the rock Laci was having
>set in her wedding ring, and perhaps those earrings. I can't tell if the
>pendant
>was part of the cache or not. Makes sense that Scott would keep the jewelry
>to his bad self and not dump it in the Bay, but unless you truly believe
>the
>G found the watch (and decided to play hide-the-name with the receipt) then
>it sounds like the watch is missing. And Scott never mentioned any watch
>on his "missing" description, did he?
***Yes. He did.
Maggie
"Nancy, if you were 8 1/2 months pregnant and I was married to you, I'd be
going fishing Christmas Eve." -- Mark Geragos, to Nancy Grace on LKL
Michele317
>
>The news reports are really confusing. Who inherited the jewelry?
>What part of it was Laci's? When did she take posession of her share
>and how much of it was kept at her house?
>
>To wit:
>
>
>Laci Peterson, along with other family members, had inherited more than
>$100,000
>worth of jewelry from her grandmother in the months before she vanished
>Dec. 24,
>2002, witnesses have testified.
well, it's appraised at $100,000, but that's not what it would fetch if she
sold it (particularly not at pawnshops at $100 a pop). and how many other
family members are sharing this jewelry anyway? laci's share, if sold, wouldn't
amount to all that much. probably wouldn't even pay for the country club
membership (which i'm now thinking pleased her as much as it pleased scott).
>On Thursday, prosecutors questioned a jewelry store clerk who said she
remembered
>Laci Peterson bringing in various items to be appraised.
>
>--- Ok, but did she ever actually bring in the whole cache? Did the jewelers
>keep a running total?
i can't find this info anywhere, but if it were a real appraisal, like you'd
need for a rider on your homeowner's insurance, there would be a written form.
>Mary Anna Felix testified that Laci Peterson told her it was her husband
>who
>wanted to know how much the jewelry was worth -- and when Felix estimated
>the
>jewelry to be worth more than $100,000, "she said that he would be very
>happy."
>
>---How was this estimate arrived at? Was this what the store was prepared
>to pay for the jewelry, or just a guess at what Laci might be able to get
>for
>it?
or was this just a bit of salesperson flattery? maybe she wanted laci to think
her stuff was worth so much that laci would feel free to drop some money in her
jewelry store?
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Michele317" <miche...@aol.combover> wrote in message
news:20040618161509...@mb-m05.aol.com...
This is what I think, and if the DA's going to put this woman on the stand
with her stories of how Laci said her husband would be "pleased" then the
DA needs to provide some indication Laci actually told her husband about
her visits to the jeweler. She appears to have gone alone, more than once,
and dropped off her wedding ring and extra diamonds, yet Scott and his
slavering oxygen-deprived bloodsucker of a mother (that for all the sniffling
Darth Jackie fans) don't appear to have known the location of the ring until
they (well, she, really) began fighting with the Rochas about the contents
of the house. Scott mentions her wedding ring in the missing description.
Did he plan on going and getting it from the jewelers?
RstJ
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:20040618161509...@mb-m05.aol.com...
she
> sold it (particularly not at pawnshops at $100 a pop). and how many other
> family members are sharing this jewelry anyway? laci's share, if sold,
wouldn't
> amount to all that much. probably wouldn't even pay for the country club
> membership (which i'm now thinking pleased her as much as it pleased
scott).
> i can't find this info anywhere, but if it were a real appraisal, like
you'd
> need for a rider on your homeowner's insurance, there would be a written
form.
I'm betting this was an "off the cuff" appraisal. As you said, a real
appraisal would result in a written form with that information on it. (Then
again, maybe there is one; but it seems as if it would've been presented
when the jewelry store woman testified.) Before I learned about "real
appraisals", I showed a jeweler my wedding/engagement rings (still on my
finger), and asked, "How much do you think these are worth?" He said, "I
figure they're worth about what you paid for them." That kinda told me I
was supposed to *pay him money* if I really wanted to know their value. (I
knew that the set had cost about $65 in the Navy Exchange, so we're not
talking "Laci Peterson jewelry" here.)
Linda