Laci Peterson: the Blue Tarp?
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
by the Nat'l Inquirer after that blue tarp was found in SF Bay?
"Another source close to the case told The Enquirer:
"One neighbor says they may have seen Scott carrying
something wrapped up in a tarp, and putting it in his truck."
Apparently, KTVU's picked this up as well and put it
on their site (without mentioning the Enquirer). Scott's
statement is:
"In the back of my truck, I put a couple big umbrellas,"
Peterson said. "It had started to rain, I took them to storage."
No mention of any "blue tarp."
http://www.ktvu.com/news/1980985/detail.html (updated Feb 16)
Anybody know anything about this? Is the tabloid tail
wagging the news TV dog? Is this more bunk like the
"dog-walking" sightings?
RstJ
Kris Baker
"Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)" <robert...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:ZhD4a.174489$Ec4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> Anybody know anything about this? Is the tabloid tail
> wagging the news TV dog? Is this more bunk like the
> "dog-walking" sightings?
>
> RstJ
It's nothing new....
Aired January 29, 2003 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND
MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "GOOD MORNING AMERICA")
SCOTT PETERSON, LACI PETERSON'S HUSBAND: The first word that comes to
mind is, you know, glorious. I mean, we took care of each other very
well. She was amazing. Is amazing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, is Scott Peterson telling all?
(snip)
CALLER: Hello. I have a question for Ted Rowlands.
KING: Sure.
CALLER: I was wanting to ask, What did Scott tell you about the
neighbors seeing him load a large object in his truck in a blue tarp the
morning Laci disappeared?
ROWLANDS: He said that, indeed, he was loading up two eight-foot in
diameter umbrellas, large umbrellas in the back of his truck, on the
morning of Christmas Eve, and that he had them wrapped in a blue tarp
and that is what the neighbors saw.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Kris Baker"
> It's nothing new....
Thanks for the info. I'm guessing that the blue tarp and
the umbrellas turned up later at his storage locker or
maybe somewhere else? And that the blue tarp found
in the bay turned out to be nothing special.
I know. I'm probably asking a bunch of questions that
the answers are all pretty well known. I'm a total rookie
on this one.
RstJ
Kris Baker
>
> "Kris Baker"
> > It's nothing new....
>
> Thanks for the info. I'm guessing that the blue tarp and
> the umbrellas turned up later at his storage locker or
> maybe somewhere else? And that the blue tarp found
> in the bay turned out to be nothing special.
>
> I know. I'm probably asking a bunch of questions that
> the answers are all pretty well known. I'm a total rookie
> on this one.
>
> RstJ
I think what happened is the neighbor reported seeing
the umbrellas carried out in a common blue tarp, a
common blue tarp was found in the Bay, and then
Scott admits he used a blue tarp to carry away the
umbrellas.
The question we all have: how many umbrellas did
they have? Some were taken away from the patio
right after the crime investigation began, and yet
Scott had some in storage (?)....
Nothing's been said about them turning up. I'm
sure, if they had, one of Scott's former attorneys
(does he even have one right now) would have made
a big deal about it.
Kris
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:nJE4a.203$%V4.22...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
So, he admits to taking some umbrellas away to...well,
somewhere...and to wrapping them in a blue tarp, but
nobody knows if those umbrellas were actually found
or if the blue tarp was found with them? Has anyone
ever asked him about where this stuff ended up and is
there any record of his answer (if any)?
Sounds pretty bizarre. If that tarp was never found, I can
see why the police would be very interested in a blue tarp
fished out of SF Bay. I've read they they took it away for
testing, but nothing about what (if anything) they discovered.
So, I guess the theory would be that he killed his wife,
took her body out in the tarp, headed over to Berkeley
with his boat, and dumped her body in the bay. Sounds like
a helluva lot of effort/risk. I don't know a lot about the area
around Modesto, but I do know the roads over to Berkeley,
and both 580 and 24 go through some low hills with lots
of winding roads leading off them. Seems like a better place
to dump a body than going to a public marina like Berkeley,
going out in the water in full view of lots of houses near the shore,
and dumping a body over the side in the middle of the day.
Not to mention launching your boat, getting the body into it,
etc. Any witnesses that place him there, or saw him in his boat?
I'm not saying he's guilty. Just theorizing. But wouldn't it make
a lot more sense to get rid of the body as quickly as possible and
only then head over to Berkeley, get some receipts, and head back?
Seems pointlessly dangerous to drive 90 miles on heavy traffic
highways, through major urban centers, to a very public marina,
all in order to get rid of a body that could be far more easily hidden
much closer to home.
My personal view is that he's innocent unless the police can produce
evidence proving him guilty. But I can't help speculating. I mean,
that's what's fascinating about unsolved cases.
RstJ
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So, he admits to taking some umbrellas away to...well,
>somewhere...and to wrapping them in a blue tarp, but
>nobody knows if those umbrellas were actually found
>or if the blue tarp was found with them? Has anyone
>ever asked him about where this stuff ended up and is
>there any record of his answer (if any)?
That's something we are all wondering--did the police in fact find
those umbrellas where Scott said he took them (logically, to his
storeroom/office)? So far, the police are not saying.
>Sounds pretty bizarre. If that tarp was never found, I can
>see why the police would be very interested in a blue tarp
>fished out of SF Bay. I've read they they took it away for
>testing, but nothing about what (if anything) they discovered.
Again, the police are releasing nothing about any findings on the blue
tarp recovered from the marina.
>So, I guess the theory would be that he killed his wife,
>took her body out in the tarp, headed over to Berkeley
>with his boat, and dumped her body in the bay. Sounds like
>a helluva lot of effort/risk. I don't know a lot about the area
>around Modesto, but I do know the roads over to Berkeley,
>and both 580 and 24 go through some low hills with lots
>of winding roads leading off them. Seems like a better place
>to dump a body than going to a public marina like Berkeley,
>going out in the water in full view of lots of houses near the shore,
>and dumping a body over the side in the middle of the day.
>Not to mention launching your boat, getting the body into it,
>etc. Any witnesses that place him there, or saw him in his boat?
A lot of posters here, maybe even the majority, do not believe that
Laci's body is in the marina, for exactly the reasons you state. Many
believe, if Scott did it, that he disposed of her body in some
out-of-the-way place far from the marina.
As far as I know, the only official word out of the police dept., is
that so far, no witnesses have come forward to say they saw Scott at
the marina that day.
>I'm not saying he's guilty. Just theorizing. But wouldn't it make
>a lot more sense to get rid of the body as quickly as possible and
>only then head over to Berkeley, get some receipts, and head back?
>Seems pointlessly dangerous to drive 90 miles on heavy traffic
>highways, through major urban centers, to a very public marina,
>all in order to get rid of a body that could be far more easily hidden
>much closer to home.
Agreed. I think most of us closely following this case pretty much
agree with what you say. In fact, several (including myself) believe
that Scott killed Laci sometime during the evening/night of the 23rd,
and disposed of her body before he ever left for the marina the
morning of the 24th.
>My personal view is that he's innocent unless the police can produce
>evidence proving him guilty. But I can't help speculating. I mean,
>that's what's fascinating about unsolved cases.
>
>RstJ
You're in the right place. That's what we do here.
--pony
Maggie
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So, he admits to taking some umbrellas away to...well,
>somewhere...and to wrapping them in a blue tarp, but
>nobody knows if those umbrellas were actually found
>or if the blue tarp was found with them? Has anyone
>ever asked him about where this stuff ended up and is
>there any record of his answer (if any)?
pony said:
That's something we are all wondering--did the police in fact find
those umbrellas where Scott said he took them (logically, to his
storeroom/office)? So far, the police are not saying.
***Seems pretty clear the cops *did* find the umbrellas in the storeroom. Why
would they remove umbrellas from the house?
Maggie
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."--Winston
Churchill
Lady Taker
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:nJE4a.203$%V4.22...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> wrote in message news:srE4a.173900$vm2.130981@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "Kris Baker"
> > > It's nothing new....
> >
> > Thanks for the info. I'm guessing that the blue tarp and
> > the umbrellas turned up later at his storage locker or
> > maybe somewhere else? And that the blue tarp found
> > in the bay turned out to be nothing special.
> >
> > I know. I'm probably asking a bunch of questions that
> > the answers are all pretty well known. I'm a total rookie
> > on this one.
> >
> > RstJ
>
> I think what happened is the neighbor reported seeing
> the umbrellas carried out in a common blue tarp, a
> common blue tarp was found in the Bay, and then
> Scott admits he used a blue tarp to carry away the
> umbrellas.
>
> The question we all have: how many umbrellas did
> they have? Some were taken away from the patio
> right after the crime investigation began, and yet
> Scott had some in storage (?)....
After seeing the size of their pool, I don't have any problem buying into
them owning multiple umbrellas at *all*. That pool looked to be almost the
same size of the house.
--
Giselle
ponyduck
wrote:
><< On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:11:03 GMT, "Robert St. James \(el corazon del
>demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So, he admits to taking some umbrellas away to...well,
>>somewhere...and to wrapping them in a blue tarp, but
>>nobody knows if those umbrellas were actually found
>>or if the blue tarp was found with them? Has anyone
>>ever asked him about where this stuff ended up and is
>>there any record of his answer (if any)?
>
>pony said:
>That's something we are all wondering--did the police in fact find
>those umbrellas where Scott said he took them (logically, to his
>storeroom/office)? So far, the police are not saying.
>
>***Seems pretty clear the cops *did* find the umbrellas in the storeroom. Why
>would they remove umbrellas from the house?
>
>
>Maggie
Maybe I'm dense here, but I don't quite understand what you mean. Why
is it clear that police *did* find umbrellas in the storeroom? My
impression of the story is that a neighbor reported seeing Scott
loading something into his truck early that morning--Scott's
explanation was that they were umbrellas that he was taking for
storage--and that's it. I don't remember reading anything else about
it, whether police verified or refuted his claim, whether they found
the umbrellas in question or not. But maybe I missed it.
I agree, they shouldn't have found the umbrellas at his house (since
he said he took them away), but I do remember reading something about
police taking an umbrella *cover* from the house. I never heard any
follow-up on that either.
Sorry if I'm just not seeing something obvious.
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<ponyduck> <...>
> A lot of posters here, maybe even the majority, do not believe that
> Laci's body is in the marina, for exactly the reasons you state. Many
> believe, if Scott did it, that he disposed of her body in some
> out-of-the-way place far from the marina.
>
> As far as I know, the only official word out of the police dept., is
> that so far, no witnesses have come forward to say they saw Scott at
> the marina that day.
Which is rather odd, because you'd think that at least the guy
he got the receipt from would confirm it. Unless the receipt
was from some automated machine. I know the marina reasonably
well, but I don't know it in that kind of detail. I read that the receipt
was considered authentic but it didn't have entry/exit times on it.
Presumably the police thought it was credible enough that he was
there that they searched the water. Can't help but see the weird
parallel's to Laci's "dog-walking." She goes out to walk the dog,
but nobody sees her. Dog comes home with a muddy leash. Scott
goes fishing, has a receipt to prove he was there, but nobody actually
sees him in the boat. Tres weird.
>
> >I'm not saying he's guilty. Just theorizing. But wouldn't it make
> >a lot more sense to get rid of the body as quickly as possible and
> >only then head over to Berkeley, get some receipts, and head back?
> >Seems pointlessly dangerous to drive 90 miles on heavy traffic
> >highways, through major urban centers, to a very public marina,
> >all in order to get rid of a body that could be far more easily hidden
> >much closer to home.
>
> Agreed. I think most of us closely following this case pretty much
> agree with what you say. In fact, several (including myself) believe
> that Scott killed Laci sometime during the evening/night of the 23rd,
> and disposed of her body before he ever left for the marina the
> morning of the 24th.
Innocent or guilty, it was definitely a busy day for him. He takes
umbrellas to his office, does some work, takes a pretty long drive
to go fishing, then comes back. <shrug>. Maybe he just didn't want
to get dragged around doing last-minute Xmas shopping :).
If he's innocent, the circumstances really came together in a bad
way for him. And cheating on a pregnant wife certainly came back
to haunt him. Of course, if he's guilty, that's probably the least of
his concerns right now. I don't know whether to feel sorry for the
guy because he's getting run over by the same train that hit Condit,
or amazed that he's still at liberty on the no body, no witnesses, no
case ticket.
A month ago I would have said he's probably guilty and as soon
as they find a body or a weapon, they'll arrest him. But it's going
on two months now, and nada. It's certainly not unknown for people
to just vanish (the Condit case being the eerie parallel) and only
turn up months, even years later. The longer he stays free, the more
I believe that he's probably innocent, because otherwise I'd have
to believe that he's a criminal mastermind or really lucky.
On the twisted side, the bigger this case gets, the more $$$ he
can get for a "My Story" kind of book. Maybe if he gets that far,
he'll say whether those umbrellas and that blue tarp were ever
found.
RstJ
Maggie
>demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>So, he admits to taking some umbrellas away to...well,
>>somewhere...and to wrapping them in a blue tarp, but
>>nobody knows if those umbrellas were actually found
>>or if the blue tarp was found with them? Has anyone
>>ever asked him about where this stuff ended up and is
>>there any record of his answer (if any)?
>
>pony said:
>That's something we are all wondering--did the police in fact find
>those umbrellas where Scott said he took them (logically, to his
>storeroom/office)? So far, the police are not saying.
>
>***Seems pretty clear the cops *did* find the umbrellas in the storeroom. Why
>would they remove umbrellas from the house?
pony said:
Maybe I'm dense here, but I don't quite understand what you mean. Why
is it clear that police *did* find umbrellas in the storeroom? My
impression of the story is that a neighbor reported seeing Scott
loading something into his truck early that morning--Scott's
explanation was that they were umbrellas that he was taking for
storage--and that's it. I don't remember reading anything else about
it, whether police verified or refuted his claim, whether they found
the umbrellas in question or not. But maybe I missed it.
I agree, they shouldn't have found the umbrellas at his house (since
he said he took them away), but I do remember reading something about
police taking an umbrella *cover* from the house. I never heard any
follow-up on that either.
Sorry if I'm just not seeing something obvious.
>>
***Hi pony. It's been reported here and elsewhere that the cops took two
market-type umbrellas into custody during one of their initial searches. I
feel sure they were removed from the warehouse to be checked for forensics--why
would the police take an umbrella from the house?
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<...>
> I agree, they shouldn't have found the umbrellas at his house (since
> he said he took them away), but I do remember reading something about
> police taking an umbrella *cover* from the house. I never heard any
> follow-up on that either.
>
> Sorry if I'm just not seeing something obvious.
> >>
>
> ***Hi pony. It's been reported here and elsewhere that the cops took two
> market-type umbrellas into custody during one of their initial searches. I
> feel sure they were removed from the warehouse to be checked for forensics--why
> would the police take an umbrella from the house?
>
>
> Maggie
I'm reading that it was the house where they found them:
Police hauled patio umbrellas from the house, as evidence.
San Francisco Chronicle, 28 Dec 02, thanks to Patty:
"> Modesto police and the FBI searched the
> Peterson home Thursday night and Friday.
> They removed items including two computers
> and patio umbrellas, and towed the couple's
> sport utility vehicle and pickup truck."
And no mention of any actual umbrellas or blue tarp. Of course,
I've also read that it was only the umbrella covers.
But so far, as regards the blue tarp, I've only read that
a neighbor saw Scott load something in a blue tarp into
his truck (which he confirms) and that a blue tarp was
found in SF Bay. No mention that any blue tarp was found
anywhere else.
I'm not sure what to make of all the umbrellas.
RstJ
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><ponyduck> <...>
>> As far as I know, the only official word out of the police dept., is
>> that so far, no witnesses have come forward to say they saw Scott at
>> the marina that day.
>
>Which is rather odd, because you'd think that at least the guy
>he got the receipt from would confirm it. Unless the receipt
>was from some automated machine. I know the marina reasonably
>well, but I don't know it in that kind of detail. I read that the receipt
>was considered authentic but it didn't have entry/exit times on it.
>Presumably the police thought it was credible enough that he was
>there that they searched the water.
The reports have said that the marina receipt came from an automated
machine. As far as any times printed on the receipt, I have heard a
few conflicting reports: some reports said that there was no
time/date stamp on the receipt at all; other reports said it had a
date stamp only; still other reports were that it had a time of
11:59am stamped on it (which would be the entry time as no means exist
to tell exit time--apparently you pay & get a receipt to get in, then
just leave whenever you want). I don't know which report is accurate.
I tend to think that the 11:59am stamp *is* there--it just seems odd
that that number would have been pulled out of thin air if it didn't
exist.
>Innocent or guilty, it was definitely a busy day for him. He takes
>umbrellas to his office, does some work, takes a pretty long drive
>to go fishing, then comes back. <shrug>. Maybe he just didn't want
>to get dragged around doing last-minute Xmas shopping :).
No kidding--and don't forget, he was expected at the in-laws for
dinner at six that evening.
I'm suspicious of the spur-of-the-moment fishing trip story. To me,
it seems like going so far away, to a place you've never been before,
and to fish for sturgeon no less, would have been something one would
plan a little more for--you know, make it a slightly bigger deal: pack
a lunch, have bait & equipment ready the night before, mention it to
the sister-in-law the night before when he saw her, get a real early
start, etc. I don't know, just doesn't sound right to me. If he had
said that he decided spur-of-the-moment to try out his boat by running
down to a nearby lake, just to make sure it didn't leak, to relax a
bit, maybe throw a few hooks--well, that wouldn't seem so weird. The
only reason I can come up with as to why he went to the marina, is
because he figured it would look better as an alibi, if he was
*really* far from home at the alleged time of Laci's disappearance.
>A month ago I would have said he's probably guilty and as soon
>as they find a body or a weapon, they'll arrest him. But it's going
>on two months now, and nada. It's certainly not unknown for people
>to just vanish (the Condit case being the eerie parallel) and only
>turn up months, even years later. The longer he stays free, the more
>I believe that he's probably innocent, because otherwise I'd have
>to believe that he's a criminal mastermind or really lucky.
I don't know--I've always thought that it shouldn't be that hard to
get away with murder, as long as you were fairly intelligent, very
careful, and had just normal amount of luck on your side.
>On the twisted side, the bigger this case gets, the more $$$ he
>can get for a "My Story" kind of book. Maybe if he gets that far,
>he'll say whether those umbrellas and that blue tarp were ever
>found.
>
>RstJ
About that blue tarp--what about this? Scott kills Laci, wraps her
body in the blue tarp and puts it in the truck. He drives to some
obscure place and dumps the body, but keeps the tarp since it could
conceivably be tied to him. He goes to the marina, taking the blue
tarp, and while there, throws it in the water. He knows he couldn't
leave the tarp w/Laci's body, because it might tie him to the crime.
And he can't take it home again, afraid it might contain trace
evidence of Laci's body (blood, fluids, etc.). Disposing of it in the
water would be the best thing: first, it might never be found (which
is probably what he was hoping), but if it was, the water would have
washed away any trace evidence.
--pony
Maggie
> market-type umbrellas into custody during one of their initial searches. I
> feel sure they were removed from the warehouse to be checked for
forensics--why
> would the police take an umbrella from the house?
>
>
> Maggie
rstj said:
I'm reading that it was the house where they found them:
Police hauled patio umbrellas from the house, as evidence.
San Francisco Chronicle, 28 Dec 02, thanks to Patty:
"> Modesto police and the FBI searched the
> Peterson home Thursday night and Friday.
> They removed items including two computers
> and patio umbrellas, and towed the couple's
> sport utility vehicle and pickup truck." >>
***Yes, I *know* several news organizations reported that the umbrellas were
taken from the house. What I am saying is that I feel sure that is
*wrong*--that they were actually taken from the warehouse. Because. First.
Why would the cops take two umbrellas from the house? Second. Why would Scott
mention the umbrellas on his TV interviews and neglect to say that he had
returned them to the house, if those umbrellas were actually taken from the
house by the police?
ponyduck
wrote:
>maggie said:
>>***Seems pretty clear the cops *did* find the umbrellas in the storeroom. Why
>>would they remove umbrellas from the house?
>
>pony said:
>Maybe I'm dense here, but I don't quite understand what you mean. Why
>is it clear that police *did* find umbrellas in the storeroom? My
>impression of the story is that a neighbor reported seeing Scott
>loading something into his truck early that morning--Scott's
>explanation was that they were umbrellas that he was taking for
>storage--and that's it. I don't remember reading anything else about
>it, whether police verified or refuted his claim, whether they found
>the umbrellas in question or not. But maybe I missed it.
>
>***Hi pony. It's been reported here and elsewhere that the cops took two
>market-type umbrellas into custody during one of their initial searches. I
>feel sure they were removed from the warehouse to be checked for forensics--why
>would the police take an umbrella from the house?
>
>
>Maggie
Okay--that's what I wanted. Thanks, Maggie. I don't know if I read
that about the cops finding two market-type umbrellas and just forgot,
or if I missed it entirely. (I probably just forgot--my mind gets so
loaded up with this info, sometimes some of it just falls out.)
I wonder if the police found the two umbrellas, but not the blue tarp.
I have a new theory about that tarp (outlined in another post in this
thread), which makes me believe that the tarp the cops found in the
marina just might be Scott's.
--pony
Maggie
>>***Seems pretty clear the cops *did* find the umbrellas in the storeroom.
Why
>>would they remove umbrellas from the house?
>
>pony said:
>Maybe I'm dense here, but I don't quite understand what you mean. Why
>is it clear that police *did* find umbrellas in the storeroom? My
>impression of the story is that a neighbor reported seeing Scott
>loading something into his truck early that morning--Scott's
>explanation was that they were umbrellas that he was taking for
>storage--and that's it. I don't remember reading anything else about
>it, whether police verified or refuted his claim, whether they found
>the umbrellas in question or not. But maybe I missed it.
maggie said:
>***Hi pony. It's been reported here and elsewhere that the cops took two
>market-type umbrellas into custody during one of their initial searches. I
>feel sure they were removed from the warehouse to be checked for
forensics--why
>would the police take an umbrella from the house?
pony said:
Okay--that's what I wanted. Thanks, Maggie. I don't know if I read
that about the cops finding two market-type umbrellas and just forgot,
or if I missed it entirely. (I probably just forgot--my mind gets so
loaded up with this info, sometimes some of it just falls out.)
I wonder if the police found the two umbrellas, but not the blue tarp.
I have a new theory about that tarp (outlined in another post in this
thread), which makes me believe that the tarp the cops found in the
marina just might be Scott's.
>>
***It's possible and god knows Scott's stupid enough to have done it, but it's
hard for me to believe he would have copped to wrapping the umbrellas in a tarp
if he'd been unable to come up with one to give the police.
ponyduck
wrote:
>***Yes, I *know* several news organizations reported that the umbrellas were
>taken from the house. What I am saying is that I feel sure that is
>*wrong*--that they were actually taken from the warehouse. Because. First.
>Why would the cops take two umbrellas from the house? Second. Why would Scott
>mention the umbrellas on his TV interviews and neglect to say that he had
>returned them to the house, if those umbrellas were actually taken from the
>house by the police?
>
>
>Maggie
I see what you are saying, and I tend to agree. However, to address
your two reasons:
First: It could be that the police *did* find the two umbrellas at
the house, and took them to maintain chain-of-custody or whatever that
is. It would show that Scott did *not* take them away as he said.
Second: Scott has already tripped up in his TV interviews, like
saying he told the police that very first night about his affair
w/Amber, when in fact he didn't.
I just wish this whole thing would wrap up neatly real soon, for every
reason.
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<ponyduck> <...>
> The reports have said that the marina receipt came from an automated
> machine. As far as any times printed on the receipt, I have heard a
> few conflicting reports: some reports said that there was no
> time/date stamp on the receipt at all; other reports said it had a
> date stamp only; still other reports were that it had a time of
> 11:59am stamped on it (which would be the entry time as no means exist
> to tell exit time--apparently you pay & get a receipt to get in, then
> just leave whenever you want). I don't know which report is accurate.
> I tend to think that the 11:59am stamp *is* there--it just seems odd
> that that number would have been pulled out of thin air if it didn't
> exist.
True. Good thing he had that receipt since there doesn't seem
to be any other proof he was there. Doesn't really point to his
guilt or innocence, I suppose. But does establish that he in fact
went there. Of course (cue spooky music) maybe he *wanted*
to have proof. Which is bizarre if that's where he dumped the
tarp.
>
> >Innocent or guilty, it was definitely a busy day for him. He takes
> >umbrellas to his office, does some work, takes a pretty long drive
> >to go fishing, then comes back. <shrug>. Maybe he just didn't want
> >to get dragged around doing last-minute Xmas shopping :).
>
> No kidding--and don't forget, he was expected at the in-laws for
> dinner at six that evening.
<laugh> Maybe he didn't want to go *there* either! The old
spur of the moment fishing trip works for lots of things you
might want to avoid.
>
> I'm suspicious of the spur-of-the-moment fishing trip story. To me,
> it seems like going so far away, to a place you've never been before,
> and to fish for sturgeon no less, would have been something one would
> plan a little more for--you know, make it a slightly bigger deal: pack
> a lunch, have bait & equipment ready the night before, mention it to
> the sister-in-law the night before when he saw her, get a real early
> start, etc. I don't know, just doesn't sound right to me. If he had
> said that he decided spur-of-the-moment to try out his boat by running
> down to a nearby lake, just to make sure it didn't leak, to relax a
> bit, maybe throw a few hooks--well, that wouldn't seem so weird. The
> only reason I can come up with as to why he went to the marina, is
> because he figured it would look better as an alibi, if he was
> *really* far from home at the alleged time of Laci's disappearance.
Yeah, it does seem a little strange, although strange behavior in
and of itself doesn't prove much of anything. Maybe he just felt
like bailing out to somewhere new. The marina is pretty nice,
has a world-class view, and is right off I-80. It's a nice drive
over there too. Sometimes fishing trips are just an excuse to
go out on the water and float around. Ok, I know, that sounds
pretty lame. Spur of the moment fishing trips on the same day
that your wife goes missing probably isn't going to make the
top ten list of ways to establish an alibi after murdering your wife.
<...>
> I don't know--I've always thought that it shouldn't be that hard to
> get away with murder, as long as you were fairly intelligent, very
> careful, and had just normal amount of luck on your side.
Maybe if you're killing complete strangers, but do you really
think it would be that easy to kill your wife and get away with
it, knowing that you would be the first suspect? Hell, I don't know,
maybe he didn't figure that a missing persons report around
Xmas wouldn't get that much attention. You know, a quick look
around by a detective followed by a "give us a call if she shows
up." But if that was the plan, it obviously didn't work so well.
>
> >On the twisted side, the bigger this case gets, the more $$$ he
> >can get for a "My Story" kind of book. Maybe if he gets that far,
> >he'll say whether those umbrellas and that blue tarp were ever
> >found.
> >
> >RstJ
>
> About that blue tarp--what about this? Scott kills Laci, wraps her
> body in the blue tarp and puts it in the truck. He drives to some
> obscure place and dumps the body, but keeps the tarp since it could
> conceivably be tied to him. He goes to the marina, taking the blue
> tarp, and while there, throws it in the water. He knows he couldn't
> leave the tarp w/Laci's body, because it might tie him to the crime.
> And he can't take it home again, afraid it might contain trace
> evidence of Laci's body (blood, fluids, etc.). Disposing of it in the
> water would be the best thing: first, it might never be found (which
> is probably what he was hoping), but if it was, the water would have
> washed away any trace evidence.
>
> --pony
I guess, but why draw attention to the very place where you
left the tarp? If he could hide the body so effectively, how much
more difficult could it be to hide a blue tarp? Sure, maybe he
figured that the water would wash any trace evidence off,
but if he was that worried about the tarp, you'd think he'd hide
it someone other than the place he's going to use for his alibi,
a place that is bound to be searched thoroughly. Ok, so I'm
assuming that he'd do everything in a 100% logical manner,
which is never true of any crime. He might (as I've said above)
never have figured that a missing persons report would be such a
big deal or that there would ever be a water search. I still
wonder how he explained (if he did) what happened to the
blue tarp if it didn't turn up anywhere. Who knows, maybe he
had more than one, they're not all that uncommon. He may have
had a few down at his office and, voila! problem solved, especially
if the marina tarp can't be traced to him.
RstJ
tiny dancer
That's where I heard the umbrellas came from too, the house.
td
>
>
>
>
>
>
ponyduck
wrote:
>>pony said:
>I wonder if the police found the two umbrellas, but not the blue tarp.
>I have a new theory about that tarp (outlined in another post in this
>thread), which makes me believe that the tarp the cops found in the
>marina just might be Scott's.
> >>
>
>***It's possible and god knows Scott's stupid enough to have done it, but it's
>hard for me to believe he would have copped to wrapping the umbrellas in a tarp
>if he'd been unable to come up with one to give the police.
>
>Maggie
But!--I think Scott probably had no intention of mentioning the tarp
or the umbrellas to the police at all, except the neighbor saw him
carrying something in a blue tarp that morning (of course, he hadn't
planned on being seen). So he was stuck, and had to account for it
somehow.
I really would like to know what the police know regarding these
umbrellas and the blue tarp. If they haven't found the blue tarp, it
could very well be one of the main reasons they suspect Scott.
--pony
BethF
> I guess, but why draw attention to the very place where you
> left the tarp? If he could hide the body so effectively, how much
> more difficult could it be to hide a blue tarp? Sure, maybe he
> figured that the water would wash any trace evidence off,
> but if he was that worried about the tarp, you'd think he'd hide
> it someone other than the place he's going to use for his alibi,
> a place that is bound to be searched thoroughly. Ok, so I'm
> assuming that he'd do everything in a 100% logical manner,
> which is never true of any crime. He might (as I've said above)
> never have figured that a missing persons report would be such a
> big deal or that there would ever be a water search. I still
> wonder how he explained (if he did) what happened to the
> blue tarp if it didn't turn up anywhere. Who knows, maybe he
> had more than one, they're not all that uncommon. He may have
> had a few down at his office and, voila! problem solved, especially
> if the marina tarp can't be traced to him.
I am suspecting that the tarp found in the water is unrelated. How many
boats have tarps on them?
tiny dancer
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53bca7....@news.wf.net...
Sounds reasonable to me, and of course he didn't know any of the neighbors
had seen him.
td
Lady Taker
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53d0f2....@news.wf.net...
I hate to mention this but tarps aren't exactly a rare item. I happen to
own three blue ones, two brown ones and a HUGE silver one. I could easily
dispose of one of the blue or brown ones and still have something to give to
the cops if they asked me to account for it.
--
Giselle
Lady Taker
"BethF" <da...@alaska.com> wrote in message
news:v57kve...@corp.supernews.com...
Just a guess: All of them except one?
:)
Tarps are not a rarity.
--
Giselle
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> > But so far, as regards the blue tarp, I've only read that
> > a neighbor saw Scott load something in a blue tarp into
> > his truck (which he confirms) and that a blue tarp was
> > found in SF Bay. No mention that any blue tarp was found
> > anywhere else.
> >
> > I'm not sure what to make of all the umbrellas.
> >
> > RstJ
>
>
> That's where I heard the umbrellas came from too, the house.
>
> td
I've heard two versions: one, they took umbrellas, and the
other that they just took umbrella covers. If they took some
umbrellas, it would make sense that they took them from
the warehouse rather than the house, but I don't know what to
think. Only that it's odd they mention finding the umbrellas,
but don't have anything to say about finding a blue tarp. So
far, the only blue tarp (or tarps) is the one the neighbor saw
and the one fished out of the marina waters. No one's saying
if they're one and the same. If they aren't, then we have a missing
blue tarp that nobody's talking about.
RstJ
Maggie
>I wonder if the police found the two umbrellas, but not the blue tarp.
>I have a new theory about that tarp (outlined in another post in this
>thread), which makes me believe that the tarp the cops found in the
>marina just might be Scott's.
> >>
>
>***It's possible and god knows Scott's stupid enough to have done it, but it's
>hard for me to believe he would have copped to wrapping the umbrellas in a
tarp
>if he'd been unable to come up with one to give the police.
>
>Maggie
pony said:
But!--I think Scott probably had no intention of mentioning the tarp
or the umbrellas to the police at all, except the neighbor saw him
carrying something in a blue tarp that morning (of course, he hadn't
planned on being seen). So he was stuck, and had to account for it
somehow.
I really would like to know what the police know regarding these
umbrellas and the blue tarp. If they haven't found the blue tarp, it
could very well be one of the main reasons they suspect Scott.
>>
***But!--why would Scott say the umbrellas were wrapped in a tarp at all? Why
not (if he knows he has no tarp to show the cops) say the neighbor saw him
putting a couple of umbrellas into the truck? (And, of course, I realize we're
dealing with the fact that Scott seems to say lots of stupid things, so maybe
he would have said he had a tarp when he didn't.)
And damn these close-mouthed police departments.
Maggie
bethf said:
I am suspecting that the tarp found in the water is unrelated. How many
boats have tarps on them?
>>
***Pretty much all of them's, my guess. Unless Scott cannot come up with a
blue tarp, he's home free on the one the cops found--no way it can be tied to
him. They're a dime a dozen around marinas.
Kris Baker
"Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
news:v57l3sk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> I hate to mention this but tarps aren't exactly a rare item. I
> happen to own three blue ones, two brown ones and a HUGE
> silver one. I could easily dispose of one of the blue or
> brown ones and still have something to give to
> the cops if they asked me to account for it.
> --
> Giselle
Scott doesn't have to account for the tarp; he has to account
for the umbrellas. He can't have all the umbrellas remaining on
the patio, after he's claimed to have hauled them to storage.
But....the tarp could be a wealth of clues, particularly if
he used duct or other strong tape to secure everything.
Kris
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53d0f2....@news.wf.net...
That must have been one awkward conversation:
Police: "A neighbor saw you take something out of your
house wrapped in a blue tarp.":
Scott: "Oh yeah, I was moving some umbrellas."
Police: "In a blue tarp?"
Scott: "Sure."
Police: "So, where is this blue tarp?"
Scott: "At my office."
Police: "Oh...ok...we didn't find it."
Scott: "Well, that's where I put it..."
Of course, it could also have ended
Police:"That would be the blue tarp we found at your office."
Scott: "Of course. That's what I said."
Police: "We're going to have to hold that as evidence."
Scott: "Go right ahead."
And so on. I wish there was some solid news about this.
Because right now it seems like it vanished, and the police
aren't particularly interested in finding it, which is hard to
believe.
RstJ
Lady Taker
>
> "Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
> news:v57l3sk...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > I hate to mention this but tarps aren't exactly a rare item. I
> > happen to own three blue ones, two brown ones and a HUGE
> > silver one. I could easily dispose of one of the blue or
> > brown ones and still have something to give to
> > the cops if they asked me to account for it.
> > --
> > Giselle
>
> Scott doesn't have to account for the tarp;
Hey, you have don't tell *me* that. Personally, I sense another JonBenet
pineapple bits/useless-bit-of-information fascination coming on...
---
Giselle
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> bethf said:
> I am suspecting that the tarp found in the water is unrelated. How many
> boats have tarps on them?
> >>
>
> ***Pretty much all of them's, my guess. Unless Scott cannot come up with a
> blue tarp, he's home free on the one the cops found--no way it can be tied to
> him. They're a dime a dozen around marinas.
>
>
> Maggie
Probably a little more expensive than that, but yeah, finding
a blue tarp in the water near a marina is hardly exciting if
it can't be tied to either of the Petersons. What I can't find
any information on is whether Scott in fact produced any
blue tarp. If he did, then it's no big issue. But why wouldn't
someone have mentioned that given that the suspicion is
that's how he smuggle his wife's body out of the house?
RstJ
Maggie
news:v57l3sk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> I hate to mention this but tarps aren't exactly a rare item. I
> happen to own three blue ones, two brown ones and a HUGE
> silver one. I could easily dispose of one of the blue or
> brown ones and still have something to give to
> the cops if they asked me to account for it.
> --
> Giselle
kris said:
Scott doesn't have to account for the tarp; he has to account
for the umbrellas. He can't have all the umbrellas remaining on
the patio, after he's claimed to have hauled them to storage.
But....the tarp could be a wealth of clues, particularly if
he used duct or other strong tape to secure everything.
>>
***Duct tape residue on a tarp means nothing. Now, if Laci's DNA is found
stuck to that duct tape, that *might* mean something. OTOH, Scott could just
say that Laci had used the tarp for some home repair/remodelling project and
that would account for her skin cells, mucous or even blood on it.
And, FWIW, even if the umbrellas had been found at his house (and I don't
believe they were), it's easy enough for Scott to say, "Yes, damn it. In my
zeal to get out to the marina, I forgot to take them into the warehouse, so I
just returned them to the patio when I arrived home that night." IMO, the only
way Scott could really be in trouble is if he is unable to come up with that
tarp that the umbrellas were supposedly wrapped in.
ponyduck
wrote:
But if Scott is unable to produce a blue tarp at all, then he's in
trouble, since a witness saw him with one.
If he *was* able to produce a blue tarp, then I would make your
argument about tarps being commonplace. He had a couple, so he could
use one to wrap Laci's body, and still have one to produce for the
police.
I'm getting fixated on this darn blue tarp--I want to know *so bad* if
Scott produced one for the police.
--pony
Maggie
> I am suspecting that the tarp found in the water is unrelated. How many
> boats have tarps on them?
> >>
>
> ***Pretty much all of them's, my guess. Unless Scott cannot come up with a
> blue tarp, he's home free on the one the cops found--no way it can be tied to
> him. They're a dime a dozen around marinas.
>
>
> Maggie
Rstj said:
Probably a little more expensive than that, but yeah, finding
a blue tarp in the water near a marina is hardly exciting if
it can't be tied to either of the Petersons. What I can't find
any information on is whether Scott in fact produced any
blue tarp. If he did, then it's no big issue. But why wouldn't
someone have mentioned that given that the suspicion is
that's how he smuggle his wife's body out of the house?
>>
***I suspect, Robert, that we're waaaaaaayyy ahead of most reporters on this
story. The likely reason that no one has mentioned the tarp (that we know of)
is that no reporter has thought to ask, or make it an issue. Seems like a very
important question to me, too.
Lady Taker
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53d7bc....@news.wf.net...
How about this, "I don't know what happened to it. I was taking it back home
and it must have blown out of the back of the truck" ?
Or he could say it tore when he used it for the umbrellas so he threw it
out. I'm sure the contents of any dumpster were long gone before they
started looking for that tarp. Do we know when the neighbor actually spoke
up about this?
--
Giselle
ponyduck
wrote:
>***But!--why would Scott say the umbrellas were wrapped in a tarp at all? Why
>not (if he knows he has no tarp to show the cops) say the neighbor saw him
>putting a couple of umbrellas into the truck? (And, of course, I realize we're
>dealing with the fact that Scott seems to say lots of stupid things, so maybe
>he would have said he had a tarp when he didn't.)
>
>And damn these close-mouthed police departments.
>
>Maggie
I could be mistaken, but my impression is that the police found out
about the tarp *from the neighbor who saw him* putting it in his
truck, not from Scott. I imagine Scott hadn't mentioned anything
about umbrellas/tarps to the police. I think the police interviewed
neighbors, one of them said he saw Scott putting something wrapped in
a blue tarp into his truck that morning, and the police then went to
Scott and confronted him with this info. Now he has to account for
it, and so says it was just umbrellas in the tarp.
Like I said, I could be wrong, but I really think the police found out
about the tarp from the neighbor, not from Scott. If so, and he
didn't have another blue tarp to produce for the police, Scott would
have been better off just saying the neighbor must have been mistaken
about what he saw.
--pony
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><ponyduck> <...>
>> I don't know--I've always thought that it shouldn't be that hard to
>> get away with murder, as long as you were fairly intelligent, very
>> careful, and had just normal amount of luck on your side.
>
>Maybe if you're killing complete strangers, but do you really
>think it would be that easy to kill your wife and get away with
>it, knowing that you would be the first suspect?
I think it might even be easier to kill a spouse. Any trace evidence
(DNA, blood, hair, fibers) could all be easily explained away by the
fact it *was* your spouse, and these things could have gotten there
naturally. And they can suspect till the cows come home, but it would
take more than that to convict (as we are seeing in this case).
>> About that blue tarp--what about this? Scott kills Laci, wraps her
>> body in the blue tarp and puts it in the truck. He drives to some
>> obscure place and dumps the body, but keeps the tarp since it could
>> conceivably be tied to him. He goes to the marina, taking the blue
>> tarp, and while there, throws it in the water. He knows he couldn't
>> leave the tarp w/Laci's body, because it might tie him to the crime.
>> And he can't take it home again, afraid it might contain trace
>> evidence of Laci's body (blood, fluids, etc.). Disposing of it in the
>> water would be the best thing: first, it might never be found (which
>> is probably what he was hoping), but if it was, the water would have
>> washed away any trace evidence.
>>
>> --pony
>
>I guess, but why draw attention to the very place where you
>left the tarp?
Uh . . . he's a very efficient guy? Figured he'd kill two birds w/one
stone--establish an alibi/dispose of evidence--all in one trip?
(Heck, I don't know--but for now I'm loving my blue tarp theory.
Don't blast it out from under me yet.)
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
That's what made this case so interesting for me: once again we
have someone "under an umbrella of suspicion" (ok, bad joke)
who looks suspicious, but remains free while no real evidence
against him has been revealed to the public. In the Ramsey's
case, the whole pile of "overwhelming evidence" turned out
to be a complete crock. They settled out of court with Thomas
for his scandal-mongering book, and of course the grand jury
threw the whole "case" out.
Scott doesn't have to account for anything, really. It's not his job
to prove himself innocent. He could just answer "I don't know"
over and over again, and then demand to be charged with something
or set free.
Of course, trial by media doesn't quite work that way. It
actually works in reverse: if you can't prove your innocence,
then your reputation gets trashed.
On the plus side, you don't go to jail, you become a celebrity,
and with the help of the right publishers, you write a book or
sell the rights to your story for some nice bank. Man, that would
be one twisted motive for murder--to get famous and cash in
on the crime. You get rid of your wife, make lots of money,
and get lots of chix. All you have to do is endure a few months
possibly years of public odium.
Of course, if that tarp pops up at the wrong moment with hair
blood and fingerprints on it, you get zilch, a long prison term,
no chix, and even more public odium.
I'm getting carried away here. He might come off as somewhat
callous, and the adultery doesn't say much for his character,
but that doesn't make him a kill for tabolid fame psycho. It's
just as likely that he's an extremely unlucky guy who lost his
wife, his reputation, and probably a lot of his friends due to
a combination of bad circumstances, and some really stupid
public lying.
Still wish someone would ask him what happened to that
tarp, tho.
RstJ
I'm getting carried away
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030219141942...@mb-cu.aol.com...
And even that doesn't make much of a case against him. But certainly
if he can't produce one, it would certainly be suspicious, and justify
continued investigation.
<laugh> And continued USEnet posts on the subject!
RstJ
JillsŽ
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><...>
>> I agree, they shouldn't have found the umbrellas at his house (since
>> he said he took them away), but I do remember reading something about
>> police taking an umbrella *cover* from the house. I never heard any
>> follow-up on that either.
>>
>> Sorry if I'm just not seeing something obvious.
>> >>
>>
>> ***Hi pony. It's been reported here and elsewhere that the cops took two
>> market-type umbrellas into custody during one of their initial searches. I
>> feel sure they were removed from the warehouse to be checked for forensics--why
>> would the police take an umbrella from the house?
>>
>>
>> Maggie
>
>I'm reading that it was the house where they found them:
>
>Police hauled patio umbrellas from the house, as evidence.
>San Francisco Chronicle, 28 Dec 02, thanks to Patty:
>
> "> Modesto police and the FBI searched the
> > Peterson home Thursday night and Friday.
> > They removed items including two computers
> > and patio umbrellas, and towed the couple's
> > sport utility vehicle and pickup truck."
>
>And no mention of any actual umbrellas or blue tarp. Of course,
>I've also read that it was only the umbrella covers.
>
>But so far, as regards the blue tarp, I've only read that
>a neighbor saw Scott load something in a blue tarp into
>his truck (which he confirms) and that a blue tarp was
>found in SF Bay. No mention that any blue tarp was found
>anywhere else.
>
>I'm not sure what to make of all the umbrellas.
>
>RstJ
Perhaps, as is not unusual, the number of umbrellas and
their location has been lost in the news shuffle.
I've read that it's becoming almost
a normal practice for one newspaper to get it's "news"
from another paper or media source.
Because not all media uses the old standard of two
verifying sources to be printed, the facts have a propensity
to get skewed.
(Is this so, Jan?)
Did you happen to see the overheads of the Peterson home
and yard on tv yesterday? If so, you can't help but notice
that it's exceptionally neat and tidy. There's no
"stuff" littering the patio or junking up the yard.
Very, very clean.
I've always thought that Scott moved the umbrellas that
Christmas Eve morning because they were having holiday
guests the following day, and he wished no clutter on the
patio or in the tiny carport.
- - -
Jills®
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Well, I suppose we could email KTVU and the Modesto Bee and
ask them about it. It's hard to believe that they would have simply
blown past the issue, but I can't find anything written about it other
than a) he took something out of his house wrapped in a blue tarp
and b) a blue tarp was found in SF Bay.
I don't know. Maybe the reporters just assumed it must be the same
one and that the police are testing it. But you'd think someone, anyone
would ask Scott or his lawyer, the simple question "So, what
did you do with the blue tarp?" Did he really do all those interviews
without being asked this question?
RstJ
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53d0f2....@news.wf.net...
>> I really would like to know what the police know regarding these
>> umbrellas and the blue tarp. If they haven't found the blue tarp, it
>> could very well be one of the main reasons they suspect Scott.
>>
>> --pony
>
>That must have been one awkward conversation:
>
>Police: "A neighbor saw you take something out of your
>house wrapped in a blue tarp.":
>Scott: "Oh yeah, I was moving some umbrellas."
>Police: "In a blue tarp?"
>Scott: "Sure."
>Police: "So, where is this blue tarp?"
>Scott: "At my office."
>Police: "Oh...ok...we didn't find it."
>Scott: "Well, that's where I put it..."
>
>Of course, it could also have ended
>
>Police:"That would be the blue tarp we found at your office."
>Scott: "Of course. That's what I said."
>Police: "We're going to have to hold that as evidence."
>Scott: "Go right ahead."
>
>And so on. I wish there was some solid news about this.
>Because right now it seems like it vanished, and the police
>aren't particularly interested in finding it, which is hard to
>believe.
>
>RstJ
Yes, your description of possible conversations is succinct and gets
the point across well.
I do disagree with your last statement, about the police not being
particularly interested in finding it. If Scott has not been able to
produce a blue tarp, I'll bet the police are *very* interested in
finding it, whether they talk about it to the press or not. I think
that's why they went to all the trouble to fish that one out of the
marina and send it for forensic testing.
--pony
ponyduck
wrote:
>
Okay, you two. You're gonna have to explain to me why he doesn't have
to account for that tarp. If a neighbor saw him carry something to
his truck that morning wrapped in a blue tarp, and he agrees that he
*did* have a blue tarp (wrapped around umbrellas according to him--I
personally think it was a body), then it seems to me it's very
important that he produce it, or at least give some explanation as to
what happened to it.
(It's closer to the big underwear on JB, or maybe the pube on the
blanket. But at least you didn't compare it to the laundry shoot
thing.)
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53dc24....@news.wf.net...
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:45:35 GMT, "Robert St. James \(el corazon del
> demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ponyduck> <...>
>
> >> I don't know--I've always thought that it shouldn't be that hard to
> >> get away with murder, as long as you were fairly intelligent, very
> >> careful, and had just normal amount of luck on your side.
> >
> >Maybe if you're killing complete strangers, but do you really
> >think it would be that easy to kill your wife and get away with
> >it, knowing that you would be the first suspect?
>
> I think it might even be easier to kill a spouse. Any trace evidence
> (DNA, blood, hair, fibers) could all be easily explained away by the
> fact it *was* your spouse, and these things could have gotten there
> naturally. And they can suspect till the cows come home, but it would
> take more than that to convict (as we are seeing in this case).
But wouldn't that lead them to *investigate* until the cows come home?
Then you'd be taking your chances that they don't find the body, that
there were no witnesses to the actual murder or to your disposing of
the body, and that there's no obvious motive, etc. Of course, maybe
none of this would be all that important, I mean, we're presuming that
you want to kill your spouse in the first place, rather than just doing
it as an abstract exercise in seeing if you could get away with murder.
Trace evidence could be explained away, sure. But you'd be under
intense scrutiny as the #1 suspect and there are many other kinds of
evidence. Whereas by killing a complete stranger, you might never
be suspected at all. That's why serial killers are so hard to catch--
there's often no prior link at all between them and their victims.
<...>
> >I guess, but why draw attention to the very place where you
> >left the tarp?
>
> Uh . . . he's a very efficient guy? Figured he'd kill two birds w/one
> stone--establish an alibi/dispose of evidence--all in one trip?
Heh. And do a little Xmas shopping for his new mistress on the way
home. Actually, your theory is just as valid as any other if the blue
tarp hasn't actually been found in his office or he hasn't explained it
away. I'm saying it would have been kinda dumb of him to leave it
there, but I've never been a big fan of "criminal mastermind" theories
anyway. Murderers make mistakes. And innocent people do things
that make them look suspicious.
>
> (Heck, I don't know--but for now I'm loving my blue tarp theory.
> Don't blast it out from under me yet.)
>
> --pony
Oh no, the only way I think it could be blasted away is if the actual
tarp is found somewhere else. For all we know, it already has been,
and just hasn't been reported to the media.
RstJ
Lady Taker
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53e350....@news.wf.net...
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:13:34 -0500, "Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
> >news:PFQ4a.152$%r3....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> "Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
> >> news:v57l3sk...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I hate to mention this but tarps aren't exactly a rare item. I
> >> > happen to own three blue ones, two brown ones and a HUGE
> >> > silver one. I could easily dispose of one of the blue or
> >> > brown ones and still have something to give to
> >> > the cops if they asked me to account for it.
> >> > --
> >> > Giselle
> >>
> >> Scott doesn't have to account for the tarp;
> >
> >Hey, you have don't tell *me* that. Personally, I sense another JonBenet
> >pineapple bits/useless-bit-of-information fascination coming on...
> >---
> >Giselle
>
> Okay, you two. You're gonna have to explain to me why he doesn't have
> to account for that tarp.
I already posted two excuses for the disappearance of the tarp. I just
don't think (*my* feeling) that the tarp has anything to do with anything
or, even if it does, the MPD will never be able to prove it.
> If a neighbor saw him carry something to
> his truck that morning wrapped in a blue tarp, and he agrees that he
> *did* have a blue tarp (wrapped around umbrellas according to him--I
> personally think it was a body), then it seems to me it's very
> important that he produce it, or at least give some explanation as to
> what happened to it.
See above. See other post. See also the supposition that he may have well
had numerous blue tarps and so accounting for *one* wasn't all that hard.
>
> (It's closer to the big underwear on JB, or maybe the pube on the
> blanket. But at least you didn't compare it to the laundry shoot
> thing.)
>
> --pony
That stinkin' endless pineapple chunks discussion drove me nuts. It will
forever be stuck in my mind as the biggest fuss made over nothing in any ATC
crime thread EVER.
--
Giselle
ponyduck
wrote:
>> But if Scott is unable to produce a blue tarp at all, then he's in
>> trouble, since a witness saw him with one.
>
>How about this, "I don't know what happened to it. I was taking it back home
>and it must have blown out of the back of the truck" ?
>
>Or he could say it tore when he used it for the umbrellas so he threw it
>out. I'm sure the contents of any dumpster were long gone before they
>started looking for that tarp. Do we know when the neighbor actually spoke
>up about this?
>
>--
>Giselle
Okay, I would accept this, I'm not totally irrational about this blue
tarp. (Not that I'd believe him for a second if that's what he did
say)--but since he was seen with one, I think he must account for it
in some way.
And now that you mention it--I swear I remember way back at the first
of this whole thing, that it was reported that police were searching
all the dumpsters around, or on the way to, Scott's warehouse. I
remember thinking it was very strange, because at that time (and I'm
talking like within a day or two of the disappearance), Scott was
still not considered a real suspect by the public. If it had been
just searching dumpsters in general, or the ones around the Peterson
house, or the park, I wouldn't have thought a thing about it. But it
always stuck in my mind because it was specifically mentioned that it
was dumpsters located near Scott's warehouse.
Anyway, as far as when the neighbor told police about seeing Scott
with the tarp, I don't know. I wish I did. I wish I knew a lot of
things about this case. We need someone on the inside at the MPD.
Could have helped on several cases we've discussed here.
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<...>
> I do disagree with your last statement, about the police not being
> particularly interested in finding it. If Scott has not been able to
> produce a blue tarp, I'll bet the police are *very* interested in
> finding it, whether they talk about it to the press or not. I think
> that's why they went to all the trouble to fish that one out of the
> marina and send it for forensic testing.
>
> --pony
Wasn't that fairly early in the investigation? Like Jan 4? No question
that they were very interested in (what other posters have described)
something which would hardly be uncommon near a marina, so I'm guessing
they already had the blue tarp story from the neighbor by then. On a side
note, it would seem like blue tarps in the water aren't so common that
the police found more than one of them. Had they found two or three,
or pieces of several, I think they would have been a lot less interested.
But 1+1+1=something. Blue tarp seen being loaded on truck, Scott goes
to Berkeley Marina, tarp found in water nearby. That would certainly
pique my interest.
At some point (I think in a previous post in this thread) Scott admitted
to wrapping umbrellas in a blue tarp to take them to storage. After that,
interest in the blue tarp seemed to dwindle. My initial thought was that
it had been somehow explained, and therefore was no longer interesting.
But I can't find the explanation anywhere. And given that it would seem
to be a very crucial piece of evidence either for or against, I'm surprised
there hasn't been more reported on what happend to it.
RstJ
Pocahontas
>
> If he's innocent, the circumstances really came together in a bad
> way for him. And cheating on a pregnant wife certainly came back
> to haunt him.
>
* Like husbands don't cheat on pregnant wives?
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<...>
> >> Scott doesn't have to account for the tarp;
> >
> >Hey, you have don't tell *me* that. Personally, I sense another JonBenet
> >pineapple bits/useless-bit-of-information fascination coming on...
> >---
> >Giselle
>
> Okay, you two. You're gonna have to explain to me why he doesn't have
> to account for that tarp. If a neighbor saw him carry something to
> his truck that morning wrapped in a blue tarp, and he agrees that he
> *did* have a blue tarp (wrapped around umbrellas according to him--I
> personally think it was a body), then it seems to me it's very
> important that he produce it, or at least give some explanation as to
> what happened to it.
>
> (It's closer to the big underwear on JB, or maybe the pube on the
> blanket. But at least you didn't compare it to the laundry shoot
> thing.)
>
> --pony
He should be able to explain it, but I don't see why he *has* to explain
it--if nobody has actually asked him. I'm guessing that the police asked
him, but they're being close-mouthed. So, was he ever publicly asked
this question?
As to JB, the big underwear is a factoid and I'm not sure what you
mean about the pube on the blanket. The Ramseys (and many friends)
gave pubic hair samples early in the investigation. All turned out negative.
I don't know if the police let that information out, however. Is that what
you mean?
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Pocahontas" <Pocah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b30o1...@enews4.newsguy.com...
I'm sure many do. But not many of them have their adultery
paraded in full public view like this.
RstJ
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All right. You've convinced me. It probably would be easier to kill
a stranger than a spouse.
>> >I guess, but why draw attention to the very place where you
>> >left the tarp?
>>
>> Uh . . . he's a very efficient guy? Figured he'd kill two birds w/one
>> stone--establish an alibi/dispose of evidence--all in one trip?
>
>Heh. And do a little Xmas shopping for his new mistress on the way
>home. Actually, your theory is just as valid as any other if the blue
>tarp hasn't actually been found in his office or he hasn't explained it
>away. I'm saying it would have been kinda dumb of him to leave it
>there, but I've never been a big fan of "criminal mastermind" theories
>anyway. Murderers make mistakes. And innocent people do things
>that make them look suspicious.
Hey--I just thought of a logical reason why Scott might throw away the
tarp at the same place he used as an alibi. When he threw the tarp
away in the marina, he didn't know that he had been seen with it. He
didn't know at that point that the blue tarp would ever become an
issue. He didn't count on being seen by that neighbor. If the
neighbor hadn't seen him with the tarp, we, the police--nobody--would
be asking about, wondering about, looking for, even thinking about, a
blue tarp. (And please, y'all don't form a mob to go after that poor
neighbor now.)
I can just imagine when Scott found out about the neighbor, he must
have thought "oh shit--why did I throw it away there--right where I
told them I was!"
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> All right. You've convinced me. It probably would be easier to kill
> a stranger than a spouse.
Um, er, I'm not offering this up as a *recommendation* you understand...
<...>
> Hey--I just thought of a logical reason why Scott might throw away the
> tarp at the same place he used as an alibi. When he threw the tarp
> away in the marina, he didn't know that he had been seen with it. He
> didn't know at that point that the blue tarp would ever become an
> issue. He didn't count on being seen by that neighbor. If the
> neighbor hadn't seen him with the tarp, we, the police--nobody--would
> be asking about, wondering about, looking for, even thinking about, a
> blue tarp. (And please, y'all don't form a mob to go after that poor
> neighbor now.)
Oh hell yeah. We should be after him with fire and camera demanding
to know just what *else* he'd seen! And while we're at it, track down
the neighbor who found the dog and ask him some questions! Then again,
they might not have seen much of anything else. Interesting that he never
seems to deny anything: he admits to the affair, he admits that he loaded
something into his truck wrapped in blue tarp. You half expect someone
to pop up and claim they saw him kill his wife and hear him admit to that
too.
Of course, the other explanation is that he's innocent, and has nothing
to deny.
>
> I can just imagine when Scott found out about the neighbor, he must
> have thought "oh shit--why did I throw it away there--right where I
> told them I was!"
>
> --pony
And must have filled his pants when they found it. Still, it didn't seem
to lead the police anywhere and the fate of the Blue Tarp doesn't seem
to be much of an issue for the media.
RstJ
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><...>
>> I do disagree with your last statement, about the police not being
>> particularly interested in finding it. If Scott has not been able to
>> produce a blue tarp, I'll bet the police are *very* interested in
>> finding it, whether they talk about it to the press or not. I think
>> that's why they went to all the trouble to fish that one out of the
>> marina and send it for forensic testing.
>>
>> --pony
>
>Wasn't that fairly early in the investigation? Like Jan 4?
I don't know the exact date, but it was early on, before they found
the anchor.
>No question
>that they were very interested in (what other posters have described)
>something which would hardly be uncommon near a marina, so I'm guessing
>they already had the blue tarp story from the neighbor by then.
I agree. I remember wondering at the time they fished out the tarp,
why they would be interested in a tarp found at a marina? I mean, why
not fish out Hula Poppers, or chunks of styrofoam, or beer bottles
while they're at it? Apparently they had some specific reason to be
interested in tarps at that time.
> On a side
>note, it would seem like blue tarps in the water aren't so common that
>the police found more than one of them. Had they found two or three,
>or pieces of several, I think they would have been a lot less interested.
>But 1+1+1=something. Blue tarp seen being loaded on truck, Scott goes
>to Berkeley Marina, tarp found in water nearby. That would certainly
>*****pique****** my interest.
(Hallelujah!)
>At some point (I think in a previous post in this thread) Scott admitted
>to wrapping umbrellas in a blue tarp to take them to storage. After that,
>interest in the blue tarp seemed to dwindle. My initial thought was that
>it had been somehow explained, and therefore was no longer interesting.
>But I can't find the explanation anywhere. And given that it would seem
>to be a very crucial piece of evidence either for or against, I'm surprised
>there hasn't been more reported on what happend to it.
>
>RstJ
I'm surprised too. But then, not really. I'm always screaming at the
TV reporters, for not asking the most logical, sensible, obvious
questions, even when the person is sitting right there in front of
them. I guess we'll just have to wait this one out. Hopefully there
are some reporters reading this newsgroup (they've been known to in
the past), and will follow up on this.
--pony
ponyduck
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><...>
>> >> Scott doesn't have to account for the tarp;
>> >
>> >Hey, you have don't tell *me* that. Personally, I sense another JonBenet
>> >pineapple bits/useless-bit-of-information fascination coming on...
>> >---
>> >Giselle
>>
>> Okay, you two. You're gonna have to explain to me why he doesn't have
>> to account for that tarp. If a neighbor saw him carry something to
>> his truck that morning wrapped in a blue tarp, and he agrees that he
>> *did* have a blue tarp (wrapped around umbrellas according to him--I
>> personally think it was a body), then it seems to me it's very
>> important that he produce it, or at least give some explanation as to
>> what happened to it.
>>
>> (It's closer to the big underwear on JB, or maybe the pube on the
>> blanket. But at least you didn't compare it to the laundry shoot
>> thing.)
>>
>> --pony
>
>He should be able to explain it, but I don't see why he *has* to explain
>it--if nobody has actually asked him. I'm guessing that the police asked
>him, but they're being close-mouthed. So, was he ever publicly asked
>this question?
I've never heard anyone publicly ask him about it.
>As to JB, the big underwear is a factoid and I'm not sure what you
>mean about the pube on the blanket. The Ramseys (and many friends)
>gave pubic hair samples early in the investigation. All turned out negative.
>I don't know if the police let that information out, however. Is that what
>you mean?
>
>RstJ
I was just being silly with those references, since Volfie had
mentioned the pineapple. I was just trying to think of some other
aspects of that case that got discussed at length. I honestly can't
even remember all the details about those particular things. (And I'm
still reeling over having written "laundry *shoot*")
--pony
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<...>
> I'm surprised too. But then, not really. I'm always screaming at the
> TV reporters, for not asking the most logical, sensible, obvious
> questions, even when the person is sitting right there in front of
> them. I guess we'll just have to wait this one out. Hopefully there
> are some reporters reading this newsgroup (they've been known to in
> the past), and will follow up on this.
>
> --pony
Man, I hope so. Too many of those Good Morning America puff pieces
are just useless when they're not little more than platforms for PR offensives.
Our "Information Society" is maybe clogged with a little too much information
sometimes. The triumph of quantity over quality.
Still, it's hard to believe that this question has never been asked seeing
as how it's pretty central to exactly what he was doing that morning.
RstJ
Lady Taker
"Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:JuT4a.184028$Ec4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> <...>
> > All right. You've convinced me. It probably would be easier to kill
> > a stranger than a spouse.
>
> Um, er, I'm not offering this up as a *recommendation* you understand...
>
> <...>
::::puts down bloody axe::::
er...WHAT??? *NOW* you say that???
::::starts looking for one of those blue tarps I know I have around::::
--
Giselle
Lady Taker
<ponyduck> wrote in message:
(And I'm
> still reeling over having written "laundry *shoot*")
>
> --pony
That was a good one. :)) You'll probably never live that down with the
spell-peckerheads in here.
--
Giselle (Bodin Bodin Bodin Bodin)
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> I was just being silly with those references, since Volfie had
> mentioned the pineapple. I was just trying to think of some other
> aspects of that case that got discussed at length. I honestly can't
> even remember all the details about those particular things. (And I'm
> still reeling over having written "laundry *shoot*")
>
> --pony
Heh, yeah. When things devolve down to arguing about grapefruit-sized
turds and brands of pineapple, you pretty much figure the case is vanishing
up its own butt. The JonBenet case ran on its own internal combustion--
it was still chugging along happily long after the investigators had quit,
the DA had pull the plug on the case, and even the Ramseys stopped talking
even through lawyers. I really want to see the case solved so the
files can be opened to the public. I think it would make a fascinating study
along the lines of "American Grotesque" about Jim Garrison's bizarre
"case" against the people he thought were JFK conspirators.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<laugh> Just make sure you have *two* of them! One to show the cops
and the other to "take out the trash."
And for god's sake, don't get them confused afterwards!
RstJ
Maggie
wrote:
>***But!--why would Scott say the umbrellas were wrapped in a tarp at all? Why
>not (if he knows he has no tarp to show the cops) say the neighbor saw him
>putting a couple of umbrellas into the truck? (And, of course, I realize
we're
>dealing with the fact that Scott seems to say lots of stupid things, so maybe
>he would have said he had a tarp when he didn't.)
>
>And damn these close-mouthed police departments.
>
>Maggie
pony said:
I could be mistaken, but my impression is that the police found out
about the tarp *from the neighbor who saw him* putting it in his
truck, not from Scott. I imagine Scott hadn't mentioned anything
about umbrellas/tarps to the police. I think the police interviewed
neighbors, one of them said he saw Scott putting something wrapped in
a blue tarp into his truck that morning, and the police then went to
Scott and confronted him with this info. Now he has to account for
it, and so says it was just umbrellas in the tarp.
Like I said, I could be wrong, but I really think the police found out
about the tarp from the neighbor, not from Scott. If so, and he
didn't have another blue tarp to produce for the police, Scott would
have been better off just saying the neighbor must have been mistaken
about what he saw. >>
***Yes. That's what I'm saying. Scott *confirmed* a tarp. He didn't say,
"There was no tarp--just some umbrellas." Since he confirmed the tarp, I can't
help but think that he's produced a tarp. As you point out (and as I was
trying to say above), he could have just told the cops he carried the umbrellas
out by themselves if he didn't have the tarp to show them.
Maggie
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."--Winston
Churchill
Kris Baker
> That must have been one awkward conversation:
>
> Police: "A neighbor saw you take something out of your
> house wrapped in a blue tarp.":
> Scott: "Oh yeah, I was moving some umbrellas."
> Police: "In a blue tarp?"
> Scott: "Sure."
> Police: "So, where is this blue tarp?"
> Scott: "At my office."
Or.....
"I left it in the back of my truck. It must have ...
(a) ... been stolen"
(b) ... blown out of the back of my truck."
(c) ... been taken from the dumpster where I
left it
Kris
Kris Baker
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53e1a4....@news.wf.net...
>
> I do disagree with your last statement, about the police not being
> particularly interested in finding it. If Scott has not been able to
> produce a blue tarp, I'll bet the police are *very* interested in
> finding it, whether they talk about it to the press or not. I think
> that's why they went to all the trouble to fish that one out of the
> marina and send it for forensic testing.
>
> --pony
Not many people were fishing in the marina that week (only two
parking tickets sold on the 24th IIRC). What's the odds that
there was more than ONE blue plastic tarp floating around
out there.
Aren't most people conscious enough that, if they lost a
tarp in SF Bay, they'd try to fish it out? But....if they thought
it was well-tethered, they may not know it got loose.
Kris
ponyduck
wrote:
>pony said:
>I could be mistaken, but my impression is that the police found out
>about the tarp *from the neighbor who saw him* putting it in his
>truck, not from Scott. I imagine Scott hadn't mentioned anything
>about umbrellas/tarps to the police. I think the police interviewed
>neighbors, one of them said he saw Scott putting something wrapped in
>a blue tarp into his truck that morning, and the police then went to
>Scott and confronted him with this info. Now he has to account for
>it, and so says it was just umbrellas in the tarp.
>
>Like I said, I could be wrong, but I really think the police found out
>about the tarp from the neighbor, not from Scott. If so, and he
>didn't have another blue tarp to produce for the police, Scott would
>have been better off just saying the neighbor must have been mistaken
>about what he saw. >>
>
>***Yes. That's what I'm saying. Scott *confirmed* a tarp. He didn't say,
>"There was no tarp--just some umbrellas." Since he confirmed the tarp, I can't
>help but think that he's produced a tarp. As you point out (and as I was
>trying to say above), he could have just told the cops he carried the umbrellas
>out by themselves if he didn't have the tarp to show them.
>
>
>Maggie
In my theory, I picture Scott being blind-sided by the police about
the neighbor seeing him with the tarp, and Scott is so stunned at this
unplanned development, that he doesn't have time to think clearly, and
just blurts out the first thing that comes to his mind, that he used
it to wrap the umbrellas. It wasn't until later, when he had time to
mull it over, that he probably wished he had said there was no blue
tarp at all, that the neighbor must have been mistaken.
--pony
Patty
Kris
Make it big by clicking on the right end corner.
http://www.aricraft.com/mar_berk.jpg
Patty
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
JC
"Patty" <la...@bug.com> wrote in message news:3e54...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> <ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e53e1a4....@news.wf.net...
> >
> > I do disagree with your last statement, about the police not being
> > particularly interested in finding it. If Scott has not been able to
> > produce a blue tarp, I'll bet the police are *very* interested in
> > finding it, whether they talk about it to the press or not. I think
> > that's why they went to all the trouble to fish that one out of the
> > marina and send it for forensic testing.
> >
> > --pony
>
> Not many people were fishing in the marina that week (only two
> parking tickets sold on the 24th IIRC). What's the odds that
> there was more than ONE blue plastic tarp floating around
> out there.
>
> Aren't most people conscious enough that, if they lost a
> tarp in SF Bay, they'd try to fish it out? But....if they thought
> it was well-tethered, they may not know it got loose.
>
> Kris
>
> Make it big by clicking on the right end corner.
> http://www.aricraft.com/mar_berk.jpg
>
> Patty
OMIGOD. Look at all the blue tarps! Patty, you are phenomenal!
JC
Kris Baker
"JC" <jonesi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e558069$0$10329$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
But how many of those protective tarps would be allowed to come
loose and float free? You should see the Salt Lake Marina right
now ;)
Kris
Every9man
Indeed. Patty's our very own home grown resource for research.
Barbara
Every9man
OK, Desi reported very heavy wind storms and rain, around that time didnt she?
I got the tail end of it around Christmas time in LA.
If the times coincide many tarps may have gotten blown around.
barbara
Patty
>"JC" <jonesi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3e558069$0$10329$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Patty" <la...@bug.com> wrote in message news:3e54...@post.newsfeed.com...
>> OMIGOD. Look at all the blue tarps! Patty, you are phenomenal!
>> JC
>
>But how many of those protective tarps would be allowed to come
>loose and float free? You should see the Salt Lake Marina right
>now ;)
>
>Kris
>
OK, Desi reported very heavy wind storms and rain, around that time
didnt she?
I got the tail end of it around Christmas time in LA.
If the times coincide many tarps may have gotten blown around.
barbara
On Dec. 23, the day before he went fishing, we had quite a storm with
lots of wind. Also on Dec. 21. So you're right, many may have blown
off. Also saw a picture of one of the marina parking lot, and lots of
the cars had blue tarps on them.
Patty
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0e77308.03022...@posting.google.com...
Good picture. If I ever change careers, I'm going to start flogging
those things near marinas.
But the police must have known this, so why would they get so excited
about finding one?
RstJ
Every9man
heads report it from an anonymous source.
Signed,
Ms Broken Record.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> >Good picture. If I ever change careers, I'm going to start flogging
> >those things near marinas.
> >
> >But the police must have known this, so why would they get so excited
> >about finding one?
> >
> >RstJ
> >
> >
> Were they excited? did one of them say it or did one of the talking/writing
> heads report it from an anonymous source.
>
> Signed,
> Ms Broken Record.
Heh. I'm sure after a long day's diving in freezing-ass waters,
their enthusiasm was somewhat...ahem...dampened.
Excited=interested enough to send it for testing.
RstJ
sherman
that went on alert over it. Sherm.
>
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"sherman" <sh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ejq5a.184958$2H6.3751@sccrnsc04...
Whoa. Cite for this? If that's true and forensic testing backs it up, then
any other scenario beside "Scott did it" becomes extremely unlikely.
RstJ
sherman
over this find because of it. The dogs did not sniff the tarp per se, as I
recall, just the spot where they went diving. Sherm.
Every9man
How do we know what specifically they sent for testing?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just dont believe half of what's posted here
any more and I'm not blaming the posters.
Unless someone at the lab leaked:P
barbara
Every9man
>dog
>> that went on alert over it. Sherm.
>
>Whoa. Cite for this? If that's true and forensic testing backs it up, then
>any other scenario beside "Scott did it" becomes extremely unlikely.
>
>RstJ
"Water sniffing dog"?
barbara
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030221110907...@mb-cg.aol.com...
If they got dogs that can track a person in a car, why not?
Does remind me of that old Far Side cartoon "I can't smell a damn thing..."
RstJ
sherman
If you have followed this case then you would know. Yes, specially trained
water sniffing dogs. Sherm.
Kris Baker
> that time didnt she? I got the tail end of it around Christmas time in LA.
> If the times coincide many tarps may have gotten blown around.
>
> barbara
Weather reports differ, but the point is this: tarps on boats are
*securely* tied down to prevent damage from weather conditions.
There's all those grommets to thread rope through, and very
few get loose. Boat owners can be fined if they cause debris
in a marina.
Patty's picture does show lots of blue tarps on boats, but they're
not flapping around.
IIRC, the blue tarp that was fished out of the water wasn't
found right in the enclosed marina area, but further out near
where Scott said he was fishing for whales.
Kris
Kris Baker
>
> How do we know what specifically they sent for testing?
> I'm not trying to be difficult, I just dont believe half of what's posted
here
> any more and I'm not blaming the posters.
> Unless someone at the lab leaked:P
> barbara
From: annein...@attbi.com (annein...@attbi.com)
Subject: (Peterson) Divers Resume Search for Missing Woman
View: Complete Thread (3 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Date: 2003-01-11 06:27:22 PST
posted by anne in chicago
i thought the sturgeon info might be of interst as well as the weather
conditions that day.
Divers resume searching bay for missing woman today
They will focus on something that sonar suggested is a human body.
By M.S. Enkoji -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 11, 2003
Divers searching for clues about the disappearance of a pregnant
Modesto woman are expected to return to the Berkeley Marina today for
a closer look at something a sonar image suggests might be a human
body.
The search for 27-year-old Laci Peterson appears to be centering on
the marina on the San Francisco Bay, where the woman's husband said he
went fishing the day she disappeared.
Authorities have searched the bay at least three times, including
Thursday, for the woman who was last seen Christmas Eve and is
expecting her first child in February.
A sonar device conveyed an image to divers Thursday afternoon that
might be a body, said Modesto Police Detective Doug Ridenour. "It got
late and they determined they needed to come back later," he said
Friday.
Scott Peterson has told authorities that after he left his wife the
morning of Christmas Eve, he drove the 1 1/2 hours northwest to the
marina, his 14-foot aluminum boat hitched to his 2002 Ford truck.
He has produced parking receipts pulled from an automated machine that
day, police have said.
He told police that at the marina he headed north to Brooks Island,
taking a water path that almost parallels Interstate 80, stopping
almost at Richmond Inner Harbor. There he cast for sturgeon,
unsuccessfully.
Since the substitute teacher disappeared, authorities have searched
her Modesto neighborhood, a cluster of post-World War II ranch homes
on wide streets, much like River Park in Sacramento. They've searched
the nearby narrow, meandering riverbank park that bisects the city,
where her husband said she was headed that morning to walk their dog.
They've expanded to a wider region that has involved helicopters,
divers, horseback riders and bloodhounds.
Authorities are examining a tarp hauled in from the marina earlier and
results aren't expected until next week. Also, an analysis of some
type of biological evidence that has been submitted to a state crime
lab will take several weeks. Authorities have declined to discuss the
type or source of the evidence.
Modesto police investigators are trying to find any witnesses who
might have seen Scott Peterson at the marina or fishing on the bay
that day.
Scott Peterson, 30, an agricultural salesman, is not a suspect. He has
not spoken publicly about his wife's disappearance. Both his in-laws
and his own family have said he is too distraught to make public
appearances.
But in the void of clues about the woman's disappearance, his
movements on the holiday eve have undergone considerable scrutiny --
unfairly, his relatives say.
"There's no other clues, so everyone's pointing at him," said his
mother, Jacqueline Peterson of San Diego. She and her husband and some
of their six other children have been in Modesto since Laci Peterson
disappeared.
The holiday was a chance to try out a new boat, his mother said. Her
son travels frequently for work and is sometimes out of the country
for weeks. After reading an article about sturgeon, he was interested
in catching one, she said.
The manager of a bait shop on the marina said the weather on Christmas
Eve was supposed include rain, but it never came. Winds of 10 to 12
knots with gusts of up to 20 knots buffeted any boaters that day, said
Gary Freedman of Berkeley Marina Sports Center.
He closed down early that day, but he didn't recall many private boats
on the bay then, though there were die-hards fishing off the pier
there, he recalled.
There would have been whitecaps that would have bounced around a small
boat that day, said Keith Frazier, an author and lecturer on sturgeon
fishing and owner of Loch Lomond Live Bait Shop in San Rafael.
But Christmas Eve is in the heart of sturgeon season, he said.
Normally, those fishing for sturgeon check the tides for the best
chances of snaring one, but a novice might not know that, said
Frazier.
"Generally, you anchor your boat," said Frazier, "use your bait, cast,
then watch your rod."
A veteran diver who owns the largest diving center in Northern
California said the area where divers are concentrating is about 12 to
30 feet deep.
But an underwater search for a body is nothing like a vacation dive
into balmy waters, said Sal Zammitti, owner of Bamboo Reef Scuba
Diving Centers in San Francisco.
Rain has washed river silt into the bay, cutting visibility, and
because divers aren't moving rapidly, they get colder faster, he said.
"Picture walking into a pitch black room, then trying to find a body
in it. Physically and psychologically, that's tiring," said Zammitti.
Retrieving a body if there is one from that depth shouldn't be
difficult, said Zammitti, who has done similar searches on the East
Coast.
Another diver, Ron Roberts, president of the Drowning Accident Rescue
Team in Sacramento, said underwater searches mean navigating through
an underwater junkyard in the dark.
"There's refrigerators, fishing lines," said Roberts, whose
all-volunteer team was called out 100 times last year. "It's not
Jacques Cousteau by any means."
Lady Taker
"sherman" <sh...@attbi.com> wrote:
> It was because this tarp was hauled up on account of the water sniffing
dog
> that went on alert over it. Sherm.
Okay, THAT makes it more interesting. Much more interesting.
--
Giselle
Lady Taker
They've been used in other cases and discussed here, too. The missing baby
(the one that's never been found and the parents just won their lawsuit
against the PD, that baby) was searched for with cadaver dogs that
specialize in water searches, too.
--
Giselle
Lady Taker
"Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
news:GLt5a.2866$LK....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > OK, Desi reported very heavy wind storms and rain, around
> > that time didnt she? I got the tail end of it around Christmas time in
LA.
> > If the times coincide many tarps may have gotten blown around.
> >
> > barbara
>
> Weather reports differ, but the point is this: tarps on boats are
> *securely* tied down to prevent damage from weather conditions.
> There's all those grommets to thread rope through, and very
> few get loose. Boat owners can be fined if they cause debris
> in a marina.
But they CAN get loose. We lost one the other night in 35 mph winds. The
bungee cords are still there, complete with nice shiny grommets with frayed
tarp stuck in them, but the tarp is probably three counties away by now.
And sometimes you lose them when you are trying to put them *on*. They're
like parachutes. *WHOOSHH* They inflate and then they are airborne and you
are left holding bloody fingertips and swearing like a trooper.
I still don't think it's that unusual unless Sherm is right and a cadaver
sniffing dog alerted on it originally. Then it's a whole new ballgame...
--
Giselle
Kris Baker
"Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
news:v5d3lqp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Kris Baker" <kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote in message
> news:GLt5a.2866$LK....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > OK, Desi reported very heavy wind storms and rain, around
> > > that time didnt she? I got the tail end of it around Christmas time in
> LA.
> > > If the times coincide many tarps may have gotten blown around.
> > >
> > > barbara
> >
> > Weather reports differ, but the point is this: tarps on boats are
> > *securely* tied down to prevent damage from weather conditions.
> > There's all those grommets to thread rope through, and very
> > few get loose. Boat owners can be fined if they cause debris
> > in a marina.
>
> But they CAN get loose. We lost one the other night in 35 mph
> winds. The bungee cords are still there,
Didn't I tell you not to ever use bungee cords? ;)
The ONLY time we used a (gift) bungee cord was to
tie some suitcases to the roof rack of our van. On the
Nebraska border, a trucker waved us down and handed
us our suitcases that had blown off less than 100 miles
from Utah.
In Utah, many people (and we used to) have roof-mounted
evaporative (swamp) coolers. In the winter, you tie a cover
onto it. When a strong wind comes along, my ex-Navy
husband would proudly stand in front of our home and notice
that his tarp had not blown off -- and others had. He used
rope.
A good sailor uses rope, not bungee. There are tie-downs
all around a boat, and you're supposed to use every one of
them....even criss-crossing if you're doing a good job.
I've seen tarps with the centers blown out of them, and
the edges still tied and intact around the boat.
> I still don't think it's that unusual unless Sherm is right and a cadaver
> sniffing dog alerted on it originally. Then it's a whole new ballgame...
>
> --
> Giselle
By M.S. Enkoji -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 11, 2003
"Authorities are examining a tarp hauled in from the marina
earlier and results aren't expected until next week."
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
1/7/03
Two adjoining sentences, but different paragraphs:
"And they have taken specially trained dogs in boats to sniff
the docks and nearby waters."
"Besides turning up an errant blue tarp that they will test for
fibers, they have turned up nothing that leads them directly
to Laci Peterson."
I'm not sure, from everything I'm reading, that the dogs
were responsible for alerting on the tarp....although
ScorpionKing says he heard a radio report that said so.
Kris
Lady Taker
No, you didn't, damn it. You owe me a tarp. (And don't tell anyone but it
was blue, too.)
Thanks for the tarp tale and the news clip. <snipped for space>
--
Giselle
Every9man
I've been following the case as best as I can.
I missed the part about the dogs who sniff water.
Mea Culpa!!
barbara
I
Every9man
I wasnt questioning that dogs can track a scent through water, it was the
expression "water sniffing dog" that tickled me.
I had a bong vision.
barbara
Every9man
I learned that one from volfie during the "throw the dog over the side of the
boat and let him find Laci" thread:)
barbara
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
Yeah, I just saw that one. I'm not sure how drowning the family pet
was supposed to advance the case either.
RstJ
tiny dancer
Most retrievers are great swimmers......... :) They love the water.
td
>
>
>
Lady Taker
"Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:lES5a.223266$Ec4.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I did not advocate throwing the family pet
over the side of the boat. Please reread. I await your profuse apologies
and boxes of Godiva chocolates with lovely notecards begging my forgiveness.
--
Giselle (which I may or may not accept until the third or fourth go-round)
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> > Yeah, I just saw that one. I'm not sure how drowning the family pet
> > was supposed to advance the case either.
> >
> > RstJ
>
> Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I did not advocate throwing the family pet
> over the side of the boat. Please reread. I await your profuse apologies
> and boxes of Godiva chocolates with lovely notecards begging my forgiveness.
> --
> Giselle (which I may or may not accept until the third or fourth go-round)
Meanwhile, back at the Berkeley Marina:
Arf-arf. Yip! Splassssh.
"No, really, it's all right. I heard they can swim."
glub-glub, arf glub...
"...."
"Do you think he's found Laci yet?"
RstJ
Lady Taker
Have I ever told you the true story about why an Afghan Hound should not be
confused with Lassie?
(No water involved.)
--
Giselle
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<...>
> Have I ever told you the true story about why an Afghan Hound should not be
> confused with Lassie?
> (No water involved.)
>
> --
> Giselle
No. Does it have pictures?
RstJ
Lady Taker
Oddly enough, it does -- sort of. It was once used in a comic strip.
Short as I can make it: Climbing down a hillside one day, I slid over an
embankment and broke my arm. As I lay on the groung trying not to throw up
breakfast (which I had really enjoyed and hoped to keep) I said to my
faithful hound, "Go get help! Get help!" He looked up to the top of the
hill (a long ways away) and to the bottom (which had a lot of brambles) and
decided that laying down with his head on my chest and taking a nap would be
the best way to pass time until help arrived. After the nausea passed, I
woke him up and found a ride to the local E.R. He rode in the back with his
head out the window and pretended he was running for help.
Ah, the dog's life...
--
Giselle
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
This was when you decided to toss him overboard? (just joking).
Does that "get help" thing ever work anywhere besides the movies?
Heh. Funny story.
RstJ
Lady Taker
Funny in retrospect, obviously, since it was used for a comic strip. It
wasn't too funny when I was rolling around on the ground, gagging.
I believe my comment about throwing the dog in the water to search for Laci
was something to the tune of: "he'd wonder why you tossed him overboard as
he was frantically paddling for shore." It was based on my experience
listed above.
--
Giselle
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> Funny in retrospect, obviously, since it was used for a comic strip. It
> wasn't too funny when I was rolling around on the ground, gagging.
>
> I believe my comment about throwing the dog in the water to search for Laci
> was something to the tune of: "he'd wonder why you tossed him overboard as
> he was frantically paddling for shore." It was based on my experience
> listed above.
>
> --
> Giselle
<laugh> I'm going to get me one of those Phd pooches who can
follow a scent through hill and dale. I bet one of those would
have saved you.
RstJ
Lady Taker
Perhaps. Afghans ARE sighthounds. (As are the Wolfhounds and Deerhounds
and Whippets that are laying all around here. I have a fondness for them,
you see.) I think it was that accurate sight that lead my hound to conclude
that going for help would be sheer folly. So, to sum up: to hunt rabbit
and deer and fox: get a sighthound. To find a dead body: get a SCENThound.
To run around and bark and alert the rescue squad: get Lassie.
To find Laci: get a crystal ball.
--
Giselle