Peterson: The boat will sink him
veryrich
1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
girlfriend that he lost his wife.
2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt water.
3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to both
his father and a friend).
4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
December.
6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the bay?).
7. Scott told no one of his plans to fish on the 24th.
8. Scott made a reservation to golf on the 24th and told people about
his plans.
9. Scott said his fishing trip was spur of the moment.
10. Scott's wife was murdered and dropped in the bay where he was
fishing and on the very day he was fishing. (Which makes me wonder,
why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
12. When Scott returned from fishing, he told some people that he'd
been golfing, not fishing.
13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
15. After the police left his house, Scott put the boat tarp under a
leaky gas leaf blower.
16. Tracking dogs scented Scott's dead wife at the peer where he
launched his boat.
17. Scott made several surreptitious trips to a spot near where his
dead wife's remains eventually surfaced.
Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
collective is damning.
And I've only mentioned facts related to the boat. Forget Amber,
cement, infertility, obsessive cleaning, lies, guns, etc. The above is
probably enough to convict the guy.
veryrich
Brian
> Some facts:
> 3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
> about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
> discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to both
> his father and a friend).
I just bought a car. I haven't told my parents or anyone else. And
still, I haven't dumped a body from it.
> 11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
> washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
I can't tell if your male or female. I'm guessing female purely because
I'm sexist. After scuba diving, I'll clean and wash my rash guard and
beach clothes without even recognizing other laundry or that other
laundry's right to exist in my home.
> 13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
> boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
I find my wife's hair everywhere. I think it's a trait of long
haired women. It's wandered as far as my work place, probably
migrating from my passenger car seat, to my shirt, to my desk
somehow. These hairs are like African Swallows.
Guilty or not, I think he got very unlucky on the hair. I think
it landed there by everyday circumstances. A simple hug could
have left the strand on his shirt.
> 14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
> what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
This one bugs me the most. Apparently the detective remembers what
bait he used since age four. So much bullshit. Sorry folks. Most
people pull off at the bait and tackle shop and pay for some bait.
"What did you use for bait?"
"Ask Phil at the bait and tackle shop off state road... Looked
like small fish maybe."
> Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
> incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
> isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
> collective is damning.
Do these actually make it to trial? Scott running had the biggest
impact on me.
veryrich
The defense hasn't mentioned that they found Laci's hair everywhere in
Scott's office or even anywhere else in Scott's office. To prove that
this hair was a migrating bird, they'll have to show how many other
places her hair was found. If they decide that they don't have to
"prove anything," well, it's their risk. Let the jury decide how they
think that hair got "in the teeth" (yeah!) of the pliers.
> > 14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
> > what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
>
> This one bugs me the most. Apparently the detective remembers what
> bait he used since age four. So much bullshit. Sorry folks. Most
> people pull off at the bait and tackle shop and pay for some bait.
>
> "What did you use for bait?"
> "Ask Phil at the bait and tackle shop off state road... Looked
> like small fish maybe."
>
Yabbut, that's not what Scott said. If he'd stopped at Larry's Bait
Shop, Larry would be on the witness list. Fact is, Scott got a deer in
the headlights look and finally muttered something about "a lure."
When his mother-in-law asked him days later (iow, after the shock had
worn off), he didn't answer. Let his sister answer for him.
So, based on the above, I'll give you credit for two out of seventeen.
The other fifteen will convict him.
> > Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
> > incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
> > isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
> > collective is damning.
>
> Do these actually make it to trial?
Yes.
> Scott running had the biggest
> impact on me.
It's huge and follows a scenario like the one above. A dye job by
itself means nothing. Combined with the tent and the ten grand, etc.,
it means he's sunk.
veryrich
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd1q8i$j...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> Some facts:
>
> 1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
> girlfriend that he lost his wife.
>
> 2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt water.
>
> 3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
> about it)
Sorry, but the above made me burst out laughing.
"Y'argh, she's seen the boat! She'll have to diiiiiie!"
that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
> discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to both
> his father and a friend).
>
> 4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
> expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
>
> 5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
> December.
>
> 6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the bay?).
Apparently not, but overkill for freshwater fishing, and unless we think he
was stocking up against all possibilities for Dec 24, he clearly intended to
be on salt water. My guess is he told the guy he was going fishing on the
ocean, and got that stamp, instead of telling him he was going to go fishing
on the Bay, which requires a different stamp. But the point remains: Scott
was clearly planning on "fishing" in salt water, and that's where he went,
and where his wife and son's bodies were found.
Yes, unless his lawyer was able to conjure up a very appealing alternate
scenario, and homeless meth-heads hocking $20 watches don't cut it.
Very good summation of all the evidence pointing to the boat.
RstJ
Kris Baker
"Brian" <br...@rohan.edu> wrote in message
news:cd1sfp$o00$2...@gondor.sdsu.edu...
> veryrich <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Some facts:
>
> > 3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
> > about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
> > discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to both
> > his father and a friend).
>
> I just bought a car. I haven't told my parents or anyone else. And
> still, I haven't dumped a body from it.
A month from now, will you have told them?
Scott hadn't "just" bought that boat.
> > 11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
> > washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
>
> I can't tell if your male or female. I'm guessing female purely because
> I'm sexist. After scuba diving, I'll clean and wash my rash guard and
> beach clothes without even recognizing other laundry or that other
> laundry's right to exist in my home.
Would you take that laundry out of the machine, or just
stick your items in and turn it on? (Since you're male,
the second choice is more reasonable and yes, I can
be sexist, too.)
> > 13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
> > boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>
> I find my wife's hair everywhere. I think it's a trait of long
> haired women. It's wandered as far as my work place, probably
> migrating from my passenger car seat, to my shirt, to my desk
> somehow. These hairs are like African Swallows.
>
> Guilty or not, I think he got very unlucky on the hair. I think
> it landed there by everyday circumstances. A simple hug could
> have left the strand on his shirt.
Explain how it got caught, then, between the teeth of
the pliers, with a bit of adhesive on it....and grass residue.
> > 14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
> > what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
>
> This one bugs me the most. Apparently the detective remembers what
> bait he used since age four. So much bullshit. Sorry folks. Most
> people pull off at the bait and tackle shop and pay for some bait.
>
> "What did you use for bait?"
> "Ask Phil at the bait and tackle shop off state road... Looked
> like small fish maybe."
....after doing substantial research on the internet,
regarding Bay tides, channels, etc?
> > Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
> > incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
> > isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
> > collective is damning.
>
> Do these actually make it to trial? Scott running had the biggest
> impact on me.
Sure, most of them have already been mentioned in trial.
We're not up to The Happy Camper yet.
Kris
veryrich
Thanks, Kris. Make that #18.
18. Weeks before Scott's wife was killed and dumped in the bay, Scott
researched tides, depths, etc., of the very area where his wife's body
was dumped. (Keep in mind that Scott claims that the trip was spur of
the moment.)
veryrich
Maggie
>
>1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
>girlfriend that he lost his wife.
>
>2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt water.
***I don't remember this. The original owner testified that it *hadn't* been
in salt water, but I don't recall him testifying that Scott asked. If he had,
wouldn't the fact that the boat hadn't been in salt water have ruled it out as
a possibility?
>
>3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
>about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
>discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to both
>his father and a friend).
***Boat purchased in his name and registered.
>
>4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
>expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
***...but had at least four fishing licenses to support his claim that he *did*
fish.
>
>5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
>December.
***Yep--those were the days he'd told amber he was travelling. Makes sense
that he'd think he had some time to fish then.
>
>6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the bay?).
***...not according to information Scorp posted. But it would have been
necessary for ocean areas around his parents' home. At the very least it
indicates a lack of premeditation.
>
>7. Scott told no one of his plans to fish on the 24th.
***He told loads of people that he had been fishing.
>
>8. Scott made a reservation to golf on the 24th and told people about
>his plans.
>
>9. Scott said his fishing trip was spur of the moment.
***Yep--shows an absence of premeditation.
>
>10. Scott's wife was murdered and dropped in the bay where he was
>fishing and on the very day he was fishing. (Which makes me wonder,
>why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
***Oh? When was it proven Laci was murdered and dropped in the Bay on 12/24?
I must have missed that part.
>
>11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
>washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
***Unless someone testifies that this was out of character, he never washed
clothes, et al, it's not very interesting.
>
>12. When Scott returned from fishing, he told some people that he'd
>been golfing, not fishing.
***I'm still trying to find out why this is considered anything other than a
slip of the tongue.
>
>13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
>boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
***You apparently didn't pay attention to today's testimony. And it can't be
proven (as yet, anyway) that the hair is Laci's.
>
>14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
>what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
***I suspect the explanation is the same as the explanation for why he told
some people he was golfing and some fishing.
>
>15. After the police left his house, Scott put the boat tarp under a
>leaky gas leaf blower.
***I have always thought this was just a stroke of good luck. There's no
indication that Scott knows a thing about forensics or destroying DNA evidence.
I can't imagine he could be sure the gas would do the trick. Why not just
toss it if it really had Laci's DNA on it?
>
>16. Tracking dogs scented Scott's dead wife at the peer where he
>launched his boat.
***I have no idea if this actually happened, but it will definitely not be
testified to. The only testimony will be about the scent of a live Laci--not a
dead one.
>
>17. Scott made several surreptitious trips to a spot near where his
>dead wife's remains eventually surfaced.
***...where the police were searching for her body. You say he returned to the
scene of the crime, he says he was watching the search.
>
>Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
>incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
>isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
>collective is damning.
***Frankly, I think the list is shaky (lots of filler, things not proven,
things that mean little), except for the fact that the body was dumped in the
same place--90 miles from his house--that Scott admits he was on the day she
disappeared. This is what the prosecutor should hammer home in the closing,
pointing out that anyone who wanted to frame Scott wouldn't have weighted down
the bodies. Why bother to frame someone and then make it almost impossible for
the bodies to surface?
>
>And I've only mentioned facts related to the boat. Forget Amber,
>cement, infertility, obsessive cleaning, lies, guns, etc. The above is
>probably enough to convict the guy.
***Perhaps, with a decent DA.
Maggie
"Nancy, if you were 8 1/2 months pregnant and I was married to you, I'd be
going fishing Christmas Eve." -- Mark Geragos, to Nancy Grace on LKL
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:cd1sfp$o00$2...@gondor.sdsu.edu...
> veryrich <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>
> I find my wife's hair everywhere. I think it's a trait of long
> haired women. It's wandered as far as my work place, probably
> migrating from my passenger car seat, to my shirt, to my desk
> somehow. These hairs are like African Swallows.
>
> Guilty or not, I think he got very unlucky on the hair. I think
> it landed there by everyday circumstances. A simple hug could
> have left the strand on his shirt.
Surprising, isn't it? With all these migratory hairs floating around, one
of Laci's ends up in the pliers in the boat; yet we've heard nothing about
Amber's showing up anywhere. Reportedly, Amber got more than a hug.
Linda
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Cliff and Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10f90rc...@corp.supernews.com...
And there was only the one of them. Not a bunch with one just happening
to be in the jaws of a pair of pliers. Just one. No other hairs found at the
warehouse (or the G would be screeching about it). Just one single
strand of hair that the G is going to try to argue away as not being Laci's
without being able to offer a single credible alternate source.
The hair alone will convince at least one of the jurors, probably more.
It's not *just* the hair. It's where it was found, how it was found,
and what was *not* found around it.
RstJ
OzzieAnnie
^^^^^You know of course that Scott didn't buy any bait anywhere that
day?
OA
Håkan Gustavsson
wrote:
>the fact that the body was dumped in the
>same place--90 miles from his house--that Scott admits he was on the day she
>disappeared. This is what the prosecutor should hammer home in the closing,
>pointing out that anyone who wanted to frame Scott wouldn't have weighted down
>the bodies. Why bother to frame someone and then make it almost impossible for
>the bodies to surface?
Good Maggie, you are making progress.
Haakan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Geragos: "You'd be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor who couldn't put together an indictment, let alone a conviction in the case. His defense at this point is, 'Oh, my God, somebody else must have done it and was trying to set me up.' I don't think it's ever going to wash."
tinydancer
"Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:wv%Ic.82513$XM6.24651@attbi_s53...
I wonder if any were found in snott's truck? It would be mighty odd if
there was a hair found in the HMS Dumpjob, yet not a single one found in
snotty's truck.
td
veryrich
Maggie wrote:
> >Some facts:
> >
> >1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
> >girlfriend that he lost his wife.
> >
> >2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt
water.
>
> ***I don't remember this. The original owner testified that it
*hadn't* been
> in salt water, but I don't recall him testifying that Scott asked.
If he had,
> wouldn't the fact that the boat hadn't been in salt water have ruled
it out as
> a possibility?
It doesn't matter whether the boat had been in salt water or not; it
matters that Scott asked the question. It shows premeditation, despite
his telling everyone that his little jaunt was "unplanned."
> >3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
> >about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
> >discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to
both
> >his father and a friend).
>
> ***Boat purchased in his name and registered.
How does that negate the fact that he didn't tell anyone? If I get a
speeding ticket, the state knows, but it doesn't mean anyone else
does.
> >4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
> >expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
>
> ***...but had at least four fishing licenses to support his claim
that he *did*
> fish.
Four old licenses balanced against testimony that he just wasn't that
into it of late. Why the sudden interest in fishing, right around the
time yer wife goes swimming with the fishes? Half credit.
> >5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
> >December.
>
> ***Yep--those were the days he'd told amber he was travelling. Makes
sense
> that he'd think he had some time to fish then.
He also told her he'd be gone through the end of the year. Why
didn't he buy a full-year license? No credit.
> >6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the
bay?).
>
> ***...not according to information Scorp posted. But it would have
been
> necessary for ocean areas around his parents' home. At the very
least it
> indicates a lack of premeditation.
It indicates that he thought he be in salt water about the time he was.
Hence, the trip wasn't "spur of the moment." But until we know
for sure about that stamp, I'll give you this one. Full credit.
> >
> >7. Scott told no one of his plans to fish on the 24th.
>
> ***He told loads of people that he had been fishing.
And what has that to do with the fact that he told no one beforehand?
No credit.
> >8. Scott made a reservation to golf on the 24th and told people
about
> >his plans.
> >
> >9. Scott said his fishing trip was spur of the moment.
>
> ***Yep--shows an absence of premeditation.
??? Or that he covered up his true intentions.
> >10. Scott's wife was murdered and dropped in the bay where he was
> >fishing and on the very day he was fishing. (Which makes me wonder,
> >why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
>
> ***Oh? When was it proven Laci was murdered and dropped in the Bay
on 12/24?
> I must have missed that part.
Where've you been? This is what this trial is about. Laci hasn't
been seen since 12/23 and her body turned up in the bay, with 3+ months
of water damage. The murder part is simple, unless you think that HMO
thing got to her and she did herself in, suicide by duct tape.
> >11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
> >washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
>
> ***Unless someone testifies that this was out of character, he never
washed
> clothes, et al, it's not very interesting.
Photos of the shed, the shop, the truck suggest that Scott wasn't the
neat freak of the family. But I'll give you half credit.
> >12. When Scott returned from fishing, he told some people that he'd
> >been golfing, not fishing.
>
> ***I'm still trying to find out why this is considered anything other
than a
> slip of the tongue.
A slip of the tongue is "I went farting" when you really went
"fishing." When's the last time you said, "I was at the
grocery store" when you were really at the gym?
> >13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
> >boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>
> ***You apparently didn't pay attention to today's testimony. And it
can't be
> proven (as yet, anyway) that the hair is Laci's.
It's her hair. Nothing from today proves otherwise. Not only that,
but it was in the TEETH (yeah!) of the pliers, along with glue and
grass.
> >14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
> >what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
>
> ***I suspect the explanation is the same as the explanation for why
he told
> some people he was golfing and some fishing.
I agree. Since he'd been out dumping his wife's body, he wasn't
prepared for the questions.
> >15. After the police left his house, Scott put the boat tarp under a
> >leaky gas leaf blower.
>
> ***I have always thought this was just a stroke of good luck.
There's no
> indication that Scott knows a thing about forensics or destroying DNA
evidence.
> I can't imagine he could be sure the gas would do the trick. Why
not just
> toss it if it really had Laci's DNA on it.
Right. Wasn't he the guy who asked about cadaver dogs on Christmas
day? He was smart enough (or cheap enough) to know that if he'd lost
the cover, there'd be more questions.
> >16. Tracking dogs scented Scott's dead wife at the peer where he
> >launched his boat.
>
> ***I have no idea if this actually happened, but it will definitely
not be
> testified to. The only testimony will be about the scent of a live
Laci--not a
> dead one.
The dog lady said that a tracking dog will detect a recently dead body,
as it takes a while for decomposition to be scented. Fact is, the dogs
alerted to Laci at the marina. When was she there?
> >17. Scott made several surreptitious trips to a spot near where his
> >dead wife's remains eventually surfaced.
>
> ***...where the police were searching for her body. You say he
returned to the
> scene of the crime, he says he was watching the search.
Covert trips in multiple rented cars like a common criminal returning
to the scene of the crime. But even if I give you half credit,
you've still not adequately explained the other 17.
And you didn't even try to refute number 18, the internet search of
tides and depths. You get two out of 18. The remaining 16 will convict
him. Remember, it doesn't help to refute one or two. You have to
refute the bulk of the facts.
> >Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
> >incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
> >isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
> >collective is damning.
>
> ***Frankly, I think the list is shaky (lots of filler, things not
proven,
> things that mean little), except for the fact that the body was
dumped in the
> same place--90 miles from his house--that Scott admits he was on the
day she
> disappeared. This is what the prosecutor should hammer home in the
closing,
> pointing out that anyone who wanted to frame Scott wouldn't have
weighted down
> the bodies. Why bother to frame someone and then make it almost
impossible for
> the bodies to surface?
> >
> >And I've only mentioned facts related to the boat. Forget Amber,
> >cement, infertility, obsessive cleaning, lies, guns, etc. The above
is
> >probably enough to convict the guy.
>
>***Perhaps, with a decent DA.
Of course, you remember the Skakel summation. It ain't over till
it's over.
veryrich
veryrich
Maggie wrote:
> >Some facts:
> >
> >1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
> >girlfriend that he lost his wife.
> >
> >2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt
water.
>
> ***I don't remember this. The original owner testified that it
*hadn't* been
> in salt water, but I don't recall him testifying that Scott asked.
If he had,
> wouldn't the fact that the boat hadn't been in salt water have ruled
it out as
> a possibility?
It *suggests* that Scott was thinking ahead, or premeditating.
Whatever the answer, the fact that Scott asked the question is
important. Combine this with #18, Scott researching tidal charts, and
you have damning evidence.
> >3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
> >about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
> >discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to
both
> >his father and a friend).
>
> ***Boat purchased in his name and registered.
Notice, I didn't say, "He didn't register the boat." I said, he didn't
tell anyone about it. No credit for this one.
> >4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
> >expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
>
> ***...but had at least four fishing licenses to support his claim
that he *did*
> fish.
Balanced by facts (Ron's testimony) that show that his interest had
possibly waned. I didn't mention Laci's seasickness, which certainly
suggests that it wasn't a family boat. And I grant you, in and of
itself, it means nothing. But for a guy to suddenly get a hard-on
about fishing with the other 17 facts, well, let's just say, you don't
get credit for this one either. The incriminating facts outweigh the
old fishing licenses.
> >5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
> >December.
>
> ***Yep--those were the days he'd told amber he was travelling. Makes
sense
> that he'd think he had some time to fish then.
Why didn't he buy a calendar year license, since he told her he'd be
busy through the end of December? Your excuse makes little sense.
> >6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the
bay?).
>
> ***...not according to information Scorp posted. But it would have
been
> necessary for ocean areas around his parents' home. At the very
least it
> indicates a lack of premeditation.
?? How does it indicate lack of premeditation? He dumped her in the
salt water and had a stamp proving he had a leagal right to be there.
But I'll give you #6, since it is unproven that he needed it.
> >7. Scott told no one of his plans to fish on the 24th.
>
> ***He told loads of people that he had been fishing.
What does that have to do with #7?
> >8. Scott made a reservation to golf on the 24th and told people
about
> >his plans.
> >
> >9. Scott said his fishing trip was spur of the moment.
>
> ***Yep--shows an absence of premeditation.
?? Not with all the rest of the premeditated stuff. He 'fessed to
fishing because he though he had to. Otherwise, why the elaborate "I'm
going/I was golfing" set up?
> >10. Scott's wife was murdered and dropped in the bay where he was
> >fishing and on the very day he was fishing. (Which makes me wonder,
> >why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
>
> ***Oh? When was it proven Laci was murdered and dropped in the Bay
on 12/24?
> I must have missed that part.
Where've you been? That's what this trial is about. She hasn't been
seen since 12/23 and her body was found there, with 3+ months of water
damage. The murdered part is obvious, unless you really think that HMO
thing got to her and she did herself in.
> >11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
> >washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
>
> ***Unless someone testifies that this was out of character, he never
washed
> clothes, et al, it's not very interesting.
If you take a look at his truck, his warehouse, his shed, you'll notice
that Scott wasn't the neatfreak of the family. I'll give you half
credit.
> >12. When Scott returned from fishing, he told some people that he'd
> >been golfing, not fishing.
>
> ***I'm still trying to find out why this is considered anything other
than a
> slip of the tongue.
Think context. Plus, how many times have you said, "I was at the
grocery store" when what you really meant to say was, "the gym"? Slip
of the tongue is, "I was farting" instead of "fishing."
> >13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
> >boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>
> ***You apparently didn't pay attention to today's testimony. And it
can't be
> proven (as yet, anyway) that the hair is Laci's.
It's her hair. What about today's testimony proves otherwise?
> >14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
> >what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
>
> ***I suspect the explanation is the same as the explanation for why
he told
> some people he was golfing and some fishing.
I agree. He was out dumping his wife's body and wasn't quite ready for
the fishing question.
> >15. After the police left his house, Scott put the boat tarp under a
> >leaky gas leaf blower.
>
> ***I have always thought this was just a stroke of good luck.
There's no
> indication that Scott knows a thing about forensics or destroying DNA
evidence.
> I can't imagine he could be sure the gas would do the trick. Why
not just
> toss it if it really had Laci's DNA on it?
He didn't toss it because he bought it with the cover. If he'd tossed
it, they'd be saying, "Where's the cover?" As for Scott's True Crime
Knowledge, wasn't he the one asking about cadaver dogs on Christmas
day?
> >16. Tracking dogs scented Scott's dead wife at the peer where he
> >launched his boat.
>
> ***I have no idea if this actually happened, but it will definitely
not be
> testified to. The only testimony will be about the scent of a live
Laci--not a
> dead one.
Dog handler said that a recently dead body will be picked up by a
tracking dog, as it takes a while for the decomposition to be picked up
by the cadaver dogs.
> >17. Scott made several surreptitious trips to a spot near where his
> >dead wife's remains eventually surfaced.
>
> ***...where the police were searching for her body. You say he
returned to the
> scene of the crime, he says he was watching the search.
Using covert means. Losing tails. Switching cars. Etc.
And you didn't even try to mitigate the internet search of tides, etc.
So out of 18, I'll give you one and a half, unless I counted wrong,
which is possible.
> >Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
> >incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
> >isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
> >collective is damning.
>
> ***Frankly, I think the list is shaky (lots of filler, things not
proven,
> things that mean little), except for the fact that the body was
dumped in the
> same place--90 miles from his house--that Scott admits he was on the
day she
> disappeared. This is what the prosecutor should hammer home in the
closing,
> pointing out that anyone who wanted to frame Scott wouldn't have
weighted down
> the bodies. Why bother to frame someone and then make it almost
impossible for
> the bodies to surface?
> >
> >And I've only mentioned facts related to the boat. Forget Amber,
> >cement, infertility, obsessive cleaning, lies, guns, etc. The above
is
> >probably enough to convict the guy.
>
> ***Perhaps, with a decent DA.
> Maggie
Remember the summation in the Skakel trial? It ain't over til it's
over.
veryrich
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:m%%Ic.3710$%Q4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
What's even odder is that the G is hell-bent on giving a demonstratiton of
why he'll never be more than a B- famewhore lawyer to the guilty. He makes
a big show of an exised paragraph dealing with a witness who supposedly
places Laci in that warehouse. Now he's going to turn around and argue that's
not actually her hair in the pliers.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
But he did need a stamp for the Bay. He just got the wrong one. Meaning
he continued his fine tradition of lying about where he was going fishing.
The fact that he has an ocean enhancement stamp (extra cost) means
he wasn't planning on doing any fishing local to Modesto. So where's the
nearest saltwater? I mean, saltwater he has any chance of accessing. He's
not taking that shitcan boat out through the waves at Pacifica, for example.
Fishing license for Dec 23/24, stamped for ocean access, parking lot ticket
for Berkeley marina, bodies later found along the shore two miles up the
coast. Scott pretty much convicted *himself* on this one.
RstJ
CBZ
Don't know about California, but in NYS you can get a liscence at a tackle
shop, and your bait while you're at it.
There are even machines you can buy bait out of, like pop or chips where I
live.
Pigeon Snyderhohl
"Robert St. James \(el corazon del demonio\)"
> What's even odder is that the G is hell-bent on giving a demonstratiton of
> why he'll never be more than a B- famewhore lawyer to the guilty. He makes
> a big show of an exised paragraph dealing with a witness who supposedly
> places Laci in that warehouse. Now he's going to turn around and argue that's
> not actually her hair in the pliers.
What's the deal with that hair? I keep hearing that it's not conclusive
whose hair it is. Why can't they make a DNA anyalsis of it?
I haven't heard many details about this hair. What's the scoop?
Pigeon
tinydancer
"Pigeon Snyderhohl" <Pig...@dontfeed.org> wrote in message
news:g13Jc.8912$kK....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I believe they need the root to test for DNA and the root wasn't present.
td
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Pigeon Snyderhohl" <Pig...@dontfeed.org> wrote in message
news:g13Jc.8912$kK....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
DNA argument over testing methods. The G insists that it's only a 1 in 112
match. Of course, the problem is, since no one knew about that boat, nor
had been anywhere near it, he doesn't have any candidates for the other 111.
RstJ
CBZ
need a saltwater adapter of some sort?
Most marine engines are cooled w/ water so I can see this being an issue.
"veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd26ee$6...@odah37.prod.google.com...
OzzieAnnie
Way to go, veryrich. Succinct and damning. Maybe you should email
the DA.
OA
JLplsSS
>> > still, I haven't dumped a body from it.
>> >
Yes, but you still CAN.
Donna
My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
Maggie
>news:10f90rc...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Brian" <br...@rohan.edu> wrote in message
>> news:cd1sfp$o00$2...@gondor.sdsu.edu...
>> > veryrich <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > 13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
>> > > boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>> >
>> > I find my wife's hair everywhere. I think it's a trait of long
>> > haired women. It's wandered as far as my work place, probably
>> > migrating from my passenger car seat, to my shirt, to my desk
>> > somehow. These hairs are like African Swallows.
>> >
>> > Guilty or not, I think he got very unlucky on the hair. I think
>> > it landed there by everyday circumstances. A simple hug could
>> > have left the strand on his shirt.
>>
>> Surprising, isn't it? With all these migratory hairs floating around,
>one
>> of Laci's ends up in the pliers in the boat; yet we've heard nothing about
>> Amber's showing up anywhere. Reportedly, Amber got more than a hug.
>>
>> Linda
>
>And there was only the one of them. Not a bunch with one just happening
>to be in the jaws of a pair of pliers. Just one. No other hairs found at
>the
>warehouse (or the G would be screeching about it). Just one single
>strand of hair that the G is going to try to argue away as not being Laci's
>without being able to offer a single credible alternate source.
>
>The hair alone will convince at least one of the jurors, probably more.
>It's not *just* the hair. It's where it was found, how it was found,
>and what was *not* found around it.
***OK. So your theory is that because it's *one* hair it makes Scott look
guilty, but if the cops had found *lots* of Laci's hair in the boat or the
warehouse it would make him look *less* guilty? Is that what you're trying to
say?
Maggie
>I wonder if any were found in snott's truck? It would be mighty odd if
>there was a hair found in the HMS Dumpjob, yet not a single one found in
>snotty's truck.
***IIRC, there were lots of other hairs found--maybe even one of Brocchini's
somewhere and I know there were some dog hairs found in the boat. I've never
heard about any of Amber's hairs being found anywhere, but surely there were
some in the truck.
Maggie
>> >Some facts:
>> >
>> >1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
>> >girlfriend that he lost his wife.
>> >
>> >2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt
>water.
>>
>> ***I don't remember this. The original owner testified that it
>*hadn't* been
>> in salt water, but I don't recall him testifying that Scott asked.
>If he had,
>> wouldn't the fact that the boat hadn't been in salt water have ruled
>it out as
>> a possibility?
>
>It doesn't matter whether the boat had been in salt water or not; it
>matters that Scott asked the question. It shows premeditation, despite
>his telling everyone that his little jaunt was "unplanned."
***I think some people are so convinced of Scott's guilt that they are unable
to put themselves in the place of a person trying to objectively evaluate the
evidence. First--I can't find any reference to Scott asking Bruce Peterson if
the boat had been in salt water. But so what if he did? He wanted to use it
to fish in salt water--right? He had that ocean enhancement stamp on his
fishing license. The question does not speak to guilt about the murder. At
all.
>
>> >3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
>> >about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
>> >discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to
>both
>> >his father and a friend).
>>
>> ***Boat purchased in his name and registered.
>
>How does that negate the fact that he didn't tell anyone? If I get a
>speeding ticket, the state knows, but it doesn't mean anyone else
>does.
***Well then, you're going to have to tell me your point. If the state knows
about the boat, it's useless as a secret, throw-away body-disposal vehicle. Or
are you saying that you think the family would have never called in the police
so it's not important what the state knows--it's only important what Sharon
Rocha and Ron Grantski knew?
>
>
>> >4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
>> >expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
>>
>> ***...but had at least four fishing licenses to support his claim
>that he *did*
>> fish.
>
>Four old licenses balanced against testimony that he just wasn't that
>into it of late. Why the sudden interest in fishing, right around the
>time yer wife goes swimming with the fishes? Half credit.
***Well, I really hate to quibble since I did get that half credit, but it
seems to me that a better argument is that Scott was an extremely accomplished
boater and experienced fisherman and would have no trouble maneuvering a small
boat in choppy SF Bay water while tossing a 175 lb. package over the side. To
argue otherwise makes the actual execution an even tougher sell.
>
>
>> >5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
>> >December.
>>
>> ***Yep--those were the days he'd told amber he was travelling. Makes
>sense
>> that he'd think he had some time to fish then.
>
>He also told her he'd be gone through the end of the year. Why
>didn't he buy a full-year license? No credit.
***A full year license would have been good only until the end of the year.
Your point would be good if the full-year license had been in effect for more
than just ten days.
>
>
>> >6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the
>bay?).
>>
>> ***...not according to information Scorp posted. But it would have
>been
>> necessary for ocean areas around his parents' home. At the very
>least it
>> indicates a lack of premeditation.
>
>It indicates that he thought he be in salt water about the time he was.
>Hence, the trip wasn't "spur of the moment." But until we know
>for sure about that stamp, I'll give you this one. Full credit.
>
>> >
>> >7. Scott told no one of his plans to fish on the 24th.
>>
>> ***He told loads of people that he had been fishing.
>
>And what has that to do with the fact that he told no one beforehand?
>No credit.
***Why does it matter that he told no one beforehand? Is that some sort of
requirement for non-murder-related activities? At the very least it indicates
a lack of premeditation.
>
>
>> >8. Scott made a reservation to golf on the 24th and told people
>about
>> >his plans.
>> >
>> >9. Scott said his fishing trip was spur of the moment.
>>
>> ***Yep--shows an absence of premeditation.
>
>??? Or that he covered up his true intentions.
>
>> >10. Scott's wife was murdered and dropped in the bay where he was
>> >fishing and on the very day he was fishing. (Which makes me wonder,
>> >why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
>>
>> ***Oh? When was it proven Laci was murdered and dropped in the Bay
>on 12/24?
>> I must have missed that part.
>
>Where've you been? This is what this trial is about. Laci hasn't
>been seen since 12/23 and her body turned up in the bay, with 3+ months
>of water damage. The murder part is simple, unless you think that HMO
>thing got to her and she did herself in, suicide by duct tape.
***Sorry, but there's not been the least little bit of testimony about when
Laci died. As soon as the trial's over we can make the determination about
where he was on the day Laci entered the water, but you're begging the question
with that answer (used it right again, didn't I, Michele?).
>
>> >11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
>> >washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
>>
>> ***Unless someone testifies that this was out of character, he never
>washed
>> clothes, et al, it's not very interesting.
>
>Photos of the shed, the shop, the truck suggest that Scott wasn't the
>neat freak of the family. But I'll give you half credit.
>
>> >12. When Scott returned from fishing, he told some people that he'd
>> >been golfing, not fishing.
>>
>> ***I'm still trying to find out why this is considered anything other
>than a
>> slip of the tongue.
>
>A slip of the tongue is "I went farting" when you really went
>"fishing." When's the last time you said, "I was at the
>grocery store" when you were really at the gym?
***A nonanswer. No matter who killed Laci and how much it was planned it was a
mistake, slip of the tongue, whatever. As such, it can't be evidence of guilt.
>
>
>> >13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
>> >boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>>
>> ***You apparently didn't pay attention to today's testimony. And it
>can't be
>> proven (as yet, anyway) that the hair is Laci's.
>
>It's her hair. Nothing from today proves otherwise. Not only that,
>but it was in the TEETH (yeah!) of the pliers, along with glue and
>grass.
***First--the hair has not been proven to be Laci's. Second--a witness *does*
place Laci in the warehouse. Third--what is the theory here? The pliers were
old and rusty and the hair had no root--i.e., the pliers didn't pull the hair
from her head. I'm with the person (OA, I think) who believes this whole thing
may be a total red herring (pliers brought from the shed with hair in them for
months or years and never used on the 24th). If it convicts him, it would be
quite the irony.
>
>
>> >14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
>> >what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
>>
>> ***I suspect the explanation is the same as the explanation for why
>he told
>> some people he was golfing and some fishing.
>
>I agree. Since he'd been out dumping his wife's body, he wasn't
>prepared for the questions.
***...or he was so distraught at his wife's disappearance and the obvious fact
that police were focusing so quickly on him that he was unable to answer
questions he thought ridiculous.
This is like #1, above. You've decided he's guilty, so, therefore, this
indicates guilt. It's equally likely that it doesn't.
>
>> >15. After the police left his house, Scott put the boat tarp under a
>> >leaky gas leaf blower.
>>
>> ***I have always thought this was just a stroke of good luck.
>There's no
>> indication that Scott knows a thing about forensics or destroying DNA
>evidence.
>> I can't imagine he could be sure the gas would do the trick. Why
>not just
>> toss it if it really had Laci's DNA on it.
>
>Right. Wasn't he the guy who asked about cadaver dogs on Christmas
>day? He was smart enough (or cheap enough) to know that if he'd lost
>the cover, there'd be more questions.
***Pft. How many people on this group--very sophisticated crime
observers--would be confident enough that gasoline would destroy all forensic
evidence that they'd keep a tarp with Laci's bodily fluids or whatever is
alleged? We know his computers were seized and examined and I'm sure we'd know
by now if he'd been looking up things like this newsgroup and CSI sites. I
think this one is just evidence of luck.
>
>> >16. Tracking dogs scented Scott's dead wife at the peer where he
>> >launched his boat.
>>
>> ***I have no idea if this actually happened, but it will definitely
>not be
>> testified to. The only testimony will be about the scent of a live
>Laci--not a
>> dead one.
>
>The dog lady said that a tracking dog will detect a recently dead body,
>as it takes a while for decomposition to be scented. Fact is, the dogs
>alerted to Laci at the marina. When was she there?
***Well, Scott's truck was at the marina and I'm sure she'd been in his truck.
Is there any reason why the dogs couldn't have been alerting to her scent in
the truck?
>
>> >17. Scott made several surreptitious trips to a spot near where his
>> >dead wife's remains eventually surfaced.
>>
>> ***...where the police were searching for her body. You say he
>returned to the
>> scene of the crime, he says he was watching the search.
>
>Covert trips in multiple rented cars like a common criminal returning
>to the scene of the crime. But even if I give you half credit,
>you've still not adequately explained the other 17.
>
>And you didn't even try to refute number 18, the internet search of
>tides and depths.
***I must have missed 18, cut it off or something. It's easy--fishermen
research tides and depths. He checked out that information the same day he
contacted Bruce Peterson and looked into fishing sites. Yep, you've proved it,
he did exactly what a fisherman would do. There's certainly no evidence he
looked into tides on the 24th. IIRC, the fact is the tides were running the
wrong way (into land) at the time he actually did the dump.
You get two out of 18. The remaining 16 will convict
>him. Remember, it doesn't help to refute one or two. You have to
>refute the bulk of the facts.
***I hate to tell you this, but it's not a mathmatical contest where anything
over a D- gets him convicted. It all depends on how it's presented and
refuted.
>
>
>> >Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
>> >incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
>> >isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
>> >collective is damning.
>>
>> ***Frankly, I think the list is shaky (lots of filler, things not
>proven,
>> things that mean little), except for the fact that the body was
>dumped in the
>> same place--90 miles from his house--that Scott admits he was on the
>day she
>> disappeared. This is what the prosecutor should hammer home in the
>closing,
>> pointing out that anyone who wanted to frame Scott wouldn't have
>weighted down
>> the bodies. Why bother to frame someone and then make it almost
>impossible for
>> the bodies to surface?
>> >
>> >And I've only mentioned facts related to the boat. Forget Amber,
>> >cement, infertility, obsessive cleaning, lies, guns, etc. The above
>is
>> >probably enough to convict the guy.
>>
>>***Perhaps, with a decent DA.
>
>Of course, you remember the Skakel summation. It ain't over till
>it's over.
***Yep--it turned everything around. I bet Brazillton has people (not
Distaso!) working on that closing already.
Patty
: Maggie wrote:
: > >Some facts:
: > >
: > >1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
: > >girlfriend that he lost his wife.
: > >
: > >2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt
: water.
: >
: > ***I don't remember this. The original owner testified that it
: *hadn't* been
: > in salt water, but I don't recall him testifying that Scott asked.
: If he had,
: > wouldn't the fact that the boat hadn't been in salt water have ruled
: it out as
: > a possibility?
: It doesn't matter whether the boat had been in salt water or not; it
: matters that Scott asked the question. It shows premeditation, despite
: his telling everyone that his little jaunt was "unplanned."
Why would it show premeditation? Laci told the jewelry story employee
that her husband ocean fished in Monterey, and he had fished previously
in the ocean - San Diego, Morro Bay. So I don't see any premeditation
in asking if the boat had ever been in self water before.
:
: > >3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
: > >about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
: > >discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to
: both
: > >his father and a friend).
: >
: > ***Boat purchased in his name and registered.
:
: How does that negate the fact that he didn't tell anyone? If I get a
: speeding ticket, the state knows, but it doesn't mean anyone else
: does.
It doesn't matter if anyone else knows. The state can look up the
fact that he has a boat and start asking where the boat is if it's
missing.
Plus we don't know if Laci knew about the boat or not. That family
had lots of secrets, doesn't anyone get that. Scott and Laci didn't
give their families lots of information. Heck the Rochas and Laci's
family didn't even know the baby's due date had been changed to
February 16. They thought that must have happened on that last
appointment on December 23, when in fact they had been told in
Sept or Oct. The Rochas and even the police implied that Scott
and his family were lying about the date being February 16 and
not February 10.
circe
>"veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cd26ee$6...@odah37.prod.google.com...
>:
>: Maggie wrote:
>: > >Some facts:
>: > >
>: > >1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
>: > >girlfriend that he lost his wife.
>: > >
>: > >2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt
>: water.
>: >
>: > ***I don't remember this. The original owner testified that it
>: *hadn't* been
>: > in salt water, but I don't recall him testifying that Scott asked.
>: If he had,
>: > wouldn't the fact that the boat hadn't been in salt water have ruled
>: it out as
>: > a possibility?
>:
>: It doesn't matter whether the boat had been in salt water or not; it
>: matters that Scott asked the question. It shows premeditation, despite
>: his telling everyone that his little jaunt was "unplanned."
>
>Why would it show premeditation? Laci told the jewelry story employee
>that her husband ocean fished in Monterey, and he had fished previously
>in the ocean - San Diego, Morro Bay. So I don't see any premeditation
>in asking if the boat had ever been in self water before.
He also could have been asking about salt water trying to gauge the
condition of the boat. A lot of salt water use could indicate
increased chance of corrosion.
circe
ImNot911
>Heck the Rochas and Laci's
>family didn't even know the baby's due date had been changed to
>February 16.
It had not been changed. The due date was February 10.
JoAnn
Nancy Rudins
> "veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cd26ee$6...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> : It doesn't matter whether the boat had been in salt water or not; it
> : matters that Scott asked the question. It shows premeditation, despite
> : his telling everyone that his little jaunt was "unplanned."
>
> Why would it show premeditation? Laci told the jewelry story employee
> that her husband ocean fished in Monterey, and he had fished previously
> in the ocean - San Diego, Morro Bay. So I don't see any premeditation
> in asking if the boat had ever been in self water before.
>
Please forgive my ignorance on the subject; I know nothing
about boats and even less about fishing. It seemed to me
that a boat the size that Scott purchased wouldn't be up
to ocean fishing. Would he need a larger boat to fish in
the ocean or would a rowboat like that do just fine?
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
(lennon/mccartney)
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Michele317
>Some facts:
>
>1. Scott purchased a small boat right around the time he told his
>girlfriend that he lost his wife.
true. doesn't necessarily mean much; he could've been shopping for one for
months until he found one that fit his price/size requirements.
>2. Scott asked the original owner if the boat had been in salt water.
haven't seen evidence as to whether this question had been asked. but it's a
legit question if you're buying a boat for any reason.
>3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
>about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
>discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to both
>his father and a friend).
maybe he wanted his boating trips to be private, a little time away for
himself. god knows how eager people are to invite themselves along when they
know you've got a boat.
>4. Scott had shown a disinterest in fishing in the past (left his
>expensive reel at the in-laws when last forced to fish).
interested enough to have bought a few licenses in the past. interested enough
to have several rod-and-reels (one was in his car when he was making his break
for the border).
>5. Scott purchased a fishing license for the 23rd and 24th of
>December.
>
>6. He purchased an ocean enhancement stamp (necessary for the bay?).
not necessary.
>7. Scott told no one of his plans to fish on the 24th.
didn't want to get stuck fishing with ron grantski.
>8. Scott made a reservation to golf on the 24th and told people about
>his plans.
good way to spend the day alone before the in-law onslaught.
>9. Scott said his fishing trip was spur of the moment.
weather prompted his change of plans.
>10. Scott's wife was murdered and dropped in the bay where he was
>fishing and on the very day he was fishing.
we will never know exactly which day laci was murdered, or which day she was
dropped in the bay.
> (Which makes me wonder,
>why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
which makes me wonder, why didn't anyone else see scott on the water :)? it's a
really big bay.
>11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry and
>washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
like many of us, he didn't want to wash dirty rags with clothes. he's selfish
enough to do his own things first and not bother with the rags later. i've seen
such things happen in my own home :).
>12. When Scott returned from fishing, he told some people that he'd
>been golfing, not fishing.
stupid mistake; he told almost everyone he had been fishing and even produced a
receipt for parking.
>13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
>boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
remains to be seen.
>14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
>what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
not an experienced fisherman. it's not uncommon to fish for whatever's running
that day.
>15. After the police left his house, Scott put the boat tarp under a
>leaky gas leaf blower.
i guess the assumption is that he'd know that gasoline destroys forensic
evidence. i have no way of knowing if he did know this; i sure didn't.
>16. Tracking dogs scented Scott's dead wife at the peer where he
>launched his boat.
but not on the boat.
>17. Scott made several surreptitious trips to a spot near where his
>dead wife's remains eventually surfaced.
this looks really suspicious to me, especially since he took rented cars.
>Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
>incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
>isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
>collective is damning.
>
tinydancer
"Patty" <r...@what.com> wrote in message
news:elcJc.16$3f...@cyclops.nntpserver.com...
I'm assuming scott didn't plan on there being this big an involvement in his
'missing wife from modesto' to begin with. Why would he even think about
anybody checking calif. state boat records? After all, he told amber he'd
be free to spend much more time with her after the middle of january. He
carried on with his attempts to inquire about selling his house, what was
it, less than two weeks after laci went missing?
td
Michele317
>>> >fishing and on the very day he was fishing. (Which makes me wonder,
>>> >why didn't Scott catch the real killers in the act?)
>>>
>>> ***Oh? When was it proven Laci was murdered and dropped in the Bay
>>on 12/24?
>>> I must have missed that part.
>>
>>Where've you been? This is what this trial is about. Laci hasn't
>>been seen since 12/23 and her body turned up in the bay, with 3+ months
>>of water damage. The murder part is simple, unless you think that HMO
>>thing got to her and she did herself in, suicide by duct tape.
>
>***Sorry, but there's not been the least little bit of testimony about when
>Laci died. As soon as the trial's over we can make the determination about
>where he was on the day Laci entered the water, but you're begging the
question
>with that answer (used it right again, didn't I, Michele?).
you got it right this time. full credit :). as to when she died, i think even
the prosecution said (in the opening statement) it was the 23rd or the 24th,
and can't narrow it down any further than that.
Patty
> Patty wrote:
>
> > "veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cd26ee$6...@odah37.prod.google.com...
>
> > : matters that Scott asked the question. It shows premeditation, despite
> > : his telling everyone that his little jaunt was "unplanned."
> >
> > Why would it show premeditation? Laci told the jewelry story employee
> > that her husband ocean fished in Monterey, and he had fished previously
> > in the ocean - San Diego, Morro Bay. So I don't see any premeditation
> > in asking if the boat had ever been in self water before.
> >
>
> about boats and even less about fishing. It seemed to me
> that a boat the size that Scott purchased wouldn't be up
> to ocean fishing. Would he need a larger boat to fish in
> the ocean or would a rowboat like that do just fine?
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
>
Actually each of those places are bays - San Diego Bay, Morro Bay,
Monterey Bay. My brother-in-law is a kayaker and he frequently kayaks
in Monterey Bay and San Francisco Bay.
Nancy Rudins
Thanks, Patty. I've lived in land-locked Illinois for too long.
veryrich
message anymore. But it's available earlier and later in this thread.
Maggie wrote:
> You've decided he's guilty, so, therefore, this
> indicates guilt. It's equally likely that it doesn't.
Actually, I haven't decided he's guilty. But I keep trying to look at
the totality of the evidence rather than each separate detail. This
stuff happened to the same guy in the same time frame. If it requires
eighteen stories to explain Scott's innocence and one to explain his
guilt, common sense tells me that the simple story is probably the true
one. I keep pushing the edges, however, waiting for something
suggesting unequivocally that Scott is innocent to make sense. I just
haven't seen it yet, on this topic or on others, and mind you, this is
just the boat related stuff. When you cross reference this stuff with
the other indicators of guilt (Amber, the camping, the lies, the
housecleaning), it begins to look overwhelmingly damning.
veryrich
Maggie
>I'm assuming scott didn't plan on there being this big an involvement in
>his
>'missing wife from modesto' to begin with. Why would he even think about
>anybody checking calif. state boat records? After all, he told amber he'd
>be free to spend much more time with her after the middle of january. He
>carried on with his attempts to inquire about selling his house, what was
>it, less than two weeks after laci went missing?
***But remember? He's a master criminal who knows that gasoline destroys DNA
evidence on tarps. And surely any idiot would know that the first thing a cop
would do is establish what vehicles were owned by the husband of a missing
person. The boat would have turned up immediately.
veryrich
And so far, neither can Scott's alibi be narrowed. He has no alibi for
the 23rd after 8:30 up until 5:00 or so on the 24th. Just about covers
that window.
veryrich
Michele317
no, you just don't *like* his alibi. not that this has anything to do with your
original point about laci's time of death, which will never be determined.
Pigeon Snyderhohl
"veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I snipped a ton of stuff because even I can't read it all in one
> message anymore. But it's available earlier and later in this thread.
>
This is an interesting anomaly that seems particular to this NG;
nobody seems to snip anything that they're replying to -- it's as if
they assume that the entire thread must be represented in each and every
post. I hate having to scroll through multiple pages to get to the
relevant paragraph I want to read or reply to.
Snip away -- maybe it will catch on, and we can be like virtually all of
the other newsgroups!!
Pigeon
tinydancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20040714130828...@mb-m29.aol.com...
He did that *after* he saw the big bru-haha Laci's disappearance made. It
was said that when the cops came back on the 26th, they found the boat cover
that had been in his truck, to now be in his shed with gasoline drenching
it. I see that as a panic move *afterwards*. After seeing how big this was
becomming.
And surely any idiot would know that the first thing a cop
> would do is establish what vehicles were owned by the husband of a missing
> person. The boat would have turned up immediately.
Maybe in California, but certainly not here in N.C. Haven't you ever
received tax bills for cars you'd sold last year? It seems like the
changing of names on titles to things takes forever when the government is
overseeing the process. I remember once changing insurance companies. It
had to be at least six to eight months down the road when a trooper came to
my house questioning whether or not I had automobile insurance. I couldn't
figure out WTF he was talking about until it dawned on my that 'yeah, last
year I did cancel a policy, but that was because I'd changed companies.'
'Of course I had new auto insurance, he simply hadn't gotten to that part of
the 'paperwork' yet apparently.
td
Maggie
***Well, then, you better contact Distaso immediately. In his opening he said
it was February 16.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
>veryrich <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Some facts:
>
>> 3. Scott never told any family member or friend (who lived to tell
>> about it) that he had a boat, even though he had opportunity (long
>> discussions about fishing; phone call minutes of disembarking to
both
>> his father and a friend).
>
>I just bought a car. I haven't told my parents or anyone else. And
>still, I haven't dumped a body from it.
But when you dumpa body and we find a hair from that body in the
trunk, we own your ass.
>
>
>> 11. When Scott returned home, he ignored a boat-load of laundry
and
>> washed only the three things he'd wore fishing.
>
>I can't tell if your male or female. I'm guessing female purely
because
>I'm sexist. After scuba diving, I'll clean and wash my rash guard
and
>beach clothes without even recognizing other laundry or that other
>laundry's right to exist in my home.
And we will use that against you IF we find the body you had in the
trunk of your secret new car tied to the bottom of a pier pilling.
>
>
>> 13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
>> boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>
>I find my wife's hair everywhere.
Everywhere???? You go boy!
I think it's a trait of long
>haired women. It's wandered as far as my work place, probably
>migrating from my passenger car seat, to my shirt, to my desk
>somehow. These hairs are like African Swallows.
I smell a joke here.
>
>Guilty or not, I think he got very unlucky on the hair. I think
>it landed there by everyday circumstances. A simple hug could
>have left the strand on his shirt.
So where are Amber's hairs? He gave her more then a simple hug. A
right good shagging I would think would allow a number of different
types of hair to transfer.
>
>> 14. When asked, Scott couldn't immediately answer questions about
>> what he'd been fishing for or what he used to fish.
>
>This one bugs me the most. Apparently the detective remembers what
>bait he used since age four. So much bullshit. Sorry folks. Most
>people pull off at the bait and tackle shop and pay for some bait.
I recall the bait I used the last time I went fishing. It was
anchovie, and I last went fishing about two years ago. I sure as hell
know I worked yesterday and wasn't Skiing.
>
>"What did you use for bait?"
>"Ask Phil at the bait and tackle shop off state road... Looked
>like small fish maybe."
>
>
>
>> Almost any one of these facts when taken by itself is not
>> incriminating. Scott's problem is that these facts aren't
>> isolated. Even if one or two is mitigated, the weight of the
>> collective is damning.
>
>Do these actually make it to trial? Scott running had the biggest
>impact on me.
>
>> And I've only mentioned facts related to the boat. Forget Amber,
>> cement, infertility, obsessive cleaning, lies, guns, etc. The
above is
>> probably enough to convict the guy.
>
>> veryrich
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> >And you didn't even try to refute number 18, the internet search of
> >tides and depths.
"Maggie" <...>
> ***I must have missed 18, cut it off or something. It's easy--fishermen
> research tides and depths. He checked out that information the same day he
> contacted Bruce Peterson and looked into fishing sites. <...>
And then went out and bought the wrong fishing stamp for the area.
Sorry, wrong answer.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20040714130828...@mb-m29.aol.com...
He's a scared little man asking about cadaver dogs and soaking down the tarp
to make sure they don't hit on it. I have no idea why Distaso is going on about
destroying DNA evidence.
The boat wouldn't have turned up all that soon if LE didn't know to look for it.
Eventually they would have found out about it in the course of an investigation.
But by that time it could have been Ebay'd onto its next owner. I doubt he
was going to keep it very long. Hell, he sold his wife's car after only two weeks
or so.
RstJ
Alex
news:cd1q8i$j...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> Some facts:
> 13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
> boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
I've been thinking about that.
The hair was actually found entwined with a pair of pliars.
There is no evidence that Laci knew of the existence of
the boat - but did she know or even handle the pliars
back at the house?
Maybe she used them to wrap packages for christmas,
or around the house or in the garden.
There is no evidence that Laci knew of the boat, but
is there evidence that she never handled those pliars?
Alex
Maggie
>message anymore. But it's available earlier and later in this thread.
>
>
>Maggie wrote:
>> You've decided he's guilty, so, therefore, this
>> indicates guilt. It's equally likely that it doesn't.
>
>Actually, I haven't decided he's guilty. But I keep trying to look at
>the totality of the evidence rather than each separate detail.
***Well, OK. I guess I was fooled into thinking you were looking at separate
detail by your enumeration of 18 separate items indicating guilt.
This
>stuff happened to the same guy in the same time frame. If it requires
>eighteen stories to explain Scott's innocence and one to explain his
>guilt, common sense tells me that the simple story is probably the true
>one. I keep pushing the edges, however, waiting for something
>suggesting unequivocally that Scott is innocent to make sense.
***Well, you're setting yourself up for failure if that's your goal. What you
should be searching for, instead, is unequivocal evidence of his *guilt*.
That's what I keep doing and coming up short. There's certainly no need for
the jury to find any piece of evidence that unequivocally points toward his
innocence. If there was such a thing, he wouldn't even be on trial.
I just
>haven't seen it yet, on this topic or on others, and mind you, this is
>just the boat related stuff. When you cross reference this stuff with
>the other indicators of guilt (Amber, the camping, the lies, the
>housecleaning), it begins to look overwhelmingly damning.
***I found your list to be less than compelling as a means of establishing
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I can't remember a case in which
there was more equivocal so-called evidence--that's why I find this one so
interesting.
If we had, just for instance, a number of strands of Laci's hair pulled out by
the roots, or a witness who can testify to those five supposed anchors, or
anyone who saw anything like a body in his boat, or any evidence of a
substantial amount of her blood in his home or vehicle, or if he'd bought the
boat using an assumed name, or if *he'd* been the one hocking her jewelry, or
if he'd really taken out a big insurance policy on her, or if the jewelry that
had been found had been discovered *hidden* in the house, etc., etc. There are
just so, so, so many ways he could have raised my suspicions. I'm amazed that
anyone thought by some here to be so stupid could have done so many things so
right. It's the reason that I still hold out a (very tiny) possibility of
absolute innocence.
Maggie
>And so far, neither can Scott's alibi be narrowed. He has no alibi for
>the 23rd after 8:30 up until 5:00 or so on the 24th. Just about covers
>that window.
***Hmmmm. Isn't that true of Amber, as well?
Maggie
>> ***But remember? He's a master criminal who knows that gasoline destroys
>DNA
>> evidence on tarps.
>
>He did that *after* he saw the big bru-haha Laci's disappearance made.
>It
>was said that when the cops came back on the 26th, they found the boat cover
>that had been in his truck, to now be in his shed with gasoline drenching
>it. I see that as a panic move *afterwards*. After seeing how big this
>was
>becomming.
***So what? Did he become a forensic criminal genius overnight on the 25th?
How would he be so sure gasoline would work that he'd risk keeping a tarp
contaminated with Laci's bodily fluids?
>
>
> And surely any idiot would know that the first thing a cop
>> would do is establish what vehicles were owned by the husband of a missing
>> person. The boat would have turned up immediately.
>
td said:
>Maybe in California, but certainly not here in N.C. Haven't you ever
>received tax bills for cars you'd sold last year? It seems like the
>changing of names on titles to things takes forever when the government
>is
>overseeing the process. I remember once changing insurance companies.
>It
>had to be at least six to eight months down the road when a trooper came
>to
>my house questioning whether or not I had automobile insurance. I couldn't
>figure out WTF he was talking about until it dawned on my that 'yeah, last
>year I did cancel a policy, but that was because I'd changed companies.'
>'Of course I had new auto insurance, he simply hadn't gotten to that part
>of
>the 'paperwork' yet apparently.
***Oh. So he only wanted to get away with the murder for a few months.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Alex" <avdeele...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:40f584a9$0$133$1b2c...@news.wanadoo.nl...
You'd think the G would go that direction, since it's a whole
lot more credible that Laci sitting in that boat. Wonder why
he hasn't.
RstJ
yaffaDina
>
> >I snipped a ton of stuff because even I can't read it all in one
> >message anymore. But it's available earlier and later in this thread.
> >
> >
> >Maggie wrote:
> >> You've decided he's guilty, so, therefore, this
> >> indicates guilt. It's equally likely that it doesn't.
> >
> vr said:
> >Actually, I haven't decided he's guilty. But I keep trying to look at
> >the totality of the evidence rather than each separate detail.
>
> ***Well, OK. I guess I was fooled into thinking you were looking at separate
> detail by your enumeration of 18 separate items indicating guilt.
When my husband said it was "all circumstantial" I replied that yes --
but. The but being you can explain one, two, several things away, but
when you have to have explanations for so many and so much, it's not so
easily dismissed (by observers), then there's all the different stories,
and I was actually quite shocked to read the list of things he was
arrested with. And his excuse for the hair? Trying to avoid the
media. Please. Common sense has to kick in somewhere.
yD
ImNot911
>>>From: "Patty" r...@what.com
>>
>>>Heck the Rochas and Laci's
>>>family didn't even know the baby's due date had been changed to
>>>February 16.
>>
>>It had not been changed. The due date was February 10.
>>JoAnn
>
>***Well, then, you better contact Distaso immediately. In his opening he
>said
>it was February 16.
>
>Maggie
>
Opening statements are not evidence. I don't know what Distaso said, but I do
know the testimony from the OB's staff.
They did not change the due date.
JoAnn
Maggie
>news:40f584a9$0$133$1b2c...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> "veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:cd1q8i$j...@odah37.prod.google.com...
>> > Some facts:
>>
>> > 13. A hair from Scott's dead wife's head was found in the fishing
>> > boat, with no evidence she'd been near or in it.
>>
>> I've been thinking about that.
>>
>> The hair was actually found entwined with a pair of pliars.
>> There is no evidence that Laci knew of the existence of
>> the boat - but did she know or even handle the pliars
>> back at the house?
>>
>> Maybe she used them to wrap packages for christmas,
>> or around the house or in the garden.
>>
>> There is no evidence that Laci knew of the boat, but
>> is there evidence that she never handled those pliars?
>>
>> Alex
>
>You'd think the G would go that direction, since it's a whole
>lot more credible that Laci sitting in that boat. Wonder why
>he hasn't.
***...because he hasn't had a chance to? Remember--the prosecution is still
presenting their case. Geragos will have to bring on his own witnesses to
connect the pliers to the house.
Bradley K. Sherman
ImNot911 <imno...@aol.commanche> wrote:
>>maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC
>
>>>>From: "Patty" r...@what.com
>>>
>>>>Heck the Rochas and Laci's
>>>>family didn't even know the baby's due date had been changed to
>>>>February 16.
>>>
>>>It had not been changed. The due date was February 10.
>>>JoAnn
>>
>>***Well, then, you better contact Distaso immediately. In his opening he
>>said
>>it was February 16.
>>
>>
>know the testimony from the OB's staff.
>They did not change the due date.
Well don't now about the staff but her Doctor says 16 February:
| Laci Peterson's doctor, Tina Edraki, testified about the baby's
| due date, February 16, as Geragos tried to show discrepancies
| in the method used to show when the baby would be born. He has
| said a defense expert will testify the fetus was born alive,
| proving Peterson couldn't be the killer. However, prosecutors
| say their experts will show the fetus was expelled after Laci died.
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/17/peterson.trial.ap/>
--bks
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
He could have leaked the idea to the press at any time. I'm surprised he hasn't.
Must be a reason why he didn't want to go that direction.
RstJ
ImNot911
>Well don't now about the staff but her Doctor says 16 February:
>
> | Laci Peterson's doctor, Tina Edraki, testified about the baby's
> | due date, February 16...
><http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/17/peterson.trial.ap/>
>
> --bks
You can chalk that up to sloppy reporting. I've read the transcripts... AND,
CNN contradicts their own article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/peterson.case/
"She didn't listen to your don't walk advice," Geragos asked. "Right," the
doctor said. Etraki also said that the most accurate ultrasound one performed
in July indicated a due date of Feb. 10, 2003. Laci Peterson was nearly 33
weeks pregnant when she disappeared, she said.
Maggie
***Yep. I couldn't find a single recent reference to a February 10 due date.
Maggie
>He could have leaked the idea to the press at any time. I'm surprised he
>hasn't.
***Why? Very few of the defense's surprises have been leaked to the press in
advance.
>Must be a reason why he didn't want to go that direction.
***It's not his style.
Maggie
>
>>Well don't now about the staff but her Doctor says 16 February:
>>
>> | Laci Peterson's doctor, Tina Edraki, testified about the baby's
>> | due date, February 16...
>><http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/17/peterson.trial.ap/>
>>
>> --bks
>
>You can chalk that up to sloppy reporting. I've read the transcripts...
>AND,
>CNN contradicts their own article here:
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/peterson.case/
>"She didn't listen to your don't walk advice," Geragos asked. "Right," the
>doctor said. Etraki also said that the most accurate ultrasound one performed
>in July indicated a due date of Feb. 10, 2003. Laci Peterson was nearly
>33
>weeks pregnant when she disappeared, she said.
***SIL says that on June 15, "Geragos did establish that the due date for Laci
was corrected by the 20-week sonogram to Feb. 16." A 20-week sonogram would
have been done in about September.
ImNot911
>***SIL says that on June 15, "Geragos did establish that the due date for
>Laci
>was corrected by the 20-week sonogram to Feb. 16." A 20-week sonogram would
>have been done in about September.
>
>Maggie
>
I read the transcripts. The OB said the due date was NOT changed.
tinydancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
snipped> >
> td said:
> >He did that *after* he saw the big bru-haha Laci's disappearance made.
> >It
> >was said that when the cops came back on the 26th, they found the boat
cover
> >that had been in his truck, to now be in his shed with gasoline drenching
> >it. I see that as a panic move *afterwards*. After seeing how big this
> >was
> >becomming.
>
> ***So what? Did he become a forensic criminal genius overnight on the
25th?
> How would he be so sure gasoline would work that he'd risk keeping a tarp
> contaminated with Laci's bodily fluids?
He obviously worked with what he had handy. Why else would he take that
tarp/boat cover and put it under a leaky piece of lawn equipment on a day
and night everyone else was out searching the park?
> >
> >
> > And surely any idiot would know that the first thing a cop
> >> would do is establish what vehicles were owned by the husband of a
missing
> >> person. The boat would have turned up immediately.
> >
> td said:
> >Maybe in California, but certainly not here in N.C. Haven't you ever
> >received tax bills for cars you'd sold last year? It seems like the
> >changing of names on titles to things takes forever when the government
> >is
> >overseeing the process. I remember once changing insurance companies.
> >It
> >had to be at least six to eight months down the road when a trooper came
> >to
> >my house questioning whether or not I had automobile insurance. I
couldn't
> >figure out WTF he was talking about until it dawned on my that 'yeah,
last
> >year I did cancel a policy, but that was because I'd changed companies.'
> >'Of course I had new auto insurance, he simply hadn't gotten to that part
> >of
> >the 'paperwork' yet apparently.
>
> ***Oh. So he only wanted to get away with the murder for a few months.
>
>
>
> Maggie
Yup, now you got it. If there hadn't been a nationwide bruhaha over this,
that boat would've been resold, title transferred once again, and no one the
wiser.
td
Maggie
***Did he explain why so many people think it was?
Maggie
Maggie
>news:20040714153138...@mb-m29.aol.com...
>snipped> >
>> td said:
>> >He did that *after* he saw the big bru-haha Laci's disappearance made.
>> >It
>> >was said that when the cops came back on the 26th, they found the boat
>cover
>> >that had been in his truck, to now be in his shed with gasoline drenching
>> >it. I see that as a panic move *afterwards*. After seeing how big this
>> >was
>> >becomming.
>>
>> ***So what? Did he become a forensic criminal genius overnight on the
>25th?
>> How would he be so sure gasoline would work that he'd risk keeping a tarp
>> contaminated with Laci's bodily fluids?
>
>
>He obviously worked with what he had handy. Why else would he take that
>tarp/boat cover and put it under a leaky piece of lawn equipment on a day
>and night everyone else was out searching the park?
***Why wouldn't he get rid of it if it was so incriminating?
He's a master criminal! He's an idiot!
***Yeah. Soon as he resold it the state would lose records of his ownership.
Right.
Maggie
Patty
> >>maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
> >
> >>***SIL says that on June 15, "Geragos did establish that the due date for
> >>Laci
> >>was corrected by the 20-week sonogram to Feb. 16." A 20-week sonogram
> >would
> >>have been done in about September.
> >>
> >>Maggie
> >>
> >I read the transcripts. The OB said the due date was NOT changed.
>
> ***Did he explain why so many people think it was?
>
> Maggie
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/16/peterson.case/
One of the medical assistants, Lisa Martin, said that, after
consulting Laci Peterson about her menstrual cycle at her first visit
in July 2002, she set the baby's due date as Feb. 10, 2003. A doctor
performed an ultrasound in September and concluded the baby's
gestational age corresponded to a birth date of Feb. 16. But Martin
and another medical assistant, Lisa Hill, said that the practice of
the office is not to adjust the due date unless the ultrasound shows
it is off by seven or more days.
That six-day difference could become important as the prosecution and
defense call experts to testify about the age of the child's remains.
Maggie
news:20040714173645...@mb-m04.aol.com...
>> >>maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
>> >
>> >>***SIL says that on June 15, "Geragos did establish that the due date
>for
>> >>Laci
>> >>was corrected by the 20-week sonogram to Feb. 16." A 20-week sonogram
>> >would
>> >>have been done in about September.
>> >>
>> >>Maggie
>> >>
>> >I read the transcripts. The OB said the due date was NOT changed.
>>
>> ***Did he explain why so many people think it was?
>>
>> Maggie
>
>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/16/peterson.case/
>
>One of the medical assistants, Lisa Martin, said that, after
>consulting Laci Peterson about her menstrual cycle at her first visit
>in July 2002, she set the baby's due date as Feb. 10, 2003. A doctor
>performed an ultrasound in September and concluded the baby's
>gestational age corresponded to a birth date of Feb. 16. But Martin
>and another medical assistant, Lisa Hill, said that the practice of
>the office is not to adjust the due date unless the ultrasound shows
>it is off by seven or more days.
>
>That six-day difference could become important as the prosecution and
>defense call experts to testify about the age of the child's remains.
***So, basically, the due date's best estimate is Feb. 16, but that because of
some weird office policy, the "official" date was still Feb. 10. Wonder why
her family didn't know about this.
tinydancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
snipped> >>
> >> ***So what? Did he become a forensic criminal genius overnight on the
> >25th?
> >> How would he be so sure gasoline would work that he'd risk keeping a
tarp
> >> contaminated with Laci's bodily fluids?
> >
> >
> >He obviously worked with what he had handy. Why else would he take that
> >tarp/boat cover and put it under a leaky piece of lawn equipment on a day
> >and night everyone else was out searching the park?
>
> ***Why wouldn't he get rid of it if it was so incriminating?
Because by that time the neighborhood was crawling with
cops/friends/searchers
He had no idea any of this was going to come back to bite him in the ass
when he bought HMS shitcan. After all, he told Amber he'd have everything
'wrapped up' by the end of January and he'd have all the time in the world
for her after that.
td
ImNot911
JoAnn:
>>I read the transcripts. The OB said the due date was NOT changed.
>
>***Did he explain why so many people think it was?
>
>Maggie
***Yes, she said it was because Geragoober needed the fetus to be younger than
its actual gestational age for some sort of bullshit defense theory to work.
On a more serious note, the early first trimester ultrasound is more accurate
at determining due date than ultrasound performed later in the pregnancy.
That's why Etraki said the MOST ACCURATE ultrasound was performed in July and
indicated a due date of Feb 10. How clear does that need to be for people to
get it?
http://health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/2024.html
"Undergoing an ultrasound procedure early during the first trimester allows a
more accurate due date. Later, ultrasounds tell more about the growth of the
fetus and the placenta."
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/calculatingdates.html
"Measuring the baby using ultrasound is most accurate in early pregnancy. It
becomes less accurate later in pregnancy."
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/duedates/a/duedates.htm
"Ultrasound can be an effective way of dating a pregnancy, but this accuracy is
lost if not performed in the first half of pregnancy."
JoAnn
Maggie
***Did you miss Patty's post? Her sources said the Feb. 16 date was arrived at
through ultrasound. The Feb. 10 date was what was computed through the date of
Laci's last period--not an early ultrasound.
Maggie
Patty
And this still goes to my point that they didn't tell the Rochas
everything. If she had this ultrasound in Sept. and was told that the
due date was six days later, even though it wasn't changed in the
books, seems like she would be telling her mother and friends the new
date when she discussed the ultrasound.
ImNot911
>***Did you miss Patty's post? ... The Feb. 10 date was what was computed
through the date
>of
>Laci's last period--not an early ultrasound.
>
>Maggie
If her source said that, it was wrong.
I used the primary source, the doctor's (Etraki) testimony. Anything else is
just a spin.
I cannot post clips from the transcripts, but here's a repost from that CNN
article:
"Etraki also said that the most accurate ultrasound one performed in July
indicated a due date of Feb. 10, 2003."
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/peterson.case/index.html>
This was an ultrsound. It was performed in July.
So, you see, the due date was not changed because earlier ultrasounds are best
for this determination.
I don't have a lot of time to waste here, but thought someone would be
interested in the actual testimony and the reason the due date was not
adjusted.
JoAnn