Laci: The Closed Curtains or Blinds?
MIRSE
it, Laci ALWAYS opened her front window curtains or blinds when she got up in
the morning.
But, strangely, on the day that Laci was missing, the curtains or blinds
remained CLOSED all day.
I find this strange, because if, like many of us, Laci did certain things
everyday out of habit, then I wonder why the curtains or blinds were closed
all day on the day that she was missing. mi...@aol.com
Wild Monkshood
MIRSE wrote:
This reminds me of the Ted Binion "Millionaire" murder case in Las Vegas. The
closed curtains played a significant part in the prosecutors case there.
Supposedly, they were kept closed so that the Yard Man couldn't see in, and see the
results of Sandy Murphy's and Rick Tavis's (sp?) nefarious deeds.
Wild Monkshood
JLplsSS
>remained CLOSED all day.
>
> I find this strange, because if, like many of us, Laci did certain
>things
>everyday out of habit, then I wonder why the curtains or blinds were closed
>all day on the day that she was missing. mi...@aol.com
>
Because Laci was already dead on the morning of 12/24. Scott said that she was
up and mopping the floor when he left. Yeah right. Without the natural light
she seemed to love. And supposedly HE mopped the floor when he got home from
"fishing".
Donna
My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
DedNdogYrs
remained CLOSED all day.
I find this strange, because if, like many of us, Laci did certain things
everyday out of habit, then I wonder why the curtains or blinds were closed
all day on the day that she was missing.>
So Scott could kill her without being seen.
Dogs & children first.
yaffaDina
If Scott was the last person who saw her and we only have his word that
it was on the 24th, rather than the 23rd -- that makes sense.
yD
Joseph Boegler
If the neighbors were in the habit of watching the house
that closely, why didn't they see Scot carry a large object
out of the house that morning and put it into the truck?
Or did he carry the body out in the middle of the night
and dispose of it before morning?
Scott supposedly left at 9:30 a.m. to go fishing. Don't
fishermen leave early in the morning? Did anyone see him
leave at 9:30?
G8tscott
morning to dispose of her body and to cover his alibi story of going
fishing......? Leaving at 9:30 takes away credibility from his fishing
alibi..... I can't recall.....When was the last time Scott was seen on the
23rd or 24th?
Kris Baker
"G8tscott" <g8ts...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030124121457...@mb-cg.aol.com...
> If scott had killed her the night before, why didn't he leave earlier in
the
> morning to dispose of her body and to cover his alibi story of going
> fishing......? Leaving at 9:30 takes away credibility from his fishing
> alibi.....
But...it shifts the timeline, because he can say "She was alive
at 9:30am and I *saw* her alive! That's the normal time she's
out of the house on her dog-walk. Someone else took her."
If he'd said "I left to go fishing at 6:00am", then he has to have
left her in bed, with no "cover" of the dog-walk story.
> I can't recall.....When was the last time Scott was seen on the
> 23rd or 24th?
I think *his* last sighting may coincide with the 8:30pm phonecall,
since he'd have (most likely) been in the house with Laci.
I think it's entirely possible that he went on an "errand" in the
middle of the night, then went again at 9:30am on the 24th
to get his alibi straight.
Kris
d~
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>"G8tscott" <g8ts...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030124121457...@mb-cg.aol.com...
>> If scott had killed her the night before, why didn't he leave earlier in
>the
>> morning to dispose of her body and to cover his alibi story of going
>> fishing......? Leaving at 9:30 takes away credibility from his fishing
>> alibi.....
>
> But...it shifts the timeline, because he can say "She was alive
> at 9:30am and I *saw* her alive! That's the normal time she's
> out of the house on her dog-walk. Someone else took her."
>
> If he'd said "I left to go fishing at 6:00am", then he has to have
> left her in bed, with no "cover" of the dog-walk story.
Damn, Kris! You CONTNUE to out "criminal mind" me.... This makes all
sorts of sense!
>> I can't recall.....When was the last time Scott was seen on the
>> 23rd or 24th?
>
> I think *his* last sighting may coincide with the 8:30pm phonecall,
> since he'd have (most likely) been in the house with Laci.
>
> I think it's entirely possible that he went on an "errand" in the
> middle of the night, then went again at 9:30am on the 24th
> to get his alibi straight.
>
>Kris
I bow to you. I worship.
d~
"I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
- Spike - "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"
Kris Baker
"d~" <djominsa...@sayno2spam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e34c81a...@netnews.attbi.com...
You may deliver tithing to the House of Kris through any convenient
credit union ;)
Kris
Mids
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mids
Every day is a good day when it's above ground.
ZepHead
jlp...@aol.comnospam (JLplsSS) wrote:
> > But, strangely, on the day that Laci was missing, the curtains or blinds
> >remained CLOSED all day.
> >
> > I find this strange, because if, like many of us, Laci did certain
> >things
> >everyday out of habit, then I wonder why the curtains or blinds were closed
> >all day on the day that she was missing. mi...@aol.com
> >
>
> Because Laci was already dead on the morning of 12/24. Scott said that she
> was
> up and mopping the floor when he left. Yeah right. Without the natural
> light
> she seemed to love. And supposedly HE mopped the floor when he got home from
> "fishing".
>
Scott took Laci on his fishing trip and now Laci sleeps with the fishes.
ponyduck
djominsa...@sayno2spam.hotmail.com (d~) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:53:27 GMT, "Kris Baker"
><kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"G8tscott" <g8ts...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030124121457...@mb-cg.aol.com...
>>> If scott had killed her the night before, why didn't he leave earlier in
>>the
>>> morning to dispose of her body and to cover his alibi story of going
>>> fishing......? Leaving at 9:30 takes away credibility from his fishing
>>> alibi.....
>>
>> But...it shifts the timeline, because he can say "She was alive
>> at 9:30am and I *saw* her alive! That's the normal time she's
>> out of the house on her dog-walk. Someone else took her."
>>
>> If he'd said "I left to go fishing at 6:00am", then he has to have
>> left her in bed, with no "cover" of the dog-walk story.
>
>Damn, Kris! You CONTNUE to out "criminal mind" me.... This makes all
>sorts of sense!
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see that it would
have made much material difference whether Scott said he last saw Laci
in bed at 6:30, or later on at 9:30. In both cases, he would be
saying the same thing: when I last saw Laci, she was all right; when
I got home, she was gone. Had he chosen to leave earlier, he could
still say that Laci normally went to walk the dog mid-morning, or that
they had a short conversation before he left, in which she mentioned
she would be going to walk the dog, etc. The whole dog-walking story
really wasn't necessary at all--he could merely have said, "I left at
6:30am, Laci was still in bed and okay. When I got home, she was
gone."
All that said, I believe that if Scott did it, he concocted the whole
story about the dog-walk mainly to deflect the closest scrutiny away
from the house, and to the park & surrounding areas. Perhaps a little
naive on his part, but I really think he believed that if the story
was that she was snatched while out walking the dog, most of the
police search for evidence would be out away from the house.
>>> I can't recall.....When was the last time Scott was seen on the
>>> 23rd or 24th?
>>
>> I think *his* last sighting may coincide with the 8:30pm phonecall,
>> since he'd have (most likely) been in the house with Laci.
>>
>> I think it's entirely possible that he went on an "errand" in the
>> middle of the night, then went again at 9:30am on the 24th
>> to get his alibi straight.
>>
>>Kris
I totally agree with this. If he did it, he disposed of the body
either the evening before, or sometime during the night. And I bet
it's nowhere near the marina.
--pony
Maggie
><kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"G8tscott" <g8ts...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030124121457...@mb-cg.aol.com...
>>> If scott had killed her the night before, why didn't he leave earlier in
>>the
>>> morning to dispose of her body and to cover his alibi story of going
>>> fishing......? Leaving at 9:30 takes away credibility from his fishing
>>> alibi.....
>>
>> But...it shifts the timeline, because he can say "She was alive
>> at 9:30am and I *saw* her alive! That's the normal time she's
>> out of the house on her dog-walk. Someone else took her."
>>
>> If he'd said "I left to go fishing at 6:00am", then he has to have
>> left her in bed, with no "cover" of the dog-walk story.
>
>Damn, Kris! You CONTNUE to out "criminal mind" me.... This makes all
>sorts of sense!
pony said:
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see that it would
have made much material difference whether Scott said he last saw Laci
in bed at 6:30, or later on at 9:30. In both cases, he would be
saying the same thing: when I last saw Laci, she was all right; when
I got home, she was gone. Had he chosen to leave earlier, he could
still say that Laci normally went to walk the dog mid-morning, or that
they had a short conversation before he left, in which she mentioned
she would be going to walk the dog, etc. The whole dog-walking story
really wasn't necessary at all--he could merely have said, "I left at
6:30am, Laci was still in bed and okay. When I got home, she was
gone."
***I agree, pony. Seems like a trade-off to me--more believable fishing time
and no dog leash set-up, vs. less believable fishing time and (what he thinks
is) a clever dog leash set-up. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The
only problem I see with the 6:00 a.m.-leave-her-in-bed story is that it's too
Blagg.
Pony said:
All that said, I believe that if Scott did it, he concocted the whole
story about the dog-walk mainly to deflect the closest scrutiny away
from the house, and to the park & surrounding areas. Perhaps a little
naive on his part, but I really think he believed that if the story
was that she was snatched while out walking the dog, most of the
police search for evidence would be out away from the house.
***Yep--that, too. And it could be something as simple as him oversleeping
after being out all night. He might have wanted to leave earlier but screwed
it up.
>>> I can't recall.....When was the last time Scott was seen on the
>>> 23rd or 24th?
>>
>> I think *his* last sighting may coincide with the 8:30pm phonecall,
>> since he'd have (most likely) been in the house with Laci.
>>
>> I think it's entirely possible that he went on an "errand" in the
>> middle of the night, then went again at 9:30am on the 24th
>> to get his alibi straight.
>>
>>Kris
I totally agree with this. If he did it, he disposed of the body
either the evening before, or sometime during the night. And I bet
it's nowhere near the marina. >>
***If I was the cops, I'd look in exactly the opposite direction of that
marina.
Maggie
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the
experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so."--Douglas Adams.
Mids
.
robbielynn
night, on the 23rd. The timeline of his story also is
amazing. He claims he left at 9:30a.m. to go fishing and
Laci was leaving at approximately the same time to walk
their dog. Well, since the dog was found around 10:30
that morning on his leash, that leaves only an hour for
her "kidnapping" to take place. A one hour window of
opportunity seems pretty slim and suspicious to average
sleuth like me. ******* robbielynn
tiny dancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030125071627...@mb-fc.aol.com...
I've been sayin that all along........she's no where near where he claims to
have been. He's not that dumb me thinks.......
td
Threnody
Mids, did you realize that you're posting nothing in your messages but a
lot of blank space, then a period and your .sig? Maybe only 1 of every 5
posts from you have any real content.
=======================================================================
cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com | Please remove the obvious to reply
"Certainly, exposure to opera at an early age did not inspire me to
stab someone and sing about it." Nancy Rudins, alt.true-crime
=======================================================================
Mids
of blank space, then a period and your .sig? Maybe only 1 of every 5 posts
from you have any real content.>>
******************************
Thank you. I don't know why it's doing that, but I just noticed it too. Maybe
an AOL glitch? I'll check it out. Thanks.
Kris Baker
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3e326e84....@news.wf.net...
>
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see that it would
> have made much material difference whether Scott said he last saw Laci
> in bed at 6:30, or later on at 9:30.
Because he says he "went to the office" for awhile at 9:30am,
leaving Laci preparing for her daily walk with the dog. He then
(supposedly, casually) decided to go fishing.
Going to the "office" at 6:30am is problematic for him, as that's
unlikely to be his usual habit. It also lets him "casually"
decide to go fishing, rather than making that decision before
he left home. It also gives some legitimacy to whatever he may
have done at work, before going fishing. I think it's very
likely by now that there's some confirmation that he was at
the office (where the cement was), and he needed that to be
part of his story.
He also had to "plant" some ideas of where Laci could have
been taken, by saying that she was going to walk the dog and
shop at the store.
If he'd said he left earlier, the shopping story would probably
be out, he wouldn't be able to describe what she was wearing,
or that she was awake when he last saw her.
> All that said, I believe that if Scott did it, he concocted the whole
> story about the dog-walk mainly to deflect the closest scrutiny away
> from the house, and to the park & surrounding areas. Perhaps a little
> naive on his part, but I really think he believed that if the story
> was that she was snatched while out walking the dog, most of the
> police search for evidence would be out away from the house.
Precisely.
Kris
d~
<cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com> wrote:
>On 24 Jan 2003, mido...@aol.comnospam (Mids) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Mids
>> Every day is a good day when it's above ground.
>>
>
>Mids, did you realize that you're posting nothing in your messages but a
>lot of blank space, then a period and your .sig? Maybe only 1 of every 5
>posts from you have any real content.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelt "comments on non quoted text so we have no idea WTF
you're talking about." but I suppose that everyone could figure what
you meant to type from the context.
Every9man
Ok, I've come in late on this. Does anyone have the patience to tell me what
the alibi is including the significance of the drawn curtains.
I've read as much as I can but it's too much to wade through.
thanks in advance.
b
Lady Taker
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ok, I've come in late on this. Does anyone have the patience to tell me
what
> the alibi is including the significance of the drawn curtains.
> I've read as much as I can but it's too much to wade through.
> thanks in advance.
> b
The curtains are another JonBenet/pineapple red herring, I think. A
neighbor said that Laci always opened the curtains every morning and that
wasn't done on 12/24 thereby, I suppose, implying that Laci was already dead
at that time. How exactly that would be proven (about the curtains, I mean)
is beyond me.
Frankly, I open my drapes the same way 90% of the time but there's always
those days where something else occurs and I'm late doing it or it doesn't
get done by me or <whatever>. One day I realized after leaving home early
in the a.m. and being out all day that the drapes were still closed when I
got home late that night. Oh well. *shrug* But what does that PROVE about
anything?
--
Giselle
Linda Griffith
news:v38n7t9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Frankly, I open my drapes the same way 90% of the time but there's always
> those days where something else occurs and I'm late doing it or it doesn't
> get done by me or <whatever>. One day I realized after leaving home early
> in the a.m. and being out all day that the drapes were still closed when I
> got home late that night. Oh well. *shrug* But what does that PROVE
about
> anything?
> --
> Giselle
>
I think) about the fact that I *always* open the draperies when I wake up,
and that my neighbor would have plenty to tell the police if I disappeared,
because I always do that, and she notices. Then, day-before-yesterday, I
slept late, it was a gloomy day, I had nothing special to do, and I didn't
open the drapes all day long! When it got time to close the drapes and they
hadn't even been opened, I did think of the Laci Peterson case and the fact
that I had varied my routine...and there was nothing suspicious about it.
Linda
Kris Baker
> > Ok, I've come in late on this. Does anyone have the patience to tell me
> what
> > the alibi is including the significance of the drawn curtains.
> > I've read as much as I can but it's too much to wade through.
> > thanks in advance.
> > b
>
> The curtains are another JonBenet/pineapple red herring, I think. A
> neighbor said that Laci always opened the curtains every morning and that
> wasn't done on 12/24 thereby, I suppose, implying that Laci was already
dead
> at that time. How exactly that would be proven (about the curtains, I
mean)
> is beyond me.
I think there's something to the curtains; for a neighbor to actually
*notice* that the drapes were drawn, means that it was a rare event.
People do very routine things....or don't do them at all. My living
room drapes are always open...except for the one time when we
wanted privacy and closed them. Two neighbors remarked on that.
The house across the street from me has had their venetian blinds
hanging half-way open for years. If they were suddenly closed (or
totally open), I'd notice.
Kris
Lady Taker
"Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:v38rnkb...@corp.supernews.com...
Plus, how do we know the neighbor didn't do a reverse-think on the whole
thing? You know, she found out Laci was missing, looked over to the house,
saw the curtains closed *then* and thought, "Gee, I don't remember seeing
the curtains closed at this time of day before and, you know, I'm pretty
sure she *always* opened them at the exact same time every morning so this
must mean something." Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say. Now if she
told someone two months ago that her neighbor, Laci, always opened her
drapes at the same time every day without variance, then maybe I'd put some
weight in it. Otherwise I tend to shrug it off as interesting but not
something that can be used in court.
--
Giselle
Lady Taker
Yeah, but would you notice *immediately* or would you notice after
someone/thing called your attention to their house and then you'd think,
"Ah, something's different"? I think it means nothing. I really do. But,
hey, I thought the same thing about the freakin' pineapple bits and that
generated about a billion posts.
--
Giselle
Mids
another group,
I think) about the fact that I *always* open the draperies when I wake up,
and that my neighbor would have plenty to tell the police if I disappeared
It's common knowledge that we all have routines and some days, as you said, we
just don't do what we'd almost always do. However, in this case, the reason it
is suspect is BECAUSE she is missing. Otherwise, I don't think the neighbors
would have had any reason to point it out.
HudsonGrl
>From: "Lady Taker" vol...@ccrtc.com
>Date: 1/26/2003 6:07 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <v38u5992hdppc
>
>Yeah, but would you notice *immediately* or would you notice after
>someone/thing called your attention to their house and then you'd think,
>"Ah, something's different"?
i had neighbors that noticed *everything*...my blinds, when i pulled out of my
drive, when i walked my dog...*everything*. some people are just plain nosey.
and maybe laci's nosey neighbor is on to something after all?
sherman
drapes were not drawn open who called the Police. So it is that I find that
this is an important incident in this case. Sherm.
"Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
news:v38n7t9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Lady Taker
"sherman" <sh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bC0Z9.51331$4y2.2161@sccrnsc04...
> When my Mother died, it was an alert kindly neighbor who noticed that her
> drapes were not drawn open who called the Police. So it is that I find
that
> this is an important incident in this case. Sherm.
The day it happened or several days later?
--
Giselle
Destiny
>Date: 1/26/2003 7:14 PM Mountain
>When my Mother died, it was an alert kindly neighbor who noticed that her
>drapes were not drawn open who called the Police. So it is that I find that
>this is an important incident in this case. Sherm.
It was the same when my dad died. I went and did my usual morning errands
before going over to his house, but when I saw the curtains in the livingroom
and front bedroom still closed, I knew that something was wrong. It was also
the first time since my dad had lived in the house that I'd ever had to use the
spare key. I walked in and found him, dead, in his bed.
The fact that Laci Peterson's drapes were not opened on the morning of the 24th
leads me to believe she died sometime after speaking to her mother on the 23rd,
and before 9:30a.m. on the 24th.
Regards,
Destiny
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible
warning." Catherine S.
sherman
got up. Sherm.
"Lady Taker" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
news:v395oc8...@corp.supernews.com...
Lady Taker
> The same morning. She always opened up her drapes in the morning when she
> got up. Sherm.
Oh, now that's interesting. I would never have believed the police would
act on something as benign as that so quickly. It's sort of comforting to
know. Sorry about your Mom but thanks for sharing that.
--
Giselle
http://www.geocities.com/piperlvr/Bob.html
Every9man
I think you are right about routines but you're not allowing for unanticipated
happenings like the dog throwing up on the rug, the bathroom toilet
overflowing, Mr. Joe Millionaire at your door:)
Barbara
Michele317
i live in nyc, downtown. in the days after 9/11 i remember looking up at
apartment windows in my neighborhood, seeing lights out and wondering if the
tenant had been in the trade center (there were a lot of notices posted about
pets that might be in need of care if their human companions were dead or
missing). i realized you don't really notice most of these routines (lights
on/off, shades open/closed) until you've got a reason to use hindsight. i
wonder how suspicious laci's closed curtains would've seemed if she never
disappeared. and if they were that suspicious, why didn't anyone go over and
check on this heavily pregnant woman? i think the closed curtains observation
isn't really important to what happened.
Syd Brooks
>> I know what you mean. I was holding forth the other day (on another
>> group, I think) about the fact that I *always* open the draperies
>> when I wake up, and that my neighbor would have plenty to tell the
>> police if I disappeared, because I always do that, and she notices.
>> Then, day-before-yesterday, I slept late, it was a gloomy day, I had
>> nothing special to do, and I didn't open the drapes all day long!
of course there are exceptions but this is the way they see it: okay, it's
rare that abusive husbands kill their wives and it's rare that cheating
husbands kill their wives. but if you are starting with a dead body and
working backwards it's a completely different story. how many murdered women
whose husbands abused them are actually killed by someone other than their
husband?
people who investigate crimes like this are very interested in departures of
habit, if someone calls home at a certain time every day, but they miss a
day and *they happen to be connected to a person who has gone missing that
same day* then it's very suspicious. it's all about probability -- what are
the chances that the one day you didn't draw your drapes was the day you
allegedly disappeared while walking your dog?
i think the drapes are very relevant and the cops think so too.
sb
Lady Taker
"Syd Brooks" <ex....@mail.com> wrote in message
news:4tkZ9.68154$AV4.3359@sccrnsc01...
Well, I can't argue with your logic there. Good job. Point well made.
--
Giselle
Syd Brooks
> Well, I can't argue with your logic there. Good job. Point well
> made.
thanks, but it may be moot as someone just posted a clip from LKL that said
there were no drapes in the front. LOL! oh well ... maybe in the back of the
house.
sb
Lady Taker
Could have been any side, really. But they were talking about that remark
specifically? What else did they say? (You made your point well, though.
You can be the counterpoint argument to my Devil's Advocate any time.)
--
Giselle
de...@mtec.com
I've been spending time lurking these boards while at work...hehehe.
The transcript for the Peterson interview on GMA quoted the
following...
"Another neighbor said they noticed Laci Peterson never opened her
curtains the day she went missing, something they said she did every
day. Scott Peterson said his wife only opened them in good weather."
Knowing that it was a crappy day to open the curtains, why would he go
fishing? Being a fisherman myself, I would know better not to be in
the bay with a 14' tin boat during sh*tty wweather.
robbie...@yahoo.com (robbielynn) wrote in message news:<8bcd2598.03012...@posting.google.com>...
Syd Brooks
> Hey All,
>
> I've been spending time lurking these boards while at work...hehehe.
>
> The transcript for the Peterson interview on GMA quoted the
> following...
> "Another neighbor said they noticed Laci Peterson never opened her
> curtains the day she went missing, something they said she did every
> day. Scott Peterson said his wife only opened them in good weather."
>
> Knowing that it was a crappy day to open the curtains, why would he go
> fishing? Being a fisherman myself, I would know better not to be in
> the bay with a 14' tin boat during sh*tty wweather.
i didn't hear him say that, but the idea that you would keep your drapes
closed just because the "weather is bad" is preposterous. keep em coming
scott, you are looking more like a guilty man every day.
sb
Frosty
says...
>
>i had neighbors that noticed *everything*...my blinds, when i pulled out of my
>drive, when i walked my dog...*everything*. some people are just plain nosey.
Thank you. That's the point I was going to make.
>and maybe laci's nosey neighbor is on to something after all?
Maybe. I hope the cops asked the neighbor a ton of questions about the
Petersons. And, to test how observant the neighbor is, the cops should ask
him/her questions about other people/houses, too. If the neighbor's nosey, I'm
sure that he/she isn't just nosey about the Peterson house.
Either way, it doesn't prove anything, obviously, but it's just one more
potentially eyebrow raising thing, in what is getting to be a pretty long list
of eyebrow raising things.
I'm still stuck on his refusal to take a polygraph test. Not only won't he take
one, he won't even admit that he won't take one. If I just lost my wife and
unborn child, I'm doing whatever I can to help find her, which would include
getting the focus of the investigation off of me, if I didn't do it, obviously,
and a big step towards doing that would be to take a polygraph test.
I wouldn't care what my lawyer advised me to do or not do. Wait a minute: I
wouldn't even have a lawyer!
At best, he's a complete coward.
Frosty
ponyduck
wrote:
(snipped)
>I'm still stuck on his refusal to take a polygraph test. Not only won't he take
>one, he won't even admit that he won't take one. If I just lost my wife and
>unborn child, I'm doing whatever I can to help find her, which would include
>getting the focus of the investigation off of me, if I didn't do it, obviously,
>and a big step towards doing that would be to take a polygraph test.
>Frosty
About this refusal to take a polygraph--at this point, what has he got
to lose? If he flunks it, the police will tend to think he's guilty,
and would consider him the #1 suspect. So what?--it's exactly what
they think now! If he is indeed innocent, there's a good chance he
could pass the thing, which would give everyone pause, and only
strengthen his case that he's innocent. At this point, he's got
little to lose, and a lot to gain, by taking one.
--pony
Maggie
> Hey All,
>
> I've been spending time lurking these boards while at work...hehehe.
>
> The transcript for the Peterson interview on GMA quoted the
> following...
> "Another neighbor said they noticed Laci Peterson never opened her
> curtains the day she went missing, something they said she did every
> day. Scott Peterson said his wife only opened them in good weather."
>
> Knowing that it was a crappy day to open the curtains, why would he go
> fishing? Being a fisherman myself, I would know better not to be in
> the bay with a 14' tin boat during sh*tty wweather.
sb said:
i didn't hear him say that, but the idea that you would keep your drapes
closed just because the "weather is bad" is preposterous. keep em coming
scott, you are looking more like a guilty man every day. >>
***Actually, what he said was that when it was cold outside, they kept the
curtains closed to keep the house warmer. Sounds like a good answer to me.
Maggie
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the
experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so."--Douglas Adams.
Maggie
wrote:
(snipped)
>I'm still stuck on his refusal to take a polygraph test. Not only won't he
take
>one, he won't even admit that he won't take one. If I just lost my wife and
>unborn child, I'm doing whatever I can to help find her, which would include
>getting the focus of the investigation off of me, if I didn't do it,
obviously,
>and a big step towards doing that would be to take a polygraph test.
>Frosty
pony said:
About this refusal to take a polygraph--at this point, what has he got
to lose? If he flunks it, the police will tend to think he's guilty,
and would consider him the #1 suspect. So what?--it's exactly what
they think now! If he is indeed innocent, there's a good chance he
could pass the thing, which would give everyone pause, and only
strengthen his case that he's innocent. At this point, he's got
little to lose, and a lot to gain, by taking one.
>>
***Agreed--but I think the problem is that he knows he can't pass one. Since
Scott has had criminal legal representation for quite a while now, I'd bet he's
already taken a private polygraph. If he'd passed, he'd probably have taken a
police one by now.
Salwar Kameez
shrubs when it was below 32 degrees (we were having a terrible
drought) and accidentally made my own little winter wonderland right
in my yard. The little old ladies across the street called the police
and said I was obviously dead inside because I'd left the sprinklers
running "for days." They call me if i don't get my paper by noon.
I have an ancestor story about the neighbors noticing a house. It was
the 1890-something epidemic, not the 1918 flu. Some neighbors
noticed there were no footprints in the snow up to this house, but the
little kids were peeking out the windows. Sure enough, the parents
were both dead. The doctor said to fetch the next of kin. Someone
said, "I know where you can find the next of kin--at the saloon. He's
the town drunk!" The doc went into the saloon, fetched him up by the
hair, and said "Sober up, you just became a daddy." And he never
drank another drop.
Kris Baker
<de...@mtec.com> wrote in message
news:6e47c81e.03013...@posting.google.com...
> Hey All,
>
> I've been spending time lurking these boards while at work...hehehe.
>
> The transcript for the Peterson interview on GMA quoted the
> following...
> "Another neighbor said they noticed Laci Peterson never opened her
> curtains the day she went missing, something they said she did every
> day. Scott Peterson said his wife only opened them in good weather."
>
> Knowing that it was a crappy day to open the curtains, why would he go
> fishing? Being a fisherman myself, I would know better not to be in
> the bay with a 14' tin boat during sh*tty wweather.
You lurkers come up with very good thoughts. That's a great
connection, and another of those "oh, duh!, Scott" things that
he's using to dig his own hole.
Kris
mothra...@hotmail.com
> I have an ancestor story about the neighbors noticing a house. It was
> the 1890-something epidemic, not the 1918 flu. Some neighbors
> noticed there were no footprints in the snow up to this house, but the
> little kids were peeking out the windows. Sure enough, the parents
> were both dead. The doctor said to fetch the next of kin. Someone
> said, "I know where you can find the next of kin--at the saloon. He's
> the town drunk!" The doc went into the saloon, fetched him up by the
> hair, and said "Sober up, you just became a daddy." And he never
> drank another drop.
I LOVE THIS STORY.
Martha
Maggie
news:6e47c81e.03013...@posting.google.com...
> Hey All,
>
> I've been spending time lurking these boards while at work...hehehe.
>
> The transcript for the Peterson interview on GMA quoted the
> following...
> "Another neighbor said they noticed Laci Peterson never opened her
> curtains the day she went missing, something they said she did every
> day. Scott Peterson said his wife only opened them in good weather."
>
> Knowing that it was a crappy day to open the curtains, why would he go
> fishing? Being a fisherman myself, I would know better not to be in
> the bay with a 14' tin boat during sh*tty wweather.
kris said:
You lurkers come up with very good thoughts. That's a great
connection, and another of those "oh, duh!, Scott" things that
he's using to dig his own hole. >>
***December 24, 2002 was a hazy, misty day in Modesto. The high was 49 and the
temperature stayed between 45 and 49 from noon to 5 p.m. I don't have a clue
about whether or not this is good fishing weather.
Desi
Kris Baker wrote in message ...
warehouse because it was raining!!!!!!!!
desi
d~
Me too!!
We gotta start collecting these gems! Save 'em for posterity.
d~
"I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
- Spike - "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"
Every9man
there werent drafts.
Barbara
Syd Brooks
i think this would fly better in Fargo than in a California town.
i mean really.
sb
Every9man
>I'm still stuck on his refusal to take a polygraph test. Not only won't
>he take
>one, he won't even admit that he won't take one. If I just lost my wife
>and
>unborn child, I'm doing whatever I can to help find her, which would include
>getting the focus of the investigation off of me, if I didn't do it,
obviously,
>and a big step towards doing that would be to take a polygraph test.
>
>I wouldn't care what my lawyer advised me to do or not do. Wait a minute:
>I
>wouldn't even have a lawyer!
>
>At best, he's a complete coward.
>
>Frosty
You would be ill advised to take a police polygraph. They are not necessarily
given by experts and the police often use them to interrogate a possible
suspect without having a lawyer there.
If you were suspected of your spouse's death and you didnt retain a lawyer, I'd
say you were being foolish, especially in this atmosphere where there is so
much pressure on the police to solve the case.
I'ts funny isnt it that if he took a polygraph and *passed* people would be
talking about how unreliable polygraphs are.
It seems, if you read this ng if nothing else, that polygraphs are only
accurate if they *convict* those who we are sure are guilty or exonerate who we
think are innocent.
Barbara
>
>
>
>
>
>
Every9man
It has not much to do with whether he will *pass* or *fail* pony, it's a way to
circumvent Miranda. They can interrogate you without you having a lawyer and
guilty or innocent you can often hang yourself.
Jeffrey MacDonald took and passed two polygraphs yet most people here I'd bet
are sure he killed his wife and kids.
Barbara
Syd Brooks
>
> You would be ill advised to take a police polygraph. They are not
> necessarily given by experts and the police often use them to
> interrogate a possible suspect without having a lawyer there.
but nothing is stopping him from taking a non-police polygraph. people do it
all the time (like o.j., but his results were so bad they didn't release
it).
sb
Syd Brooks
>>
> It has not much to do with whether he will *pass* or *fail* pony,
> it's a way to circumvent Miranda. They can interrogate you without
> you having a lawyer and guilty or innocent you can often hang
> yourself.
then why doesn't he just answer the question about polygraph instead of
dodging it? imo that makes him look guiltier than the issue of not taking
one.
sb
Maggie
>
> You would be ill advised to take a police polygraph. They are not
> necessarily given by experts and the police often use them to
> interrogate a possible suspect without having a lawyer there.
sb said:
but nothing is stopping him from taking a non-police polygraph. people do it
all the time (like o.j., but his results were so bad they didn't release
it).
>>
***Wouldn't surprise me if Scott's in the same position as OJ.
Maggie
>>
> It has not much to do with whether he will *pass* or *fail* pony,
> it's a way to circumvent Miranda. They can interrogate you without
> you having a lawyer and guilty or innocent you can often hang
> yourself.
sb said:
then why doesn't he just answer the question about polygraph instead of
dodging it? imo that makes him look guiltier than the issue of not taking
one.
>>
***Because he *has* taken a private polygraph and he didn't do well?
Syd Brooks
> << Every9man wrote:
>>
>> You would be ill advised to take a police polygraph. They are not
>> necessarily given by experts and the police often use them to
>> interrogate a possible suspect without having a lawyer there.
>
> sb said:
> but nothing is stopping him from taking a non-police polygraph.
> people do it all the time (like o.j., but his results were so bad
> they didn't release
> it).
> >>
>
> ***Wouldn't surprise me if Scott's in the same position as OJ.
i bet he wishes he had o.j.'s money.
sb
Syd Brooks
> <<
>>>
>> It has not much to do with whether he will *pass* or *fail* pony,
>> it's a way to circumvent Miranda. They can interrogate you without
>> you having a lawyer and guilty or innocent you can often hang
>> yourself.
>
> sb said:
> then why doesn't he just answer the question about polygraph instead
> of dodging it? imo that makes him look guiltier than the issue of not
> taking one.
> >>
>
> ***Because he *has* taken a private polygraph and he didn't do well?
maggie you are on to something here. why didn't we think of that before?
sb
Maggie
>> it's a way to circumvent Miranda. They can interrogate you without
>> you having a lawyer and guilty or innocent you can often hang
>> yourself.
>
> sb said:
> then why doesn't he just answer the question about polygraph instead
> of dodging it? imo that makes him look guiltier than the issue of not
> taking one.
> >>
>
maggie said:
> ***Because he *has* taken a private polygraph and he didn't do well?
sb said:
maggie you are on to something here. why didn't we think of that before? >>
***Thought I'd posted that thought before. It makes sense to me because
Scott's had legal representation for a while now and it's not uncommon for
defense lawyers to have their clients submit to private polygraphs. Arguing
against it is the fact that Scott did all those interviews and, despite reports
to the contrary, the lawyer doesn't seem to have resigned. (Surely if his
client had failed a polygraph the lawyer would move heaven and earth to keep
him from going before the press like that.)
Chocolic
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030202111617...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Yup, exactly what you said.
Chocolic
JC
> Scott's had legal representation for a while now and it's not uncommon for
> defense lawyers to have their clients submit to private polygraphs.
Arguing
> against it is the fact that Scott did all those interviews and, despite
reports
> to the contrary, the lawyer doesn't seem to have resigned. (Surely if his
> client had failed a polygraph the lawyer would move heaven and earth to
keep
> him from going before the press like that.)
>
>
> Maggie
Seriously - the lawyer won't resign at least until he gets his name gets
published - that guy's income will go up substantially after charges are
filed (and his name gets well known). Until then, why resign? Even then, who
knows?
As for lie detector tests, privately administered ones, I wouldn't doubt
Scott refused even that. He thinks he knows more than, literally, everybody
else. Of course he may have wanted to see if he was good enough to fool it.
For some reason I bet he's given it a pass tho.
JC
Patty
"JC" <jonesi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e3d9a38$0$21363$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
: > ***Thought I'd posted that thought before. It makes sense to me because
Plus he'd have to pay his attorney extra for the polygraph, where's he getting
all this money. He could get his attorney to get the guy who gave Kenneth
Fitzhugh of Palo Alto his lie detector test. Fitzhugh, later convicted of killing
his wife, was said to have passed the polygraph by his attorney.
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
For that matter, Scott and his attorney could publicly claim he passed a
private lie test too, right? What's to stop 'em, or Scott at least? If he
isn't under oath, and it's privileged communication, Scott can say what he
wants w/o impunity if it can't be proven otherwise. OTOH, re money, hasn't
it been published Scott's parents are quite well to do?
JC
Every9man
If he took a private one everyone here would be saying that it was a hired gun.
they always do.
If he passed the police wouldnt accept the fact and.
they would insist on doing their own anyway.
Damned if he does and damned if he doesnt.
Barbara
Every9man
Totallly divorced from whether or not he's guilty I am positive that if he did
answer it then you'd say there was something wrong with his answer.
There is no pleasing everyone. No matter what he does there will be complaints.
Again, I have no idea whether or not he's guilty and if I were to go by rumors
and gossip I might lean toward guilty, but that has nothing to do with the fact
that the public is insatiable and nothing will satisfy them until or unless
he's convicted and hung.
Barbara
Every9man
Barbara
JC
After I posted the above, I saw some very authoritative-sounding posts here
alluding to the lawyer's resignation, but have no idea if it's true. Have
you seen news reports? I can't figure out if it's true or not.
JC
Maggie
alluding to the lawyer's resignation, but have no idea if it's true. Have
you seen news reports? I can't figure out if it's true or not.
JC >>
***If he's resigned, that message hasn't gotten through to the press. As of
Sunday, they were still contacting McAllister for comments about the case.
JC
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030204180345...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> << After I posted the above, I saw some very authoritative-sounding posts
here
> alluding to the lawyer's resignation, but have no idea if it's true. Have
> you seen news reports? I can't figure out if it's true or not.
> JC >>
>
> ***If he's resigned, that message hasn't gotten through to the press. As
of
> Sunday, they were still contacting McAllister for comments about the case.
>
>
> Maggie
I suppose it's possible he's resigned, but I don't know what the urgency
would be. Lawyers need visibilitiy to get business, grow their practices,
even if it comes vis a vis stupid clients. And for all anyone knows at this
point, Scott will never be charged. Anyhow, I'd think the media would be
running with such a story (and I think the lawyer'd have told them by now if
he'd quit) (would that be an ethics violation?).
JC
Maggie
here
> alluding to the lawyer's resignation, but have no idea if it's true. Have
> you seen news reports? I can't figure out if it's true or not.
> JC >>
>
> ***If he's resigned, that message hasn't gotten through to the press. As
of
> Sunday, they were still contacting McAllister for comments about the case.
>
>
> Maggie
JC said:
I suppose it's possible he's resigned, but I don't know what the urgency
would be. Lawyers need visibilitiy to get business, grow their practices,
even if it comes vis a vis stupid clients. And for all anyone knows at this
point, Scott will never be charged. Anyhow, I'd think the media would be
running with such a story (and I think the lawyer'd have told them by now if
he'd quit) (would that be an ethics violation?).
>>
***I agree. I think it was just a stupid rumor.
Every9man
Dunno. I was visiting my daughter in LA in December, it was cold enough one
night to put the heat on in her apartment.
Barbara
Every9man
Oh God JC, I dont know:) I remember reading it more than once and I remember
thinking that it was from a credible source.
I also think Greta may have mentioned it.
Sorry to be of no help.
Barbara
JC
things?
> >> Barbara
> >
> >After I posted the above, I saw some very authoritative-sounding posts
here
> >alluding to the lawyer's resignation, but have no idea if it's true. Have
> >you seen news reports? I can't figure out if it's true or not.
> >JC
> >
> Oh God JC, I dont know:) I remember reading it more than once and I
remember
> thinking that it was from a credible source.
> I also think Greta may have mentioned it.
> Sorry to be of no help.
> Barbara
Well dammitall. :)
JC