Scott Peterson

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Should we reconsider everything we've been told, when a man's life is on the line

Yes
86
79%
No
23
21%
 
Total votes : 109

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:11 am

MJL wrote:But then during the trial the jury heard it both ways, Jackson did see a safe, Jackson did not see a safe.


To MJL

About the trial juries. It bother me, even why? Because it so odd that they took them 4 to 5 days even the way they went was just make a decision and they went with a guilty verdict and we would had a hung jury instead, even 1 of the jury got rejected and afterwards he got death threats even that is plan wrong to me!!!

Sitting inside a jury section is going to get really ugly even people will go different ways and the way the jury did it, even it was mention different in one of my dad case he did way back in Michigan even he didn't like it, even he won the case of finding the client guilty!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:15 am

The reward poster for the burglary became public on January 1, 2003. The burglars were arrested on January 2 and were cleared of all involvement in Laci's disappearance by January 3. Their alibis were never checked. They claimed the burglary occurred on December 27, then changed it to December 26 when they were told when Medinas got home. The police accepted everything they said even when they knew that Diane Jackson had seen the burglary in progress at 11:40 a.m. on December 24, during the same time period that Laci Peterson went missing.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/D-NN.pdf
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:21 am

jane wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
McGirr wrote:I agree with Jane, it was stated in the A&E documentary that the woman did mention a safe, and that was proven by a police statement they had. Also they were in no way confused about the which Dog or house it was.

in any event the prosecution can never justify not investigating the sighting from various members of the public and to not investigate these eye witness accounts was most improper regardless of what anyone one of us beilives or thought they saw on A&E.


To Introsepector & McGirr

Hey Introsepector, I am not sure if you really did watch the A&E special. I did in fact watch it and it was true and confirmed that Diane Jackson did in fact stated that part of a safe even it was already stated by the police even the police never bother wanted to use it, that was the whole problem even the defense explain it even Diane did in fact talk about it!!!

Hey McGirr I hope you don't mind. But I do want to explain something to you that in my past time zone of another case my dad did long time ago in maybe 1976 or 77 or maybe it was 1978 it was a huge case even my dad was the DA of that case and he investigated it and since this case was crossing over the borader of Michigan to Canada and it was a rape case of a true story and it was going to be on documentary even that woman learn everything of how she wanted to be on television and as knowing my dad decline for it even it was a hard case and he tell me stories about it even it shock him even he never wanted to get in trouble of it, even why his boss was an evil jerk. I know it was even I was so young well like 1 or 2yrs old. In my own words my dad was the da and then he became a prosecutor in that case even he had hard times on it, even he won the case and they found that guy guilty. My dad put a lot of bad guys away even he never liked doing it, even since 1980 he change his mind to be a defense attorney. He was a DA of being into a Prosecutor from 1970-80 and change everything from defense attorney and stay defense attorney until last Christmas 2016 he got Pancreatic Cancer, even he fighting it for 10 month and last August he got a blood clot into his right knee. He is planning to retire even he hasn't done anymore cases since December 2016. So that all McGirr even I want to explain that part to you and talk to you soon McGirr!!!


Tom, I'm sorry that your father is ill. It must be a great worry to you. With all his years as a defense attorney, I can see why you have a real interest in wrongful convictions.


To Jane

Thanks Jane, even it does worried me very much even it bother me more time, because it hard to explain of how he acting even it scaries me of what going through my mind of what he doing even through his defense attorney cases, he tell me stories about them even a lot of time even I was no fan of talking even I don't know much even why I am deaf and it hard for me to explain to people when I talk it gets very hard for me to explain even I never talk to anyone. My life was dull to me through the years and some people just don't understand what deaf means? It means learning hearing impear of who you are and I tell this to the trolls and they just don't get it. I do my best and they don't get it. I go real interest into wrongful conviction even I might not have the money to donate it. But I do care even it hard because when I make a living on my own, it not going to be easy for me. If you want to know more about my dad you can pm me Jane and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:39 am

Yep you're right, no sense in arguing this point, rehashing this planting bodies pipe dream.

Suggestion to the supporters, tie all these different events together with some real facts and evidence. I'm always willing to change my mind when that happens, at this point not good enough.

Like I said we have a van that was parked there all day, no one ever mentions 2 vans parked across the street.

We have 2 burglars arrested with the loot, that don't even match the description of Jackson's 3 dark skinned men.

We have people want to claim someone planted bodies to frame Scott, but then they would tie something around the baby's neck tape his ears down something that could easily be taken off, to cause doubt Scott did the crime. Does that make sense??

This is the simple path, why is it so hard to accept?

I believe he could kill Laci in the home without leaving a trace, strangulation a good method. He did have motive, wanting someone else other then his wife, you seen his reaction to his missing wife.

He put her in the back of the truck in the dark hours of the morning, cover the body with umbrellas, to hide body in the truck, take her to the warehouse, back the truck up to the trailer, transfer the body to the boat in a tarp, then drive to the bay.

I do believe he was able to get out on the bay without anyone seeing he had a body in the boat, with the use of a tarp.

He took the body out on the bay somewhere other then where he said he went fishing, There is like 1600 square miles of bay, they couldn't find the body. Anchors will never be found deep in the bay mud.

There was the storm, 4 months later, the body broke loose, the baby was born not in a natural way. The bodies made their way to the shore the next day. And you know the rest of the story.

Nick wrote:
MJL wrote:It's that simple, Jackson hears on the 26th or 27th there is a burglary at the Medina's where a safe is taken. She then makes a connection to what she saw on the 24th as a burglary, and that is all it is. There is no real proof what she saw was actually a burglary going on at that time.

Who are you talking? The burglary junk was debunked so long ago. It has zero to do with Scott killing his wife & child.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:36 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, this will be last post until I return after Columbus day and it going to get ugly even I know some people go with there guts theory even I go different into a theory of my own verson and it who I am even the way of the defense might not done a good job into the case and it should had happen very much different even you need a motitive of crime to prove your facts even I know some people believe Scott did the crime. I just not going to buy it, even I am going with the 3 black men even I see a connection even there up to no good even it going to be hard to explain that part even if witness did saw him, why didn't they were question. That the whole problem???

What did the defense do wrong? Talking to much even they should focus on other things now into appeals and I hate to say it. But it time to test the DNA weapon of crime scene to see it a match of his fingers prints match to Laci Body and is it her body. See her dead was missing and I know it took over 4 month even it was just to long and the Prosecutor theory just doesn't seem to add up with me, even in the defense never add up either. It like a no show. If I go with the black ways of Diane Jackson ways. What I would do is ask her if I was the attorney and then I would go to the boat place of where Scott proclaim he got the boat and make sure of it even explain the witness who work there with Scott and then I take pictures of places even explain it, even showing that video of the boat got tip over, does make sense. So right now the defense must go with of dna testing to see it a match. It the only way, even if it is no match, then he free to go and it prove he was wrongful convicted of crime!!!

So see you Tuesday and have a safe holiday and talk to you soon everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:35 am

MJL wrote:Yep you're right, no sense in arguing this point, rehashing this planting bodies pipe dream.

Suggestion to the supporters, tie all these different events together with some real facts and evidence. I'm always willing to change my mind when that happens, at this point not good enough.

Like I said we have a van that was parked there all day, no one ever mentions 2 vans parked across the street.

We have 2 burglars arrested with the loot, that don't even match the description of Jackson's 3 dark skinned men.

We have people want to claim someone planted bodies to frame Scott, but then they would tie something around the baby's neck tape his ears down something that could easily be taken off, to cause doubt Scott did the crime. Does that make sense??

This is the simple path, why is it so hard to accept?

I believe he could kill Laci in the home without leaving a trace, strangulation a good method. He did have motive, wanting someone else other then his wife, you seen his reaction to his missing wife.

He put her in the back of the truck in the dark hours of the morning, cover the body with umbrellas, to hide body in the truck, take her to the warehouse, back the truck up to the trailer, transfer the body to the boat in a tarp, then drive to the bay.

I do believe he was able to get out on the bay without anyone seeing he had a body in the boat, with the use of a tarp.

He took the body out on the bay somewhere other then where he said he went fishing, There is like 1600 square miles of bay, they couldn't find the body. Anchors will never be found deep in the bay mud.

There was the storm, 4 months later, the body broke loose, the baby was born not in a natural way. The bodies made their way to the shore the next day. And you know the rest of the story.

Nick wrote:
MJL wrote:It's that simple, Jackson hears on the 26th or 27th there is a burglary at the Medina's where a safe is taken. She then makes a connection to what she saw on the 24th as a burglary, and that is all it is. There is no real proof what she saw was actually a burglary going on at that time.

Who are you talking? The burglary junk was debunked so long ago. It has zero to do with Scott killing his wife & child.


:::thumbs up::: Scott supporters never seem to be able to use common sense as to how the bodies which were under water some how were planted? Facts & reality behoove them.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:15 pm

A&E's "The Murder of Laci Peterson"- Season One - is now available on Amazon Video.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:29 pm

It was a good show, I did find it interesting, Best if you know all the details first, from transcripts, court documents.


jane wrote:A&E's "The Murder of Laci Peterson"- Season One - is now available on Amazon Video.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:53 am

MJL wrote:It was a good show, I did find it interesting, Best if you know all the details first, from transcripts, court documents.


jane wrote:A&E's "The Murder of Laci Peterson"- Season One - is now available on Amazon Video.

It was rather short don't you think?
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:09 am

MJL wrote:It was a good show, I did find it interesting, Best if you know all the details first, from transcripts, court documents.


jane wrote:A&E's "The Murder of Laci Peterson"- Season One - is now available on Amazon Video.


Show was a Puff-Piece for Scott's false innocence claims, NO basis in supporting facts or evidence, with little to no impact on the general public. I'm glad its out there it shows the whole innocence side is driven by a handful of older women (SPA Group) who seem to be infatuated with Scott, holding every lie he states as fact. The whole last episode came off so poorly, bunch of old Betty's running around with their heads chopped off, Kind of like the individuals in here that run to Scott's defense without any facts to back them up!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:23 am

anonshy wrote:
MJL wrote:It was a good show, I did find it interesting, Best if you know all the details first, from transcripts, court documents.


jane wrote:A&E's "The Murder of Laci Peterson"- Season One - is now available on Amazon Video.


Show was a Puff-Piece for Scott's false innocence claims, NO basis in supporting facts or evidence, with little to no impact on the general public. I'm glad its out there it shows the whole innocence side is driven by a handful of older women (SPA Group) who seem to be infatuated with Scott, holding every lie he states as fact. The whole last episode came off so poorly, bunch of old Betty's running around with their heads chopped off, Kind of like the individuals in here that run to Scott's defense without any facts to back them up!

Anon

They used people who were proven time & time again to not have any credibility. Matt Dalton is a blow hard who proved yrs ago he was full of shite and used this case to make money. He failed after making a fool of himself in an interview with Dan Abrams. I never heard of the SPA Group until watching that silly show. The leader of that group proved to me without a doubt to have mental problems besides no teeth. LOL She mumbled and what is with her giant hands? Eeek! Seriously, no one with a brain are taking those lonely ladies seriously. Wonder why Jane wasn't invited into their tiny cult? Do these people have criminal back grounds? They seem to hate the police & the court of law.

Scott's sister was the worst. She & her parents helped Scott run. That bs about "my mother accidently taking 10,000 of out the bank". What a load of bs. No wonder Scott turned out the way he did. ::doh::
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:37 am

Laci's Voice wrote:Bravo WAH whomever you are.

wearing A Halo said...back in June, 2009 on MNs blog. MN had a hizzy and closed her message board. Just like she runs off. MN tellling this person they are scared Snotty is going to get off. :lol:

"Nope, MN, you are wrong again!!! It is not me who is worried, in fact, it is SLP who is worried. You must read his plea for help again-- he is pressed for time (lol) and needs your help and you, MN, have not been helpful to him otherwise he would not be pleading for everyone's help. You, MN, have failed to grasp and understand the purpose of Dr. Cheng's involvement and testimony in this case and that is on you. I have the data from NOAA, SFPORTS, BAAQMD and so do you, as well as anybody else, so I am not hiding anything from you--it is all available on the net. MN, your premise is flawed from the start. You, MN, have absolutely no evidence that Conner was planted and since you have none you want to desperately prove Conner did not wash ashore when in fact Conner did wash ashore. You, MN, have stated that Dr. Cheng has lied, when he has not lied. At best Dr. Cheng mispoke and at worst Dr. Cheng was misquoted by the court reporter/transcriber when Dr. Cheng said "40 knots (kn)". It is my contention is that Dr. Cheng meant "40 kilometers (km)". 40 km fits with the data where 40 kn does not. If Dr. Cheng did state 40 kn, then he did not correct himself and neither did the prosecution to advise him of his mistake, furthermore, MG did not call him on his mistake at all to catch him in a "lie" or miscalculation(s). I am convinced that the transcriber is the one that was mistaken when kilometers are km and knots are kn, somehow the Dr. Cheng's statement was lost in transcription and not a lie at all. Anyone can read the testimony of Dr. Cheng and input "40 kilometers" and understand that this makes more sense with his whole testimony on direct and on cross and check the data, which, in fact, Dr. Cheng states to do so. The data on NOAA, SFPORTS and BAAQMD does back up Dr. Cheng's testimony thereof. Oh and also, your assertion that Dr. Cheng has Conner washing ashore at a wrong time on the PVD is wrong because the deltas (arrows) are not representing Conner, but the wind drift(s)--water movement. BTW--Dr. Cheng never stated what time Conner washed ashore, it is a given by the witnesses that testified that Conner washed ashore by the evidence. You, MN, must read the transcripts carefully before posting specious comments on SII and misleading SLP supporters--this is what bugs the hell out of me. "

I found this old post most interesting. Facts are still ignored by MN and her tiny group of lonely ladies. Does anyone remember when she used a kermit doll to mimic a baby floating in the bay? I see it is mentioned several times in 2012.

Who was Voice of Sanity (insanity is more like it)? Their old posts are delusional at best. :batshit crazy:: Are their any sane SP defenders? :wow:
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:55 am

The PWC-SII site was started by Marlene Newell on December 26, 2003. This is what it includes:
http://pwc-sii.com/

CASE FILE
The most comprehensive library of court documents and transcripts on the internet.
 
Documents - Arrest & Booking, Criminal Complaints, Motions, Court Orders,  etc.
Everything that doesn't belong into one of the other 3 categories. Indexed chronologically.
 
Exhibits
From the Trial only.  Most, if not all exhibits used during the Preliminary and PreTrial hearings made their appearance into the Trial.  Indexed by exhibit number. 

People's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Defendant's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Court's Exhibits

Minutes & Minute Orders
These provide a brief account of what transpired in Court that Day, including Appearances, Exhibits admitted, Orders, and Stipulations.  Indexed chronologically.
 
Minute Orders - Stanislaus County, April 29, 2003 through January 23, 2004.  Includes the Preliminary hearing.
Minute Orders - San Mateo County, February 2 through March 2, 2004.  Includes the Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings.
Trial Minutes - San Mateo County, March 4 through December 13, 2004.  These minutes begin with Jury selection and conclude with the Jury's verdict of death.
 
Transcripts 
Includes transcripts for all witnesses, hearings, and rulings from the Preliminary Hearing, Pre-Trial Hearings, Trial, and Sentencing.  Indexed alphabetically.   

*********

Not all members of the SPA Team appeared in the docuseries. I am one of them and very proud to be so. Scott's family members are fine people who have stood by him through this terrible ordeal. The rest of us are just ordinary citizens who were offended by the injustice of the police investigation, media coverage, trial and wrongful conviction and decided to do something about it. If the "guilters" on this board would start looking around outside of this board, they would find that there has been an overwhelmingly positive response to the docuseries.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:06 am

jane wrote:The PWC-SII site was started by Marlene Newell on December 26, 2003. This is what it includes:
http://pwc-sii.com/

CASE FILE
The most comprehensive library of court documents and transcripts on the internet.
 
Documents - Arrest & Booking, Criminal Complaints, Motions, Court Orders,  etc.
Everything that doesn't belong into one of the other 3 categories. Indexed chronologically.
 
Exhibits
From the Trial only.  Most, if not all exhibits used during the Preliminary and PreTrial hearings made their appearance into the Trial.  Indexed by exhibit number. 

People's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Defendant's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Court's Exhibits

Minutes & Minute Orders
These provide a brief account of what transpired in Court that Day, including Appearances, Exhibits admitted, Orders, and Stipulations.  Indexed chronologically.
 
Minute Orders - Stanislaus County, April 29, 2003 through January 23, 2004.  Includes the Preliminary hearing.
Minute Orders - San Mateo County, February 2 through March 2, 2004.  Includes the Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings.
Trial Minutes - San Mateo County, March 4 through December 13, 2004.  These minutes begin with Jury selection and conclude with the Jury's verdict of death.
 
Transcripts 
Includes transcripts for all witnesses, hearings, and rulings from the Preliminary Hearing, Pre-Trial Hearings, Trial, and Sentencing.  Indexed alphabetically.   

*********

Not all members of the SPA Team appeared in the docuseries. I am one of them and very proud to be so. Scott's family members are fine people who have stood by him through this terrible ordeal. The rest of us are just ordinary citizens who were offended by the injustice of the police investigation, media coverage, trial and wrongful conviction and decided to do something about it. If the "guilters" on this board would start looking around outside of this board, they would find that there has been an overwhelmingly positive response to the docuseries.


I'm sure your little band of misfits are walking around patting yourselves on the back, all the while Scott is and will remain a convicted murderer! The Series was a waste of time and there are many who have called it out as the disgrace it was! it's was a one sided, complete lack of investigation, all based on an alternative theory that went completely nowhere. There were 6 hours of available airtime to prove 100% Scott's innocence without any counter arguments, the series failed to provide even one concrete piece of evidence for innocence.

What I find very puzzling is that Jane is on here, STILL promoting the series, even though she believes in a completely different set of circumstances than the series presented. The series never really went that far, but they never once mentioned a second burglary after Todd/Pierce and all of those ramifications, but this is what happens when you are invested more in a person's innocence than you are in the FACTS!

Scott's Family are degenerates that blocked Laci's Family from her home and attempted to help their Son Flee justice by giving him 15,000.00 in cash, Phones and Alternative ID's. Just like Scott's Dumb Sister in Law leading up this SPA Group, she has drunk so much Scott Kool-Aid she spews his lie's as fact on national TV, Like all the SAP members, she comes off as a uneducated deranged Fangirl!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:43 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:05 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:09 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:26 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:51 am

Laci's Voice wrote:No book on this list when Scott was arrested. Such a HB who needed Viagra though. Now, can we have the full testimony and not snippits from MN.

ON HIS WAY TO "GOLF" YET NO GOLF CLUBS NOR GOLF SHOES
SURVIVAL GEAR
ITEMS FOUND IN SCOTT'S 1984 Mercedes Benz 500SEC, (which he bought with a Fake I.D.)
when he was arrested in San Diego, April 18, 2003, and police searched his car.
-A large tent and tent cover to shield it from the sun, a water purification system capable
of making rancid water suitable for drinking and bathing, a sleeping bag, a tent chair, a
compass and a large supply of dried and canned food, TESTIFIED DETECTIVE BUEHLER
-NOT IN CAR- GOLF CLUBS AND GOLF SHOES
"You don't need a water purifier in San Diego—
you might if you're going to Mexico," Catherine Crier said.

-$15,000
-BROTHER'S I.D.-John Edward Peterson
-2 VISA CARDS & 1 MASTERCARD - Scott's Name
-1 MASTER CARD - Scott/Tradecorp
-1 AMERICAN BUSINESS CARD - Scott/Tradecorp
-SISTER'S VISA CREDIT CARD -Ann E. Bird
-MOTHER'S CHEVRON CARD - Jackie Peterson
-FOREIGN CURRENCY (for Mexico)
-MAPQUEST MAP TO AMERICAN BODYWORKS
-4 CELL PHONES
-LARGE TENT
-TENT COVER
-WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM
-CAMP KIT WITH COOKING UTENSILS & ROPE
-CAMP STOVE
-COOKING GRILL
-FIRE STARTERS
-FILET KNIFE
-2 FOLDING KNIVES
-TENT CHAIR
-COMPASS
-DRIED AND CANNED FOOD
-CLIMBING EQUIPMENT & ROPES
-DOUBLE EDGED DAGGER WITH A T-HANDLE
-HAND SHOVEL
-DUCT TAPE
-FOLDING SAW
-BACKPACK
-BINOCULARS
-MASK & SNORKEL
-FISHING ROD & REEL
-ZIPLOC BAGS
-SCISSORS
-CAMP AXE
-HAMMOCK
-LEATHERMAN TOOL
-THOMAS GUIDE MAP BOOK OF CALIFORNIA
-THOMAS GUIDE MAP BOOK OF CENTRAL VALLEY
CITIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
-2 PACKS RAZOR BLADES
-9 PAIR OF SHOES
-RUBBERIZED BOOTS - Lace up
-HIKING BOOTS
-LOW TOP HIKING BOOTS
-2 PAIR BROWN SLIP-ON CASUAL SHOES
-FLIP FLOPS (Sandals)
-2 PAIR BLACK DRESS SHOES
-2 PAIR DRESS SOCKS
-2 NECKTIES
-10 PAIR ATHLETIC SOCKS
-1 PULLOVER SWEATER
-1 SCARF
-1 BLACK DRESS BELT
-RAIN PANTS
-SWEATSHIRT
-AT LEAST 6 PAIR UNDERWARE BRIEFS
-4 PULLOVER LONG-SLEEVED SPORT SHIRTS
-2 PAIR SHORTS
-1 BUTTON DOWN SHIRT
-2 PAIR CASUAL PANTS
-1 PAIR RUNNING PANTS
-1 PAIR LEVI JEANS
-1 JERSEY
-3 T-SHIRTS
-2 LONG-SLEEVED CASUAL SHIRTS
-1 PAIR ATHLETIC SHORTS
-COWBOY HAT
-12 TABLETS OF VIAGRA
-24 BLISTER PACKS OF SLEEPING PILLS
-WATER BOTTLE
-16 MUSIC CD'S
-COLUMBIA FOUL WEATHER JACKET
-SLEEPING BAG
-LEATHER GLOVES
-WATERPROOFING SPRAY

-Undated bill of sale with an unverified signature
of Michael Griffin, registered owner of the vehicle
-Application for duplicate title for the vehicle also
signed by Michael Griffin

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-items-in-car.html


No doubt his seedy family helped him obtain all of these items.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:06 pm

Nick wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:The PWC-SII site was started by Marlene Newell on December 26, 2003. This is what it includes:
http://pwc-sii.com/

CASE FILE
The most comprehensive library of court documents and transcripts on the internet.
 
Documents - Arrest & Booking, Criminal Complaints, Motions, Court Orders,  etc.
Everything that doesn't belong into one of the other 3 categories. Indexed chronologically.
 
Exhibits
From the Trial only.  Most, if not all exhibits used during the Preliminary and PreTrial hearings made their appearance into the Trial.  Indexed by exhibit number. 

People's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Defendant's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Court's Exhibits

Minutes & Minute Orders
These provide a brief account of what transpired in Court that Day, including Appearances, Exhibits admitted, Orders, and Stipulations.  Indexed chronologically.
 
Minute Orders - Stanislaus County, April 29, 2003 through January 23, 2004.  Includes the Preliminary hearing.
Minute Orders - San Mateo County, February 2 through March 2, 2004.  Includes the Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings.
Trial Minutes - San Mateo County, March 4 through December 13, 2004.  These minutes begin with Jury selection and conclude with the Jury's verdict of death.
 
Transcripts 
Includes transcripts for all witnesses, hearings, and rulings from the Preliminary Hearing, Pre-Trial Hearings, Trial, and Sentencing.  Indexed alphabetically.   

*********

Not all members of the SPA Team appeared in the docuseries. I am one of them and very proud to be so. Scott's family members are fine people who have stood by him through this terrible ordeal. The rest of us are just ordinary citizens who were offended by the injustice of the police investigation, media coverage, trial and wrongful conviction and decided to do something about it. If the "guilters" on this board would start looking around outside of this board, they would find that there has been an overwhelmingly positive response to the docuseries.


I'm sure your little band of misfits are walking around patting yourselves on the back, all the while Scott is and will remain a convicted murderer! The Series was a waste of time and there are many who have called it out as the disgrace it was! it's was a one sided, complete lack of investigation, all based on an alternative theory that went completely nowhere. There were 6 hours of available airtime to prove 100% Scott's innocence without any counter arguments, the series failed to provide even one concrete piece of evidence for innocence.

What I find very puzzling is that Jane is on here, STILL promoting the series, even though she believes in a completely different set of circumstances than the series presented. The series never really went that far, but they never once mentioned a second burglary after Todd/Pierce and all of those ramifications, but this is what happens when you are invested more in a person's innocence than you are in the FACTS!

Scott's Family are degenerates that blocked Laci's Family from her home and attempted to help their Son Flee justice by giving him 15,000.00 in cash, Phones and Alternative ID's. Just like Scott's Dumb Sister in Law leading up this SPA Group, she has drunk so much Scott Kool-Aid she spews his lie's as fact on national TV, Like all the SAP members, she comes off as a uneducated deranged Fangirl!

Anon

LOL@band of misfits <<good call

I read over this entire thread and am puzzled as to why Jane still ignores reality? Thinks this is her job while not having one for real? Continues to shove that non credible site up everyone's rear daily? Doesn't Jane have a mind of her own? She's like a parrot which is such a bore.

You are spot on about Scott's family. I do believe his evil mother & father should have been arrested for helping him attempt to run. His sister is a liar and a fool. She did herself no favors by proving what a kook she is along with that tiny cult of uneducated misfits who prove Scott even more guilty.

Anon, did you read this thread from start to finish? The lies Jane & her merry band of misfits tell are down right DELUSIONAL. IT'S ALL A GIANT CONSPIRACY FROM THE WHOLE WORLD AGAINST SCOTT. ::scotch::

Now I know where the fish tank crap came from. His supporters (thank god there are only a few) are crazy as crackers. :wow:


I have been following this thread off and on for a few years, I have not read everything Up-Thread, but have witnessed enough to know what is going on. I have witnessed Jane change her Theory at least 10 different times with hundreds of variations on the theme, I still think she believes Connor was frozen for 4 months (I know, you cant make this stuff up). Even now this new 2 burglary theory, Pierce/Todd early then by happen-stance 4 thieves in a van later in teh morning, spotted taking the same safe that Pierce/Todd already took in the morning and was found in their possession. It goes from simple speculation to outright lies based on vapor!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:09 pm

Wow, no golf clubs or golf shoes in all that stuff.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:20 pm

Just my thoughts on the burglary thing.

If you believe Laci was abducted, you would also have to believe the bodies were planted.

Reasons why I don't believe this way of thinking, the abduction and planting of bodies separately just doesn't work.

1. There was a white van parked across the street all day that day. No one mentions 2 vans across the street that morning.

2. Servas was getting home about the same time Jackson seen the 3 men. Servas sees nothing related to this.

3. Jackson's description of the men were 3 short dark skinned men.

4. The burglars caught with the loot and safe were 2 white men, one was over 6 feet tall.

5. The burglars drove a white Honda 4 door.

6. The burglars were off the hook in early January, no need to take that chance planting bodies.

7. There was no connection with a white van to the burglars. One of the burglars used his mothers white Honda, the other rode a bike.

8. The burglars were in jail at the time bodies turned up in the bay.

9. Harshman called the Laci tip line, He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. The kidnappers would have had to let Laci go home and change her pants. That makes no sense.

I agree with what Dr. Peterson tells us over what non qualified supporters have to say.

10. Dr. Peterson explained that adipocere resulted when body fat body was exposed to a cold, moist environment. The fat turned into a “crumbly white material” and appeared soapy. (91 RT 17404, 17415.) A marine environment could cause this change, developing over a period of weeks to months. (91 RT 17405.)

11. Dr. Peterson did not observe any tool marks on Laci’s joints, which indicated to him that tools were not used to dismember parts of the body.

12. The top portion of the uterus was
abraded and open. (91 RT 17411.) For the upper portion of the uterus to have become abraded, portions of the abdominal wall would have to have been missing, including the peritoneum.

13. Dr. Peterson determined that Laci died while pregnant. (92 RT 17432.) He explained that after birth, the uterus shrinks back down to the size of an orange or apple. (92 RT 17431-17432.) The fact that Laci’s uterus did not reduce in size indicated that the baby was still inside when she died. (92 RT 17432.)

14. Dr. Peterson also concluded that the baby did not pass through the birth canal because the cervix and lower uterus—the birth canal—were closed. (91 RT 17411-17412.) Also, there was no incision near the pubic bone or in the uterus, or other tool marks, that would indicate a Caesariansection
birth. (91 RT 17412, 17423; 92 RT 17516.) Since the fundus was open at the top, Dr. Peterson concluded the baby exited through the top of the uterus. (91 RT 17412, 17423.)

15. Conner’s colon contained meconium. As Dr. Peterson observed, it “was a clue to me that likely he had died before the birthing process, before he had a chance to get rid of [the meconium].” (92 RT 17460.) Peterson
explained: In the colon there was a material call meconium. It’s a dark green, kind of thick, it’s a pasty fluid. And typically when newborns have their first bowel movement, that’s what you see is meconium. [¶] Sometimes when babies are in distress in the uterus they can actually dump that in the uterus, which can cause lung problems later. But in Conner’s case the meconium was still where it belonged, in the colon

16. Looby recalled that the day before there had been a strong storm in the area. (61 RT 11884.) A fair amount of debris was around Conner’s body.
There maybe many more reason, but all I can think of for now.

I believe the the info about where Scott was fishing was not released to the public until late in January, but the burglars were arrested Jan 2 how did they know where to dump the bodies in January, They were in jail from then on so also couldn't have planted the bodies in April.

It's just way simpler for Scott to have put the bodies in the bay, It's not out of the question. Why so hard to accept?

I mean, Scott lives with Laci, he has a boat, access to concrete, he went out on the bay, the bodies turned up in the bay, he didn't seem to want his wife anymore, he didn't seem to care she was missing.

He cared about his missing wife as much as he would his pet hamster being kidnapped.

I'm not sure why supporters hang on to this burglar did it theory, it's just a mess of no connections, even after all these years can't tie it all together with real facts and evidence, really just a pipe dream. Why is is to difficult for some?
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:38 pm

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:47 pm

MJL wrote:Wow, no golf clubs or golf shoes in all that stuff.

Yeah, just like he didn't even know what fish he was fishing for when he dumped Laci & Conner in the Bay. :::thumbs up:::
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:52 pm

MJL wrote:Just my thoughts on the burglary thing.

If you believe Laci was abducted, you would also have to believe the bodies were planted.

Reasons why I don't believe this way of thinking, the abduction and planting of bodies separately just doesn't work.

1. There was a white van parked across the street all day that day. No one mentions 2 vans across the street that morning.

2. Servas was getting home about the same time Jackson seen the 3 men. Servas sees nothing related to this.

3. Jackson's description of the men were 3 short dark skinned men.

4. The burglars caught with the loot and safe were 2 white men, one was over 6 feet tall.

5. The burglars drove a white Honda 4 door.

6. The burglars were off the hook in early January, no need to take that chance planting bodies.

7. There was no connection with a white van to the burglars. One of the burglars used his mothers white Honda, the other rode a bike.

8. The burglars were in jail at the time bodies turned up in the bay.

9. Harshman called the Laci tip line, He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. The kidnappers would have had to let Laci go home and change her pants. That makes no sense.

I agree with what Dr. Peterson tells us over what non qualified supporters have to say.

10. Dr. Peterson explained that adipocere resulted when body fat body was exposed to a cold, moist environment. The fat turned into a “crumbly white material” and appeared soapy. (91 RT 17404, 17415.) A marine environment could cause this change, developing over a period of weeks to months. (91 RT 17405.)

11. Dr. Peterson did not observe any tool marks on Laci’s joints, which indicated to him that tools were not used to dismember parts of the body.

12. The top portion of the uterus was
abraded and open. (91 RT 17411.) For the upper portion of the uterus to have become abraded, portions of the abdominal wall would have to have been missing, including the peritoneum.

13. Dr. Peterson determined that Laci died while pregnant. (92 RT 17432.) He explained that after birth, the uterus shrinks back down to the size of an orange or apple. (92 RT 17431-17432.) The fact that Laci’s uterus did not reduce in size indicated that the baby was still inside when she died. (92 RT 17432.)

14. Dr. Peterson also concluded that the baby did not pass through the birth canal because the cervix and lower uterus—the birth canal—were closed. (91 RT 17411-17412.) Also, there was no incision near the pubic bone or in the uterus, or other tool marks, that would indicate a Caesariansection
birth. (91 RT 17412, 17423; 92 RT 17516.) Since the fundus was open at the top, Dr. Peterson concluded the baby exited through the top of the uterus. (91 RT 17412, 17423.)

15. Conner’s colon contained meconium. As Dr. Peterson observed, it “was a clue to me that likely he had died before the birthing process, before he had a chance to get rid of [the meconium].” (92 RT 17460.) Peterson
explained: In the colon there was a material call meconium. It’s a dark green, kind of thick, it’s a pasty fluid. And typically when newborns have their first bowel movement, that’s what you see is meconium. [¶] Sometimes when babies are in distress in the uterus they can actually dump that in the uterus, which can cause lung problems later. But in Conner’s case the meconium was still where it belonged, in the colon

16. Looby recalled that the day before there had been a strong storm in the area. (61 RT 11884.) A fair amount of debris was around Conner’s body.
There maybe many more reason, but all I can think of for now.

I believe the the info about where Scott was fishing was not released to the public until late in January, but the burglars were arrested Jan 2 how did they know where to dump the bodies in January, They were in jail from then on so also couldn't have planted the bodies in April.

It's just way simpler for Scott to have put the bodies in the bay, It's not out of the question. Why so hard to accept?

I mean, Scott lives with Laci, he has a boat, access to concrete, he went out on the bay, the bodies turned up in the bay, he didn't seem to want his wife anymore, he didn't seem to care she was missing.

He cared about his missing wife as much as he would his pet hamster being kidnapped.

I'm not sure why supporters hang on to this burglar did it theory, it's just a mess of no connections, even after all these years can't tie it all together with real facts and evidence, really just a pipe dream. Why is is to difficult for some?


Good points of reality!

I know the answer. His supporters never use common sense & have continued to ignore FACTS that prove he did it. Talking to a wall is way more entertaining.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:55 pm

Nick wrote:Frozen? Yikes! That's insanely ignorant which does not shock me. Gee why didn't our imaginary TV star bring that up on the show? :lol: Too bad Jane doesn't know how to use her own brain and follow the actual case. Her constantly peddling that blow hard bull blog is ridiculous.

That burglary junk was debunked for real yrs ago. Some just love keeping their head up their behinds for nothing since it won't free Scott nor get him a new trial.



She calls me a "guilter" even in light of a coviction, I am not a guilter, I have nothing invested in Scott's guilt other than justice for Laci and her Baby, If that justice came from another individual or form, I'm good with that too! I am a "realist" in this case, a "realist" derived from the facts not fiction, Jane and her SAP pals are "Fictionist", which is a world were you can make up your own set of false facts to suit your own altered reality!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:15 pm

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:21 pm

Who's the idiot who started this? This will not free the killer. This is why SAPs are laughed at and prove to not have any shame in their ignorance ever.

https://www.change.org/p/jerry-brown-fr ... =783410251
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:48 pm

I lost 5 mins of my life reading that pwc insanity. I almost fell off my chair from laughing so hard. Such delusions from a non expert who was proven wrong constantly. My ? is why didn't "mumble's" Marlene use any of her hooey on the A&E special? She didn't even break out kermi! LMAO
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:22 pm

Nick wrote:Who's the idiot who started this? This will not free the killer. This is why SAPs are laughed at and prove to not have any shame in their ignorance ever.

https://www.change.org/p/jerry-brown-fr ... =783410251


I would never sign that nor would I post it!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:55 pm

jane wrote:A&E's "The Murder of Laci Peterson"- Season One - is now available on Amazon Video.


To Jane

Hey Jane, thanks and it was a good show and I enjoy it very much and keep up the good work Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:01 pm

jane wrote:The PWC-SII site was started by Marlene Newell on December 26, 2003. This is what it includes:
http://pwc-sii.com/

CASE FILE
The most comprehensive library of court documents and transcripts on the internet.
 
Documents - Arrest & Booking, Criminal Complaints, Motions, Court Orders,  etc.
Everything that doesn't belong into one of the other 3 categories. Indexed chronologically.
 
Exhibits
From the Trial only.  Most, if not all exhibits used during the Preliminary and PreTrial hearings made their appearance into the Trial.  Indexed by exhibit number. 

People's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Defendant's Exhibits, includes both Guilt Phase and Sentencing Phase

Court's Exhibits

Minutes & Minute Orders
These provide a brief account of what transpired in Court that Day, including Appearances, Exhibits admitted, Orders, and Stipulations.  Indexed chronologically.
 
Minute Orders - Stanislaus County, April 29, 2003 through January 23, 2004.  Includes the Preliminary hearing.
Minute Orders - San Mateo County, February 2 through March 2, 2004.  Includes the Pre-Trial Evidentiary Hearings.
Trial Minutes - San Mateo County, March 4 through December 13, 2004.  These minutes begin with Jury selection and conclude with the Jury's verdict of death.
 
Transcripts 
Includes transcripts for all witnesses, hearings, and rulings from the Preliminary Hearing, Pre-Trial Hearings, Trial, and Sentencing.  Indexed alphabetically.   

*********

Not all members of the SPA Team appeared in the docuseries. I am one of them and very proud to be so. Scott's family members are fine people who have stood by him through this terrible ordeal. The rest of us are just ordinary citizens who were offended by the injustice of the police investigation, media coverage, trial and wrongful conviction and decided to do something about it. If the "guilters" on this board would start looking around outside of this board, they would find that there has been an overwhelmingly positive response to the docuseries.


To Jane

I totally agree even you did a great job even I can care less of what ever the guilters said is just plan nonsense even I an't and will not buy there stories, and yes they can sue me? I dare them to do it, even I am a supporter even I might not be good enough with my grammar. It bother the guilters because they hate deaf people has a hearing lost even they never understood it one bit even they will proclaim the whole thing and I am done even I got sick and tired of one of the guilter even he kept on coming and I wanted to play. It just a shame he never understood a word I am saying to him. He just doesn't understand learning im pear of how people who are deaf speak more different then any type of people and he thinks that way!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:07 pm

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:09 pm

anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:Who's the idiot who started this? This will not free the killer. This is why SAPs are laughed at and prove to not have any shame in their ignorance ever.

https://www.change.org/p/jerry-brown-fr ... =783410251


I would never sign that nor would I post it!

Anon

I know one knuckle head in the UK that starts those silly petitions and signs it with fake names & locations. There are not even more than 5 idiots who worship the vile killer. Not 163. :facepalm:
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:57 pm

Does the Knuckle head you know name start with a G?

Nick wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:Who's the idiot who started this? This will not free the killer. This is why SAPs are laughed at and prove to not have any shame in their ignorance ever.

https://www.change.org/p/jerry-brown-fr ... =783410251


I would never sign that nor would I post it!

Anon

I know one knuckle head in the UK that starts those silly petitions and signs it with fake names & locations. There are not even more than 5 idiots who worship the vile killer. Not 163. :facepalm:
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:35 pm

Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby charlie_wilkes » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:23 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.


Hmm.

Interesting critique.

I follow this thread sometimes and I am of the view that Peterson is probably guilty. My method is not Bayesian, or at least I don't think it is.

My method is to start with the crime, not a suspect or suspects. What happened? In this case it is as follows: someone killed this woman, attached weights to her body, and dumped it in SF Bay. The body worked free of the weights and washed ashore.

OK, so what does that MO tell me, from my study of other crimes? It probably wasn't a random predator like Gary Ridgway, who left bodies in plain sight, or a burglar like Rudy Guede, who left a body for the police to find.

It was probably someone who knew the victim and knew he would be a suspect, and therefore made a substantial effort to dispose of the body, i.e., someone like Veronica Herrera or Richard Crafts.

So, Peterson is a pretty good suspect for this murder. And he went boating in SF Bay the day she disappeared, which strongly suggests he is the right suspect.

But I will concede, it's not conclusive.

So let's consider this witness evidence. If it is taken as reliable, it gets Peterson off the hook. But it does nothing to explain the crime, does it?

That's the complaint I have with a great many people on both sides of many discussions of crimes. They are bent on proving someone guilty or innocent, but they give little thought to the crime itself. And when they are forced to think about it, they concoct wild scenarios that may not be flat-out impossible, but are deeply improbable and unsupported by evidence. This crime could have been a burglary that escalated to an opportunistic fetal abduction that escalated to murder, by perpetrators who knew that Peterson had gone boating in SF Bay and found it expedient to frame him. It may be possible in theory. But somehow I doubt it. If anyone wanted to convince me that Peterson might be innocent, the best way to do that would be to present a truly believable explanation for the crime.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:28 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.


Hmm.

Interesting critique.

I follow this thread sometimes and I am of the view that Peterson is probably guilty. My method is not Bayesian, or at least I don't think it is.

My method is to start with the crime, not a suspect or suspects. What happened? In this case it is as follows: someone killed this woman, attached weights to her body, and dumped it in SF Bay. The body worked free of the weights and washed ashore.

OK, so what does that MO tell me, from my study of other crimes? It probably wasn't a random predator like Gary Ridgway, who left bodies in plain sight, or a burglar like Rudy Guede, who left a body for the police to find.

It was probably someone who knew the victim and knew he would be a suspect, and therefore made a substantial effort to dispose of the body, i.e., someone like Veronica Herrera or Richard Crafts.

So, Peterson is a pretty good suspect for this murder. And he went boating in SF Bay the day she disappeared, which strongly suggests he is the right suspect.

But I will concede, it's not conclusive.

So let's consider this witness evidence. If it is taken as reliable, it gets Peterson off the hook. But it does nothing to explain the crime, does it?

That's the complaint I have with a great many people on both sides of many discussions of crimes. They are bent on proving someone guilty or innocent, but they give little thought to the crime itself. And when they are forced to think about it, they concoct wild scenarios that may not be flat-out impossible, but are deeply improbable and unsupported by evidence. This crime could have been a burglary that escalated to an opportunistic fetal abduction that escalated to murder, by perpetrators who knew that Peterson had gone boating in SF Bay and found it expedient to frame him. It may be possible in theory. But somehow I doubt it. If anyone wanted to convince me that Peterson might be innocent, the best way to do that would be to present a truly believable explanation for the crime.


The record is clear, there is no evidence Laci was alive on December 24th, you don't have to discount any evidence to believe this theory, Even Graybills gate is not proof that laci was alive, it is proof that the gate may have been open, with. Nothing to support it was Laci that left it in that state.

You keep,talking about fetal development, as an expression of innocence in this case, there are differing opinions but none of them exclude Connor from being dead on the 24th as you suggest, even Jeanty's own charts give a +|- of 6 days in Either direction, this is why percentiles are used, just look at the charts and the week to week overlap and you will find your answer, should you choose to look! There is also the possibility for woman to get pregnant any time in the Ovulation window, adding even more flexibility to the fetal age! That is not confirmation bias, that is an opinion formed by preponderance of the available evidence and tested against an aggregate theory that use all the available evidence

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:47 am

MJL wrote:Does the Knuckle head you know name start with a G?

Nick wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:Who's the idiot who started this? This will not free the killer. This is why SAPs are laughed at and prove to not have any shame in their ignorance ever.

https://www.change.org/p/jerry-brown-fr ... =783410251


I would never sign that nor would I post it!

Anon

I know one knuckle head in the UK that starts those silly petitions and signs it with fake names & locations. There are not even more than 5 idiots who worship the vile killer. Not 163. :facepalm:

Bingo! :lol:
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:49 am

erasmus44 wrote:Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.


Do tell where you copied that from? It's garbage and has no validity to it. Your junk has been debunked. Why are you deliberately daft to reality?
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:53 am

anonshy wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.


Hmm.

Interesting critique.

I follow this thread sometimes and I am of the view that Peterson is probably guilty. My method is not Bayesian, or at least I don't think it is.

My method is to start with the crime, not a suspect or suspects. What happened? In this case it is as follows: someone killed this woman, attached weights to her body, and dumped it in SF Bay. The body worked free of the weights and washed ashore.

OK, so what does that MO tell me, from my study of other crimes? It probably wasn't a random predator like Gary Ridgway, who left bodies in plain sight, or a burglar like Rudy Guede, who left a body for the police to find.

It was probably someone who knew the victim and knew he would be a suspect, and therefore made a substantial effort to dispose of the body, i.e., someone like Veronica Herrera or Richard Crafts.

So, Peterson is a pretty good suspect for this murder. And he went boating in SF Bay the day she disappeared, which strongly suggests he is the right suspect.

But I will concede, it's not conclusive.

So let's consider this witness evidence. If it is taken as reliable, it gets Peterson off the hook. But it does nothing to explain the crime, does it?

That's the complaint I have with a great many people on both sides of many discussions of crimes. They are bent on proving someone guilty or innocent, but they give little thought to the crime itself. And when they are forced to think about it, they concoct wild scenarios that may not be flat-out impossible, but are deeply improbable and unsupported by evidence. This crime could have been a burglary that escalated to an opportunistic fetal abduction that escalated to murder, by perpetrators who knew that Peterson had gone boating in SF Bay and found it expedient to frame him. It may be possible in theory. But somehow I doubt it. If anyone wanted to convince me that Peterson might be innocent, the best way to do that would be to present a truly believable explanation for the crime.


The record is clear, there is no evidence Laci was alive on December 24th, you don't have to discount any evidence to believe this theory, Even Graybills gate is not proof that laci was alive, it is proof that the gate may have been open, with. Nothing to support it was Laci that left it in that state.

You keep,talking about fetal development, as an expression of innocence in this case, there are differing opinions but none of them exclude Connor from being dead on the 24th as you suggest, even Jeanty's own charts give a +|- of 6 days in Either direction, this is why percentiles are used, just look at the charts and the week to week overlap and you will find your answer, should you choose to look! There is also the possibility for woman to get pregnant any time in the Ovulation window, adding even more flexibility to the fetal age! That is not confirmation bias, that is an opinion formed by preponderance of the available evidence and tested against an aggregate theory that use all the available evidence

Anon
Cripe they copied their junk science from that pwc blog. No sense talking sense to the one who just copies bull shat that has been debunked so many times since 2003. You can't reason with the unreasonable. :batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:55 am

erasmus44 wrote:Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.

Nothing logical in what you copy from another who's junk has been debunked 50 ways till Sunday. I hope you can get a clue, but obviously that's not going to happen since you stead fast have ignored the truth for yrs now. :facepalm:
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:15 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Let's be fair and logical.
1. For me the key issue is the strength of the evidence that Laci was still alive after 10:08 of 12/24. If she was, Scott is innocent. We have a big problem in that many of the witnesses never testified under oath and that the investigation in this area was horribly deficient. We also have persuasive but very complex fetal development evidence.
2. I think that the guilters line of reasoning is Bayesian. They start with the assumption that it would be virtually impossible for anyone other than Scott to put the bodies in the Bay. That means that they immediately discount evidence that Laci was walking around at 11:30 am because it is virtually impossible for that to be true given that the bodies turned up in the Bay.
3. This is a little like a flat earther dealing with Magellan's circumnavigation of the World. A FE would contend that the survivors of Magellan's voyage were mistaken. They must have turned East rather than West in the South Atlantic and headed to the Indian Ocean. Then after visiting the spice islands they hit a storm, got confused and made a U turn back West without realizing it. They never really sailed "around" the world because it is impossible to sail around the world. Similarly, the people who thought they saw Laci, must be mistaken because they couldn't have seen Laci at 11:30 am - she had to be dead already or else there is no possible way she got into the Bay.
4. Bayesian reasoning is legitimate. But you have to examine two things - 1. your initial probabilities (is it really impossible for someone else to have put the bodies in the Bay?), and 2. the probabilities associated with the "new" evidence (viewed in isolation - how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after 10:08 on 12/24). A FE who did this would realize that there was lots of evidence that the world was a globe prior to Magellan's voyage and assign a more reasonable probability to his flat earth hypothesis and then closely question the survivors of the voyage and examine the ship's log, etc. to try to determine whether they actually sailed around the world.
5. I don't see any of the guilters on this board going through that process. Instead what I see is confirmation bias (the Queen of causes of wrongful convictions) - a tendency to automatically reject or discount evidence which might contradict assumptions of guilt.
6. I hope we can move in - with a better signal to noise ratio - with the process I describe in #4.


Hmm.

Interesting critique.

I follow this thread sometimes and I am of the view that Peterson is probably guilty. My method is not Bayesian, or at least I don't think it is.

My method is to start with the crime, not a suspect or suspects. What happened? In this case it is as follows: someone killed this woman, attached weights to her body, and dumped it in SF Bay. The body worked free of the weights and washed ashore.

OK, so what does that MO tell me, from my study of other crimes? It probably wasn't a random predator like Gary Ridgway, who left bodies in plain sight, or a burglar like Rudy Guede, who left a body for the police to find.

It was probably someone who knew the victim and knew he would be a suspect, and therefore made a substantial effort to dispose of the body, i.e., someone like Veronica Herrera or Richard Crafts.

So, Peterson is a pretty good suspect for this murder. And he went boating in SF Bay the day she disappeared, which strongly suggests he is the right suspect.

But I will concede, it's not conclusive.

So let's consider this witness evidence. If it is taken as reliable, it gets Peterson off the hook. But it does nothing to explain the crime, does it?

That's the complaint I have with a great many people on both sides of many discussions of crimes. They are bent on proving someone guilty or innocent, but they give little thought to the crime itself. And when they are forced to think about it, they concoct wild scenarios that may not be flat-out impossible, but are deeply improbable and unsupported by evidence. This crime could have been a burglary that escalated to an opportunistic fetal abduction that escalated to murder, by perpetrators who knew that Peterson had gone boating in SF Bay and found it expedient to frame him. It may be possible in theory. But somehow I doubt it. If anyone wanted to convince me that Peterson might be innocent, the best way to do that would be to present a truly believable explanation for the crime.


To Charlie

Hey Charlie if you want to start, to know more about Scott Peterson of his innocent. The best way I would go is watch Snapped: Scott Peterson, even it no longer on demand.

http://www.oxygen.com/snapped/season-20 ... t-peterson

2nd witness said they saw Laci walked a dog even witness are a key issue to the crime scene!!!

3rd Scott Peterson and Laci watched Martha Stewart show! But everyone lies, even me myself of cheat, steal & lying of latino heat style!!!

4th: Is best to ignore the two trolls in here of why they still here with guilt!!!

5th I would best my work with Jane. She the one who started this case and she doing everything she can with theory, of like you said and talk to you soon Charlie!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:33 am

Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:53 am

I have looked into these witnesses, most of the main witnesses say they saw her at 10:00 am, but at that time Scott hasn't even left the house yet. There were many sighting all over the world. None of these people new Laci personally. They were going by the description of the missing poster.

There was the Harshman, He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. But she was found in tan pants

One witness actually says they seen Laci and her dog 9 blocks away from Laci's home, at the time Servas was putting the dog inside the gated area.

I can't even pick one out of the bunch that would be the most reliable.

It's something that the people that new Laci never saw her that day, the mail man that was in the area, Servas, their neighbors that were out and about.


In fact, purported sightings of Laci were legion. During the prosecution's case, evidence was adduced that there were at least 74 reported sightings of Laci, including sightings of her on San Francisco Bay on December 24. (94RT 17761; People's Exit Nos. 267 [map showing Modesto area sightings], 268A [California sightings].) Also, there were numerous purported sightings of her in 26 states and overseas. (96RT 18077; People's Exh. No. 268B [including Canada, Italy, France, and the Virgin Islands].) Only a few of the reported sightings fit the relevant timeframe and location, as authorities could best determine. Most were not viable and none were corroborated. (

We would need more form these witness, they can't all be right. An open gate and these witnesses doesn't tell me Laci was alive that day after Scott left. Maybe a time stamped photo, security cam video would do it.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:40 pm

I look at everything, even the details of the witnesses, details of the burglary, and I still see Scott as the only suspect. Until something new comes along, for now, I have to agree with the jury on this one, Guilty.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:06 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


To Erasmus

Excellent work Erasmus even I agree with you 100% percent and I can care less of what Nick said. I an't going to buy him one bit. The guy need to show evidence or need to shut up! 2nd about Anon I don't know where is the guy even he proclaim his stupid theory and he believe that fact of Scott guilt and I an't buying it. I go by my own facts and it who I am even I know people might not tried hard enough. It just a sad life that some of them never understood of the word: What, Who, Where & How all come to? If they don't know what it means, then that is my case and, they don't know any grammar quotation mark or the grammar meaning, or hard work into a theory. 3rd I am still waiting for Charlie and he did an amazing job of excellent work of explaining every detail and that was proven in every sentence of way to go Charlie!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:44 pm

MJL wrote:I have looked into these witnesses, most of the main witnesses say they saw her at 10:00 am, but at that time Scott hasn't even left the house yet. There were many sighting all over the world. None of these people new Laci personally. They were going buy the description of the missing poster.

There was the Harshman, He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. But she was found in tan pants

One witness actually says they seen Laci and her dog 9 blocks away from Laci's home, at the time Servas was putting the dog inside the gated area.

I can't even pick one out of the bunch that would be the most reliable.

It's something that the people that new Laci never saw her that day, the mail man that was in the area, Servas, their neighbors that were out and about.


In fact, purported sightings of Laci were legion. During the prosecution's case, evidence was adduced that there were at least 74 reported sightings of Laci, including sightings of her on San Francisco Bay on December 24. (94RT 17761; People's Exit Nos. 267 [map showing Modesto area sightings], 268A [California sightings].) Also, there were numerous purported sightings of her in 26 states and overseas. (96RT 18077; People's Exh. No. 268B [including Canada, Italy, France, and the Virgin Islands].) Only a few of the reported sightings fit the relevant timeframe and location, as authorities could best determine. Most were not viable and none were corroborated. (

We would need more form these witness, they can't all be right. An open gate and these witnesses doesn't tell me Laci was alive that day after Scott left. Maybe a time stamped photo, security cam video would do it.



This is more like it. We have to go through each of these potential witnesses and evaluate them. Of course, there are always bogus sightings - we have to look at what evidence we have and determine how credible it is or isn't.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby charlie_wilkes » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:17 am

erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


It is by no means impossible that someone else could have committed the murder and dumped the body. That's why this case makes for an interesting discussion. The evidence boils down to a couple of points that are damning in the extreme, but can never allow for certainty and do not answer such basic questions as cause or time of death.

As for how likely it is that something else happened, I'd have to know what the something else is and what evidence supports it. I think it's deeply unlikely the burglars grabbed Laci Peterson with the goal of adding a fetus to their loot, but everything went horribly wrong so they framed her husband for murder.

How much weight do you give the evidence that Laci was alive on the morning of the 24th? As far as I can see, all of the exculpatory evidence proposed on behalf of Peterson is inconclusive and open to dispute. It could perhaps be strong evidence as a whole - IF it fit together to tell a coherent story. But it doesn't.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:24 am

erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


Oh Please?

Please tell me what precises evidence supported by evidence that proves Laci was alive on Dec 24th. Can't believe you and your bard standards can make any such claim!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:48 am

erasmus44 wrote:
MJL wrote:I have looked into these witnesses, most of the main witnesses say they saw her at 10:00 am, but at that time Scott hasn't even left the house yet. There were many sighting all over the world. None of these people new Laci personally. They were going buy the description of the missing poster.

There was the Harshman, He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. But she was found in tan pants

One witness actually says they seen Laci and her dog 9 blocks away from Laci's home, at the time Servas was putting the dog inside the gated area.

I can't even pick one out of the bunch that would be the most reliable.

It's something that the people that new Laci never saw her that day, the mail man that was in the area, Servas, their neighbors that were out and about.


In fact, purported sightings of Laci were legion. During the prosecution's case, evidence was adduced that there were at least 74 reported sightings of Laci, including sightings of her on San Francisco Bay on December 24. (94RT 17761; People's Exit Nos. 267 [map showing Modesto area sightings], 268A [California sightings].) Also, there were numerous purported sightings of her in 26 states and overseas. (96RT 18077; People's Exh. No. 268B [including Canada, Italy, France, and the Virgin Islands].) Only a few of the reported sightings fit the relevant timeframe and location, as authorities could best determine. Most were not viable and none were corroborated. (

We would need more form these witness, they can't all be right. An open gate and these witnesses doesn't tell me Laci was alive that day after Scott left. Maybe a time stamped photo, security cam video would do it.



This is more like it. We have to go through each of these potential witnesses and evaluate them. Of course, there are always bogus sightings - we have to look at what evidence we have and determine how credible it is or isn't.


I think you need to start wearing the legal glasses you like to take on and off at will. you not only have to look at all the evidence you also have to look at how the evidence supports other evidence. But prior to allowing evidence to creep into your lexicon, you actually have to look at the evidence and detemine its worth. If you think the Aponte's Tip is complete hearsay and of very little value - given there is no recording or follow up statement, you would eliminate the Burglary. Circumstantial cases are rooted in a collection of related facts, Without Aponte, which is easily dismisable due to evidentuary rules and complete lack of cohesion. Anyone with legal training will see the Aponte tip as very suspect and lacking in evidentuary value, instead, you use it as the basis as some fantastic theory and then bolster it with other weak evidence. Graybil even if correct does not meant Laci opened the gate. The Dog-Walk witnesses conflict with each other. I am calling bullshit on your legal qualifications, Say what you want about the prosecution theory, The Burglary theory is much weaker and based on almost worthless evidence!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:29 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


It is by no means impossible that someone else could have committed the murder and dumped the body. That's why this case makes for an interesting discussion. The evidence boils down to a couple of points that are damning in the extreme, but can never allow for certainty and do not answer such basic questions as cause or time of death.

As for how likely it is that something else happened, I'd have to know what the something else is and what evidence supports it. I think it's deeply unlikely the burglars grabbed Laci Peterson with the goal of adding a fetus to their loot, but everything went horribly wrong so they framed her husband for murder.

How much weight do you give the evidence that Laci was alive on the morning of the 24th? As far as I can see, all of the exculpatory evidence proposed on behalf of Peterson is inconclusive and open to dispute. It could perhaps be strong evidence as a whole - IF it fit together to tell a coherent story. But it doesn't.



Of course, we have to distinguish - 1. How likely is it in fact that he really did it?; 2. did the jury get it wrong based on the evidence of record?, and 3. is there a basis for overturning the verdict? 3 very different issues although in a death penalty case, I think that there will be a reluctance to give him the needle if the first question is really in serious doubt.
I must add that this - unlike Knox, Lobato and now Forti - is not a case which I have examined in thorough detail. I haven't read the entire transcript or reviewed the exhibits.
The problem is that there was evidence early in the investigation of sightings of Laci but the police didn't follow through on it. And then Scott's lawyers decided not to emphasize it. So we really don't have a well developed record on that issue and at this point people's memories fade and are less reliable.
It is hard to argue "ineffective assistance of counsel" here because he had an excellent defense attorney with a big budget.
It is still a case that makes me uneasy. I am glad that I am not the judge who has to sign the final order denying habeas and leading to him getting the needle.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:32 am

anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


Oh Please?

Please tell me what precises evidence supported by evidence that proves Laci was alive on Dec 24th. Can't believe you and your bard standards can make any such claim!

Anon


To Anon

Really Anon! We already told you the evidence, and it didn't work well, for you. So we have to go a new way, of slogan even right your slogan is only guilt. No wonder that what you do. You bring in the guilt and stop rambling my friend and leave them alone. If they want to prove some way of evidence, you don't need to go after everyone. There different taste to this case and you need to learn it or respect it!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:40 am

erasmus44 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


It is by no means impossible that someone else could have committed the murder and dumped the body. That's why this case makes for an interesting discussion. The evidence boils down to a couple of points that are damning in the extreme, but can never allow for certainty and do not answer such basic questions as cause or time of death.

As for how likely it is that something else happened, I'd have to know what the something else is and what evidence supports it. I think it's deeply unlikely the burglars grabbed Laci Peterson with the goal of adding a fetus to their loot, but everything went horribly wrong so they framed her husband for murder.

How much weight do you give the evidence that Laci was alive on the morning of the 24th? As far as I can see, all of the exculpatory evidence proposed on behalf of Peterson is inconclusive and open to dispute. It could perhaps be strong evidence as a whole - IF it fit together to tell a coherent story. But it doesn't.



Of course, we have to distinguish - 1. How likely is it in fact that he really did it?; 2. did the jury get it wrong based on the evidence of record?, and 3. is there a basis for overturning the verdict? 3 very different issues although in a death penalty case, I think that there will be a reluctance to give him the needle if the first question is really in serious doubt.
I must add that this - unlike Knox, Lobato and now Forti - is not a case which I have examined in thorough detail. I haven't read the entire transcript or reviewed the exhibits.
The problem is that there was evidence early in the investigation of sightings of Laci but the police didn't follow through on it. And then Scott's lawyers decided not to emphasize it. So we really don't have a well developed record on that issue and at this point people's memories fade and are less reliable.
It is hard to argue "ineffective assistance of counsel" here because he had an excellent defense attorney with a big budget.
It is still a case that makes me uneasy. I am glad that I am not the judge who has to sign the final order denying habeas and leading to him getting the needle.


To Erasmus

Hey Erasmus even did it or not do it, is to fit the crime even I hate the needle of death even if I add this to unlikely case of into Knox/Lobato I would be into free the top 3 of Knox/Lobato/Peterson and the world might had gone mad of right now, even the world will never understand me? Hey let face it, reading a novel is like criminal law and some people don't get it? It is a case that make me uneasy. I am not the Judge to be the Judge. A Judge job is to heard both side of a fair trial and that never happen in Scott case. So I pray for freedom of against the death, even yes the world can sue me!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:19 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Nick - I always appreciate your insightful and detailed comments. But I did not copy my post from anywhere else. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. In other words, put up or shut up.
Anon - "no evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th"???? - where have you been?
Charles - I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think we have to back up and ask two questions - is it really IMPOSSIBLE that someone else put the body(ies) in the Bay? If not, exactly how unlikely is it? And, secondly, how strong is the evidence that Laci was alive after Scott left. But I agree with your basic analysis. Scott is the natural lead suspect here and the discovery of the bodies in the Bay points strongly in his direction.


It is by no means impossible that someone else could have committed the murder and dumped the body. That's why this case makes for an interesting discussion. The evidence boils down to a couple of points that are damning in the extreme, but can never allow for certainty and do not answer such basic questions as cause or time of death.

As for how likely it is that something else happened, I'd have to know what the something else is and what evidence supports it. I think it's deeply unlikely the burglars grabbed Laci Peterson with the goal of adding a fetus to their loot, but everything went horribly wrong so they framed her husband for murder.

How much weight do you give the evidence that Laci was alive on the morning of the 24th? As far as I can see, all of the exculpatory evidence proposed on behalf of Peterson is inconclusive and open to dispute. It could perhaps be strong evidence as a whole - IF it fit together to tell a coherent story. But it doesn't.



Of course, we have to distinguish - 1. How likely is it in fact that he really did it?; 2. did the jury get it wrong based on the evidence of record?, and 3. is there a basis for overturning the verdict? 3 very different issues although in a death penalty case, I think that there will be a reluctance to give him the needle if the first question is really in serious doubt.
I must add that this - unlike Knox, Lobato and now Forti - is not a case which I have examined in thorough detail. I haven't read the entire transcript or reviewed the exhibits.
The problem is that there was evidence early in the investigation of sightings of Laci but the police didn't follow through on it. And then Scott's lawyers decided not to emphasize it. So we really don't have a well developed record on that issue and at this point people's memories fade and are less reliable.
It is hard to argue "ineffective assistance of counsel" here because he had an excellent defense attorney with a big budget.
It is still a case that makes me uneasy. I am glad that I am not the judge who has to sign the final order denying habeas and leading to him getting the needle.


At some point you have to stop lamenting the poor investigation and deal with the set of facts you have, sitting on the fence and waiting for a better set of facts is silly. Like the appeal and Habeas, you cant try this case by facts that need further investigation, especially when over a decade has passed.

Aponte's tip at this point is what it is, Hearsay Evidence without any Context, we don't really know what was said, who is attributed with saying what, who or what they were talking about and weather it was even tru or remotely related to Laci Peterson. Todd / Pierce have never given any statements to support Apont'e, there is nothing on record to suggest Todd or Peirce's involment in anything, as is the nature of Hearsay.

You say you have not looked through the case files and are not all that knowledgeable about the case, yet you have mentioned fetal age a number of times, so before you go on listing that as an indication of innocence, you may want to look into the actual facts, same with the Dog Walk witnesses!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Mediocrates » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:08 pm

erasmus44 wrote:What is "ALL of the other evidence in this case" - the body was found near where he fished, he had an affair, he ordered porn after Laci disappeared, the scent dog - it really does not add up to a helluva lot. No forensic evidence, no eyewitness, no confession, sketchy motive. This is why the real possibility that Laci was alive as established by many people who had absolutely no incentive to lie tips the balance for me.


With respect, it isn't just that "he had an affair".

It's that his mistress angrily confronted him about having a wife and, in a desperate effort to hold onto that mistress (which, incredibly, extended through the televised vigil!), he backed himself into a corner by saying his wife was "lost" and, LIKE MAGIC, just 14 days later she really was "lost"!

That fact alone puts me well above 80% certain he is guilty. (The 2015 Cali Homicide Stats show that it is exceedingly rare for white women under the age of 40 to be killed by a stranger.)

The fact that her body eventually popped up where he was conducting an incredibly suspicious solo Christmas Eve 'water test', in a boat he told no one about, after purchasing it THE SAME DAY he backed himself into a corner with the mistress, moves me above 90% certain.

That he changed his alibi and lied to police pushes me toward 95% certain.

I'm starting to suspect you may have watched one too many episodes of "CSI" ;-) The prosecution does not have to establish precisely how, when and where a victim is killed. They don't need to have DNA on the trigger of a smoking gun, a huge life insurance pay out and a HD video of the killing.

Murder convictions are secured even in cases where there is no body.

(DRAWING INFERENCES on the basis of logic, reason and common sense put man on the moon - another example of a 'government operation' that NEVER, at any step along the way, afforded any of the participants/ decision-makers the luxury of "absolute certainty" ... yet it succeeded.)
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:12 pm

I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Mediocrates » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:24 pm

The fact Jackson wasn't also chased down and killed by the alleged burglar/butchers shoots a HUGE hole in the deeply flawed but, nevertheless, interesting 'burglary gone bad theory' (that one is a real favorite of homicidal cohabitants everywhere - as any Dateline fan can tell you).

Are you asserting that the police are lying when they claim to have duly checked out the Laci sightings and determined that they were due to ANOTHER pregnant woman (of similar age/ appearance to Laci) in the area who owned, and routinely walked, the same kind of dog?
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:36 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Mediocrates » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:42 pm

I don't think it's fair to call someone a "bully" or a "troll" merely because they do not share your opinion.

In the name of "rational discussion", answer me this: Why didn't the burglar/butchers chase down and kill Jackson after she got a good look at them?
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:38 pm

Good question,

Mediocrates wrote:
In the name of "rational discussion", answer me this: Why didn't the burglar/butchers chase down and kill Jackson after she got a good look at them?
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:41 pm

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.


To Jane

I hate to say it, even you are so right Jane that is what they want. Hey national discussion even I an't going to buy it, one bit. I support the innocent and only the innocent of criminal law, even I am against self defense and that is were I stand by period aka crystal clear!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:07 pm

We have burglars robbing a house in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, neighbors are out and about getting their mail, doing some jogging, getting stare downs from  passersby, and their going to kidnap someone, a screaming woman right there in the street, witnesses everywhere. NOT,

and then we have the so many other reason it didn't happen.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:13 pm

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.


Not a troll or a bully, I talk about th facts, you should try it!

Your part of a very small minority of people that believe Scott is innocent, and your the one who exhibits troll like behaviour, refusing to discuss the case. I notice you now include he docuseries as a reputable source of information in this case, what a joke!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:32 pm

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.



Years of law practice have given me a thick skin. I think it is important for us to have freedom of debate on these boards and I have opposed censorship except in the most egregious situations. I do no want to see us become an "echo chamber" like TJMK or PMF. I think it is important for each side to try to produce a coherent argument and I try to stick to that. I pretty much ignore the rest of the postings as "background noise" which is irrelevant to figuring out how to look at a given case. I do think that it is a matter of psychological interest that some people develop such strong emotional commitment to suppressing those who express doubt about a criminal conviction. It may tell us a lot about why it is so difficult to reverse wrongful convictions.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:17 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.

No one on Scott's side has ever been prove she was alive on the 24th. Never! The rest of their post proves them a tad short on reality.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:23 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:28 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:32 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:48 am

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.


Years of law practice have given me a thick skin. I think it is important for us to have freedom of debate on these boards and I have opposed censorship except in the most egregious situations. I do no want to see us become an "echo chamber" like TJMK or PMF. I think it is important for each side to try to produce a coherent argument and I try to stick to that. I pretty much ignore the rest of the postings as "background noise" which is irrelevant to figuring out how to look at a given case. I do think that it is a matter of psychological interest that some people develop such strong emotional commitment to suppressing those who express doubt about a criminal conviction. It may tell us a lot about why it is so difficult to reverse wrongful convictions.


I hope you will enjoy "debating" the trolls. I see no point in continuing with a discussion in which freedom of speech for the advocates of innocence no longer exists. Any attempt to provide accurate information or to make a reasonable point is followed by abusive posts filled with misinformation. Since you and the other board members are not well-informed about the case, the bullies have an open field to spread their lies. Supporters of Scott Peterson have made many attempts to provide accurate information about the case on this board. For the most part, all have given up because of the generally hostile climate here.

When bullies are given license to intimidate, belittle, and insult, it is not freedom of speech. It is chaos.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:29 am

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.



Years of law practice have given me a thick skin. I think it is important for us to have freedom of debate on these boards and I have opposed censorship except in the most egregious situations. I do no want to see us become an "echo chamber" like TJMK or PMF. I think it is important for each side to try to produce a coherent argument and I try to stick to that. I pretty much ignore the rest of the postings as "background noise" which is irrelevant to figuring out how to look at a given case. I do think that it is a matter of psychological interest that some people develop such strong emotional commitment to suppressing those who express doubt about a criminal conviction. It may tell us a lot about why it is so difficult to reverse wrongful convictions.


To Erasmus & Jane

Hey Jane, I hate to say it even Erasmus is right and that is what they are doing, even I know that I hated the TJMK or the PMF or what ever they call there stupid site, even they only believe into guilt. But we got the facts to prove it, even the trolls want to complain even when we tried to explain our theory, well like Erasmus said something to put pieces into evidence that was never there. But the trolls are doing is trying to tell there no evidence he guilty even when we go, they still go after. It is going to get ugly and there nothing we can do.

So what am I saying is not good enough grammar or no one is going to understand me? It like I am being inside the invisible box once again, of this wonderful stuff, and gee whiz I can see why the trolls sure do love to ignore me? Why? There afraid of me, even I beat them to the game and they still complain even I love it, even it not worth it to reply!!!

Erasmus keep up the good work even I know your trying hard enough even it going to get tougher even there got to be some way to prove Scott innocent and we did show it. They aren't going to buy it one bit!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:32 am

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.


Years of law practice have given me a thick skin. I think it is important for us to have freedom of debate on these boards and I have opposed censorship except in the most egregious situations. I do no want to see us become an "echo chamber" like TJMK or PMF. I think it is important for each side to try to produce a coherent argument and I try to stick to that. I pretty much ignore the rest of the postings as "background noise" which is irrelevant to figuring out how to look at a given case. I do think that it is a matter of psychological interest that some people develop such strong emotional commitment to suppressing those who express doubt about a criminal conviction. It may tell us a lot about why it is so difficult to reverse wrongful convictions.


I hope you will enjoy "debating" the trolls. I see no point in continuing with a discussion in which freedom of speech for the advocates of innocence no longer exists. Any attempt to provide accurate information or to make a reasonable point is followed by abusive posts filled with misinformation. Since you and the other board members are not well-informed about the case, the bullies have an open field to spread their lies. Supporters of Scott Peterson have made many attempts to provide accurate information about the case on this board. For the most part, all have given up because of the generally hostile climate here.

When bullies are given license to intimidate, belittle, and insult, it is not freedom of speech. It is chaos.



Sorry you feel that way. I am probably the member of the board who is least likely to ban posters (I am a free speech fanatic) - others may feel differently and you should consider consulting them.
The most useful thing you can do in terms of persuading people who are on the fence is to post a well organized point by point argument for innocence or reversal of the conviction with references to the record or other source material.
I think that people who are steeped in the history of a case often become frustrated with posters like me who "should know" all sorts of things which are familiar to those who have spent much more time on the case. Part of the purpose of this forum is to allow those with more detailed information and background to share it with those of us who - while (hopefully) we may have strong analytical talents - do not have that depth of knowledge. A good example is the Servas evidence - I think I came up with a pretty good explanation (Laci taking the dog out and then suddenly having to vomit and running in without closing the gate) that would be consistent with Laci still being alive and then taking the dog for a walk after Servas left. I did this only after people had called my attention to that piece of evidence.
This is a difficult and frustrating process. Those who sincerely believe he is guilty have good reason (in their own minds) to despise him and to be concerned that somehow he will "sneak" out of liability for a horrible crime because people like me have an elevated BARD standard or are subject to the "CSI syndrome". It is not completely surprising that they are very emotional. There are very few of us on the fence here and it is lonely. But I am sincerely on the fence and I do see a real possibility that Laci was alive after he left which I would like to explore to the extent possible.
This is also a case in which the police decided he was guilty in the first few minutes after they arrived at his house and those cases are dangerous because confirmation bias kicks in. That also makes me suspicious that this may actually be a wrongful conviction.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:39 am

jane wrote: "Debating" the trolls. I see no point in continuing with a discussion in which freedom of speech for the advocates of innocence no longer exists. Any attempt to provide accurate information or to make a reasonable point is followed by abusive posts filled with misinformation. Since you and the other board members are not well-informed about the case, the bullies have an open field to spread their lies. Supporters of Scott Peterson have made many attempts to provide accurate information about the case on this board. For the most part, all have given up because of the generally hostile climate here.

When bullies are given license to intimidate, belittle, and insult, it is not freedom of speech. It is chaos.


To Jane

Jane as knowing your right that seeing a no zone conversation with them, it not going to work even I know that we got to play along with them, even yes you, me and everyone going to hate it. Remember that old famous cartoon Alice in wonderland. Why are they mad. They are never going to like each other even they are mad, mad, mad, mad people of being hurt into sadness of guilt and they want to believe into that part of being like this: :confused: :confused: :confused: When we told them our side, they got to learn the facts. Let wait until it proven one day that when we win the case it is over and they got to learn it, even remember what happen to Amanda Knox case? We lost in the begining and we came back and we won even it will show how DNA works of testing evidence even we never had a 2nd trial, and that is what we need to do and work it out to prove it, and one day they will not be happy when we won the case to prove it. So let keep a good paste of innocent and let focus on that part!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:35 am

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not saying that there isn't enough incriminating evidence to convict. I am questioning whether the exculpatory evidence raises a doubt sufficient to avoid execution. And I am not sure. But a deficient investigation frequently increases uncertainty and that is what we have here.


Erasmus, it is truly sad that with all the public information available, transcripts, documents, trial minutes, exhibits, the docuseries, that the best conclusion the board members on this board can come to is a lukewarm "reasonable doubt."

I wonder why you tolerate personal insults with your very impressive record of accomplishment as an attorney.

When bullies (aka trolls) are allowed to take over a board, there is no hope of rational discussion. That is what they want.


Years of law practice have given me a thick skin. I think it is important for us to have freedom of debate on these boards and I have opposed censorship except in the most egregious situations. I do no want to see us become an "echo chamber" like TJMK or PMF. I think it is important for each side to try to produce a coherent argument and I try to stick to that. I pretty much ignore the rest of the postings as "background noise" which is irrelevant to figuring out how to look at a given case. I do think that it is a matter of psychological interest that some people develop such strong emotional commitment to suppressing those who express doubt about a criminal conviction. It may tell us a lot about why it is so difficult to reverse wrongful convictions.


I hope you will enjoy "debating" the trolls. I see no point in continuing with a discussion in which freedom of speech for the advocates of innocence no longer exists. Any attempt to provide accurate information or to make a reasonable point is followed by abusive posts filled with misinformation. Since you and the other board members are not well-informed about the case, the bullies have an open field to spread their lies. Supporters of Scott Peterson have made many attempts to provide accurate information about the case on this board. For the most part, all have given up because of the generally hostile climate here.

When bullies are given license to intimidate, belittle, and insult, it is not freedom of speech. It is chaos.



Sorry you feel that way. I am probably the member of the board who is least likely to ban posters (I am a free speech fanatic) - others may feel differently and you should consider consulting them.
The most useful thing you can do in terms of persuading people who are on the fence is to post a well organized point by point argument for innocence or reversal of the conviction with references to the record or other source material.
I think that people who are steeped in the history of a case often become frustrated with posters like me who "should know" all sorts of things which are familiar to those who have spent much more time on the case. Part of the purpose of this forum is to allow those with more detailed information and background to share it with those of us who - while (hopefully) we may have strong analytical talents - do not have that depth of knowledge. A good example is the Servas evidence - I think I came up with a pretty good explanation (Laci taking the dog out and then suddenly having to vomit and running in without closing the gate) that would be consistent with Laci still being alive and then taking the dog for a walk after Servas left. I did this only after people had called my attention to that piece of evidence.
This is a difficult and frustrating process. Those who sincerely believe he is guilty have good reason (in their own minds) to despise him and to be concerned that somehow he will "sneak" out of liability for a horrible crime because people like me have an elevated BARD standard or are subject to the "CSI syndrome". It is not completely surprising that they are very emotional. There are very few of us on the fence here and it is lonely. But I am sincerely on the fence and I do see a real possibility that Laci was alive after he left which I would like to explore to the extent possible.
This is also a case in which the police decided he was guilty in the first few minutes after they arrived at his house and those cases are dangerous because confirmation bias kicks in. That also makes me suspicious that this may actually be a wrongful conviction.


Most reputable boards have rules of conduct so that it is possible for members to have civilized discussions. Apparently, IA allows anything that isn't a violation of the law.

From the Registration Page: You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Injustice Anywhere” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “Injustice Anywhere” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit

For the past five years I have been posting "well organized point by point arguments for innocence or reversal of the conviction with references to the record or other source material." Apparently, no one bothers to read them, or if they do, trolls misquote and misrepresent what has been said, all the while throwing out insults.

Bruce Fischer can run his board any way he wants to. I'm certainly not going to tell him what to do. He may notice, however, that the level of discourse reaches new lows when trolls are allowed full reign.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:27 am

Ok - let's get back to the case.
1. Laci sightings - I would give the greatest credibility to those sightings in which the person who claims they saw Laci knew Laci or at least had seen Laci prior to 12/24 as opposed to someone who saw a woman who "looked like Laci" or "looked like the picture in the newspaper or on TV of Laci".
2. Another big factor is when the witness came forward and exactly what they said in the first interview. The sooner after 12/24 that they came forward, the more credible.
3. A third factor is the distance from which they observed the person that they concluded was Laci. Obviously, the closer the better.
4. So the best evidence would be - "I have lunch with Laci once a week and we have a lot of fun. At 11:30 yesterday morning I was walking down the street and Laci passed and stopped and we chatted for 5 minutes." The worst evidence would be - "I just realized that something I saw 5 years ago may be relevant. From a distance, I saw a pregnant woman walking a dog on what I think was 12/24. Now that I see pictures of Laci on TV, I think that the woman looked like Laci. I usually drive through that neighborhood on my way to work at about 11 so that is when I must have seen her. I didn't see her very well because my car windows hadn't been cleaned and were covered with mud."
5. I have reviewed the appellate briefs and the habeas papers and it is not completely clear where the sighting evidence falls on this scale. For example, I can't tell whether the "sighters" were people who had seen Laci and knew who she was.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:56 am

jane wrote: Most reputable boards have rules of conduct so that it is possible for members to have civilized discussions. Apparently, IA allows anything that isn't a violation of the law.

From the Registration Page: You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “Injustice Anywhere” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “Injustice Anywhere” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit

For the past five years I have been posting "well organized point by point arguments for innocence or reversal of the conviction with references to the record or other source material." Apparently, no one bothers to read them, or if they do, trolls misquote and misrepresent what has been said, all the while throwing out insults.

Bruce Fischer can run his board any way he wants to. I'm certainly not going to tell him what to do. He may notice, however, that the level of discourse reaches new lows when trolls are allowed full reign.


To Jane

Hey Jane, I know that boards has rules even sometimes I was not a fan of the rules even I explain that I support the innocent even I believe that celebrities do support innocent too and if we focus on that part, we need to take further action on that part. So I decided to create a celebrity of my Anne Hathaway into support of my Anne Hathaway and Bruce was not fine of what I did even he doesn't realize that celebrity do care if you give that person a chance to explain into a good way!!!

2nd I was not happy until Machavelli made fun of me into a cruel way and it mean and hateful even only Randy N got the jerk and he later finally got caught and he was banned, and I was thrill even I knew Machavelli wanted a debate of guilt, just like Anon & Nick are trying to do. Look I don't like either. But I do agree with MJL more because he doing something into a good way and I trust MJL more then Anon & NIck. I am not buying those 2 trolls!!!

Third I don't care what they think? I focus on the case and it seem I do want to focus on it, even were not doing anything, even it them or they are complaining and I know we can't do anything until Bruce is ready to talk and I will wait, wait, and wait, even he no where to be found?

4th: If we keep a positive way in this case, let do it, even let them complain with the guilt, even I can care less. I know that I miss Clive, Bill & Charlie was doing some good work in here. All 3 of them were doing excellent we just got to ignore even I know Erasmus replies, but that is what the 2 of them want a debate even I do believe that we will get Nick banned and I want that too. But I don't know about Anon!!!

5th I am here for a case. But I would like to be OT right now of Off Topic into another thread I made into netflix.com!!!

viewtopic.php?f=151&t=3554

6th But finally can I get a respond or am I invisible of right now. I need an answer even let focus this right now and we will see what happen next and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:46 pm

Well I believe Scott is guilty, but don't feel I'm bulling anyone. I'm willing to change my mind, when and if there is any new evidence, like maybe someone that knew Laci stopped and talked to her that morning, a time stamped photo, security video Laci walking that day. So bring it on that new evidence , I'm always willing to change my mind.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:34 pm

Laci sightings

In fact, purported sightings of Laci were legion. During the prosecution's case, evidence was adduced that there were at least 74 reported sightings of Laci, including sightings of her on San Francisco Bay on December 24. (94RT 17761; People's Exit Nos. 267 [map showing Modesto area sightings], 268A [California sightings].) Also, there were numerous purported sightings of her in 26 states and overseas. (96RT 18077; People's Exh. No. 268B [including Canada, Italy, France, and the Virgin Islands].) Only a few of the reported sightings fit the relevant timeframe and location, as authorities could best determine. Most were not viable and none were corroborated.

Here are some of the main Laci sighting witnesses.
.
.
Mike Chiavetta
24th around 10:45 a.m, in East La Loma Park, a woman with a big white smock and black leggings. "I wish I could say, 'Yeah, I saw a pregnant woman in the park,'" Chiavetta told the Bee, but said he could not be certain. He also claimed that later on that evening, he saw the dog only, with no Laci.
.
.
Problem here Scott hasn't even left the house yet.
Homer Maldonado:
a 59-year-old commercial painter, said he saw Peterson between 9:45 and 10 a.m. Dec. 24, moments after he left the USA Gasoline station on Miller Avenue, about a half-mile south of the Peterson home at 523 Covena Ave.
.
.
Problem here, How can the dog be 9 blocks away, when about this time Servas is putting the dog in the gated area?
Vivian Mitchell,
who lives on Buena Vista Avenue roughly 10 blocks from the Peterson home and about three-quarters of a mile from the Maldonado sighting, has told police that she saw Peterson walk by between 10 and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 24. Also gives a time of 10:15am The husband didn't see the woman, only the dog.
.
.
Again Problem here, Scott hasn't even left the house yet.
Tony Freitas
At about 10:00 a.m., Tony Freitas sees a woman matching the description of Laci Peterson walking her dog in the La Loma neighborhood.
.
.
Again Problem here, Scott hasn't even left the house yet.
Martha Aguilar:
Around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24, Aguilar saw Laci and McK walking on La Loma Avenue in the same general area that Freitas saw her. She was sure it was Laci. Aguilar lived 2 blocks south of Laci on Covena and they went to the same doctor.
.
.
And she see this from 50 yards away.
Diane Campos.
About 10:45 a.m. Dec. 24, Diana Campos, an employee of a nearby hospital, saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever with two men along a path in the park.


9:45 am Campos heard men shouting at woman.

A Stanislaus County Hospital employee, Diana Campos, was taking a smoke break. The hospital is located close enough to the park to give a direct sight line into the park. In her initial call to the police, Campos said she took the break at 10:45 a.m. However, in the Preliminary hearing, Geragos said Campos said the time was 9:45 a.m., after checking her records. Campos saw three people walking together along the jogging trail, in a direction away from the Covena address. One was an obviously pregnant white woman with a dog on a leash, and she identified the dog as a medium-size Golden Retriever. The dog was barking constantly, and the woman had to pull at the dog with the leash. The other two were men. One, wearing a beanie cap, told the woman, "Shut the ****** dog up." Campos watched them for about 5 minutes, but didn't think too much of it until she saw the flyer on the 26th and she recognized Laci as the woman she saw. She described the woman as having short, dark, straight shoulder-length hair and about 6-7 months pregnant. She was wearing a white top and what appeared to be stretch pants, but she didn't know what color. One of the males was in his late thirties, 5'7", medium build, wearing a dark beanie, dirty dark shirt, and dirty blue jeans. The second man was also late thirties, 5'7", medium build, short brown hair, wearing a Levi jacket with a tear and blue jeans.

According to what I have found Diana Campos was at Stanislaus County Hospital employee taking a break, Over looking moose park, aprox 50 yards from where she saw a pregnant women walking her dog. The Peterson house is 10 blocks from this location. Checked on Google maps, about almost a mile from Lacis house.

Campos said she took the break at 10:45 a.m. However, in the Preliminary hearing, Geragos said Campos said the time was 9:45 a.m., after checking her records. So not clear on the time

.
.
Problem here, she was wearing tan pants when she was found.
Tom Harshman tip
He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt.


None of these witnesses know for sure it was Laci, It's just women that matches the description in the Laci posters.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:44 pm

This is the kind of analysis we should be doing. Brick by brick taking it apart and putting it together again.
On the above, when some of them say they "saw Laci" - does that mean "I know Laci and have seen her many times and I saw her again on 12/24" or "I never met or saw Laci before 12/24 but - on 12/24 - I saw a woman who I now realize was Laci by viewing newspaper or TV photos of Laci and then remembering the woman I saw."
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:08 pm

Thought maybe Mitchell knew Laci but I guess not, from what was said in the interview. Mitchell's reported to police about a week after Laci went missing. Vivian Mitchell died back in 2004.


"Bill Mitchell has said that at the time, his wife casually mentioned, "There's the pregnant woman with the beautiful smile."

Later, the couple saw television news accounts that Laci Peterson had mysteriously disappeared. Bill Mitchell, a former city councilman, told The Chronicle on Wednesday, "I was city-oriented, and I told her to call the police. We didn't know the Petersons before or since."

But then we know Vivian Mitchell's time of 10:15 sighting doesn't fit 10 blocks away from Laci's home. Servas was putting the dog in the gated area at 10:18 and everyone seems to agree that is a fact

Looks like maybe Martha Aguilar Knew Laci, but the time doesn't fit 10:00

The rest I don't believe knew Laci at all, just going by the missing poster description.

It's almost like all these 10:00 sighting may be someone else they though might be Laci from the missing poster description, since Scott had not even left the house yet.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:20 pm

MJL wrote:Well I believe Scott is guilty, but don't feel I'm bulling anyone. I'm willing to change my mind, when and if there is any new evidence, like maybe someone that knew Laci stopped and talked to her that morning, a time stamped photo, security video Laci walking that day. So bring it on that new evidence , I'm always willing to change my mind.


To MJL

Hey MJL you didn't bullied anyone. I just don't trust Anon or Nick they are the problem with me, even about new evidence is not going to be easy even I wish the witness did had proof even they only can do it through phone wire or meet people, of crime waves even yes pictures will work. But there was no security video into of Scott Peterson, even the police went with guilt even the way I am going to go is this: It time to test the DNA. I want DNA testing in the case and it the only way to go even science got to work even that the only way and if it prove negative of not his match, then the detective has a problem, of no match. Something is not right even with me. I am not going to believe Prosecutor theory because he didn't prove it by time slot when Scott was with Laci while watching Martha Stewart on Christmas Eve and he left alone after and, not with her!!!

That prove his innocent even he went fishing alone, not with her, even she was alone and I wish they had security video inside that neighbor hood, and they never had and that the whole problem. The only way to work it is bring more witness. But first we got to do DNA and that is what I want

There nothing else we can do even if Jane or Erasmus or anyone who lives in the CA and go there to show some proof of time bout of where, and when was Laci last seen! Take pictures. that what they need to do. Or we are going to lose this case again, and I am against death even I am no fan of that part. So I am stuck into a middle pieces even no match of me seeing him guilty even I believe into his innocent!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:22 pm

erasmus44 wrote:This is the kind of analysis we should be doing. Brick by brick taking it apart and putting it together again.
On the above, when some of them say they "saw Laci" - does that mean "I know Laci and have seen her many times and I saw her again on 12/24" or "I never met or saw Laci before 12/24 but - on 12/24 - I saw a woman who I now realize was Laci by viewing newspaper or TV photos of Laci and then remembering the woman I saw."


To Erasmus

Yes Erasmus that is the right analysis to go by even it not going to be easy, and that is the way I want to go even I want DNA testing first before we do that, even show the science of proof that Scott finger prints won't match. Then the Prosecutor got a huge problem and that goes with the DA and Detective of failing the job of that part even it a no match zone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:36 pm

So if there are all these witnesses that see a woman walking a dog at 10:00 am on the 24th, when if Laci is alive still at home, before Scott even leaves the house, Then it would be obvious to me there was another woman walking their dog that day, that these witnesses believe was Laci. just like all the other Laci sighting all over the world, and I do believe that could be true, women walking their dogs all over the world. Yep, it happens right here where I live also.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:51 pm

These are the Laci witnesses, Can anyone else see problems here with these witnesses??

We have Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas, Martha Aguilar, and Gene Pedrioli, all see someone they believe to be Laci. I would say all these people here did see someone at 10:00 a.m on the 24th, they are all giving the exact same times, from the same area, but it wasn't Laci. Laci would be home mopping the floor if she is still alive like Scott says.

Vivian Mitchell sees someone at 10:15 a.m about the same time Karen Servas is putting the dog into the gated area at 10:18, and it seems both sides agrees that's a fact, Servas putting the dog in the gated area at 10:18 a.m

Mike Chiavetta and Diana Campos, sees someone about the same time a long ways apart at 10:45 a.m, like 1.20 mile apart.

MAP
https://edrums.info/witnesses.png
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:33 pm

Humans tend to walk at an average pace of about 3 miles per hour. At that rate, the average time for a person to walk a mile is about 20 minutes.

So if she walked a path so everyone of these witnesses can see her, Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas, Martha Aguilar, Gene Pedrioli, Vivian Mitchell, To cover about 1.2 miles and be over there in that area in the 10:00 a.m range, she would have had to leave the house about 9:30 a.m, and if she walked slower because she is pregnant she would have to leave even earlier. That would mean Scott and Laci would have missed Martha Stewart.

There would be big problems for Mike Chiavetta and Diana Campos sightings that are way off the path, and then like a mile apart from each other, that see someone at the same time.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:15 pm

This kind of analysis is helpful. Doesn't necessarily put the issue to bed but tends to make one skeptical. Of course, some of them could have gotten the time wrong but once you rely on witnesses and then have to turn around and make an assumption that they were wrong on a key issue, you are in trouble.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:36 pm

Yep, It would for sure not be good to start changing witnesses timelines. You can't just move, change times around to make it fit.

But is something that 4 of the main witnesses form the same area have the same time of 10:00 a.m, which is way to early for Laci to be there. So I say, they just saw someone else they thought might be Laci at that time. and if you give all these people in that one small area different times, this person with the dog would be all over the place in that small area with a big range of times, It just wouldn't work. Hope that makes sense. I mean it wouldn't make sense if Homer Maldonado says 11:00, Tony Freita says 10:00, Martha Aguilar says 11:30, Gene Pedrioli says noon all in that small area.



It pretty much is settled for me, unless someone comes up with a time stamped photo, or some more credible witness, but don't see that happening after all these years.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:31 pm

Maybe we are seeing why this line of attack was not aggressively pursued at trial.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:39 am

To MJL

Can I explain something to you? When Martha Stewart show was on 9am eastern time zone and it was a one hour show and the time is a different time even Scott never walked with her when she walk the dog. She walked alone and it was all alone, even witness only saw her and only her, even the time slot is not a match or it might be a match of around 10am to 10:20am!!!

2nd I am happen to be a dog walker myself and I do walk a dog even walking a path is not going to take me 20mins to be back home, even it takes me 13-16 mins to walk my dog, even I know it might take a 20 mins for a woman to walk the dog!!!

Also Scott never went with Laci even that being plan dumb even it not going to match well, even witness might mix the time, even the mix is a mix and I know it not going to look good, even I am going with 10:am to 10:20am or 10:30am to 10:50am and I am going to pick only 2 witness that said 10:30am-10:50am!!!

Scott said: I went alone to go fishing even I was alone not with her? She was alone even there is no seurity video inside a neghbor hood, even if they did that, the law would scary private law of more wrongful conviction of crime, only witness can describle the time slot even it not going to work well, even I think Scott need a new attorney at law. I am only think 2 witness will help in the next case of a new trial!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:45 am

MJL wrote:So if there are all these witnesses that see a woman walking a dog at 10:00 am on the 24th, when if Laci is alive still at home, before Scott even leaves the house, Then it would be obvious to me there was another woman walking their dog that day, that these witnesses believe was Laci. just like all the other Laci sighting all over the world, and I do believe that could be true, women walking their dogs all over the world. Yep, it happens right here where I live also.


To MJL

Thank you and that the only way I can prove it, even I am only going to add 2 witness that saw her on that time slot and he need a new change of law and a new attorney!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:16 am

MJL wrote:Laci sightings

In fact, purported sightings of Laci were legion. During the prosecution's case, evidence was adduced that there were at least 74 reported sightings of Laci, including sightings of her on San Francisco Bay on December 24. (94RT 17761; People's Exit Nos. 267 [map showing Modesto area sightings], 268A [California sightings].) Also, there were numerous purported sightings of her in 26 states and overseas. (96RT 18077; People's Exh. No. 268B [including Canada, Italy, France, and the Virgin Islands].) Only a few of the reported sightings fit the relevant timeframe and location, as authorities could best determine. Most were not viable and none were corroborated.

Here are some of the main Laci sighting witnesses.
.
.
Mike Chiavetta
24th around 10:45 a.m, in East La Loma Park, a woman with a big white smock and black leggings. "I wish I could say, 'Yeah, I saw a pregnant woman in the park,'" Chiavetta told the Bee, but said he could not be certain. He also claimed that later on that evening, he saw the dog only, with no Laci.
.
.
Problem here Scott hasn't even left the house yet.
Homer Maldonado:
a 59-year-old commercial painter, said he saw Peterson between 9:45 and 10 a.m. Dec. 24, moments after he left the USA Gasoline station on Miller Avenue, about a half-mile south of the Peterson home at 523 Covena Ave.
.
.
Problem here, How can the dog be 9 blocks away, when about this time Servas is putting the dog in the gated area?
Vivian Mitchell,
who lives on Buena Vista Avenue roughly 10 blocks from the Peterson home and about three-quarters of a mile from the Maldonado sighting, has told police that she saw Peterson walk by between 10 and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 24. Also gives a time of 10:15am The husband didn't see the woman, only the dog.
.
.
Again Problem here, Scott hasn't even left the house yet.
Tony Freitas
At about 10:00 a.m., Tony Freitas sees a woman matching the description of Laci Peterson walking her dog in the La Loma neighborhood.
.
.
Again Problem here, Scott hasn't even left the house yet.
Martha Aguilar:
Around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24, Aguilar saw Laci and McK walking on La Loma Avenue in the same general area that Freitas saw her. She was sure it was Laci. Aguilar lived 2 blocks south of Laci on Covena and they went to the same doctor.
.
.
And she see this from 50 yards away.
Diane Campos.
About 10:45 a.m. Dec. 24, Diana Campos, an employee of a nearby hospital, saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever with two men along a path in the park.


9:45 am Campos heard men shouting at woman.

A Stanislaus County Hospital employee, Diana Campos, was taking a smoke break. The hospital is located close enough to the park to give a direct sight line into the park. In her initial call to the police, Campos said she took the break at 10:45 a.m. However, in the Preliminary hearing, Geragos said Campos said the time was 9:45 a.m., after checking her records. Campos saw three people walking together along the jogging trail, in a direction away from the Covena address. One was an obviously pregnant white woman with a dog on a leash, and she identified the dog as a medium-size Golden Retriever. The dog was barking constantly, and the woman had to pull at the dog with the leash. The other two were men. One, wearing a beanie cap, told the woman, "Shut the ****** dog up." Campos watched them for about 5 minutes, but didn't think too much of it until she saw the flyer on the 26th and she recognized Laci as the woman she saw. She described the woman as having short, dark, straight shoulder-length hair and about 6-7 months pregnant. She was wearing a white top and what appeared to be stretch pants, but she didn't know what color. One of the males was in his late thirties, 5'7", medium build, wearing a dark beanie, dirty dark shirt, and dirty blue jeans. The second man was also late thirties, 5'7", medium build, short brown hair, wearing a Levi jacket with a tear and blue jeans.

According to what I have found Diana Campos was at Stanislaus County Hospital employee taking a break, Over looking moose park, aprox 50 yards from where she saw a pregnant women walking her dog. The Peterson house is 10 blocks from this location. Checked on Google maps, about almost a mile from Lacis house.

Campos said she took the break at 10:45 a.m. However, in the Preliminary hearing, Geragos said Campos said the time was 9:45 a.m., after checking her records. So not clear on the time

.
.
Problem here, she was wearing tan pants when she was found.
Tom Harshman tip
He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt.


None of these witnesses know for sure it was Laci, It's just women that matches the description in the Laci posters.

Good stuff you posted. :::thumbs up::: Unfortunately, it will go ignored. Jane is white noise. Read this whole thread. Anyone who posts reality and facts get called "a bully & a troll" by her who has zero clue about this case.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:59 am

At least for me, I have it figured out. I'm sure the supporters will never change their minds, they're stuck. I'm not here to change supporters minds, I know that won't happen. Then there are those that don't really know the case, and I say to those , take a good hard close look, don't just watch A&E shows on Scott, or just read the slanted Scott Peterson Blogs, they will be one sided, and won't get the whole story.

I'm one of those that knew nothing about this case until a month or 2 ago, I wanted to see if this A&E show was right about Scott. I thought Wow at first, this guy has to be innocent, but they leave so much out, they make out like it's all new evidence. If you don't know better, or know the details of this case you could be fooled, most likely will be fooled. There is a website, all the court documents, transcripts are there, Just avoid all the opinion you will find here.

Taking a closer look at all these witnesses, burglar details, autopsy report, and all the testimony, the whole picture not just one side, but both sides, I don't see Laci alive after Scott left. I don't see bodies being planted separately in bay, by way of land. I will have to agree with the jury verdict, Guilty.




Nick wrote:Good stuff you posted. :::thumbs up::: Unfortunately, it will go ignored. Jane is white noise. Read this whole thread. Anyone who posts reality and facts get called "a bully & a troll" by her who has zero clue about this case.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:51 am

MJL wrote:At least for me, I have it figured out. I'm sure the supporters will never change their minds, they're stuck. I'm not here to change supporters minds, I know that won't happen. Then there are those that don't really know the case, and I say to those , take a good hard close look, don't just watch A&E shows on Scott, or just read the slanted Scott Peterson Blogs, they will be one sided, and won't get the whole story.

I'm one of those that knew nothing about this case until a month or 2 ago, I wanted to see if this A&E show was right about Scott. I thought Wow at first, this guy has to be innocent, but they leave so much out, they make out like it's all new evidence. If you don't know better, or know the details of this case you could be fooled, most likely will be fooled. There is a website, all the court documents, transcripts are there, Just avoid all the opinion you will find here.

Taking a closer look at all these witnesses, burglar details, autopsy report, and all the testimony, the whole picture not just one side, but both sides, I don't see Laci alive after Scott left. I don't see bodies being planted separately in bay, by way of land. I will have to agree with the jury verdict, Guilty.




Nick wrote:Good stuff you posted. :::thumbs up::: Unfortunately, it will go ignored. Jane is white noise. Read this whole thread. Anyone who posts reality and facts get called "a bully & a troll" by her who has zero clue about this case.


No one with 2 brain cells to rub together see her alive. Scott placed himself where the bodies washed up. He also referred to Laci in the past tense on National TV.

www.findlaci.com has all the facts, not fantasy like the blog you mention.

Scott supporters are deliberately ignorant to reality. They have spent yrs on an unattainable position. Tsk, tsk, such a waste of life for a vile killer who does not give a rats behind about them. :wow:
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:02 am

Edited by Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:23 am

Here's where I am on this at this point.
1. I would really like to hear from Jane or someone on the innocence side to respond to MJL. But I think that his work on this issue is helpful and it is beginning to make me understand why a sophisticated defense counsel decided not to emphasize the siting of Laci evidence in the trial.
2. I am still troubled by the fact that the police didn't follow up on all leads. We really don't know what would have happened if they had followed up. The Aponte evidence is weak because it is double or triple hearsay but it is something which should have followed up on.
3. Nick - I understand that you have strong feelings about the case and sincerely hold those beliefs but calling people names does not add to the quality or depth of the discussion here. You may have successfully driven Jane away which will deprive me of the opportunity to hear what she might say in response to MJL. Rather than putting people on the innocence side to their proof and forcing them to confront the fact, you are given them an excuse to duck the issue.
4. I am still concerned that this is a case in which the police jumped to the conclusion that Scott did it very very early in the game and that creates very dangerous confirmation bias.
5. But the bottom line is that - if MJL is correct about the siting evidence, we really don't have anything here that is strong enough to overcome the argument that it is implausible that someone else would have dumped Laci in the Bay.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:42 am

One more note. How come not of that junk from MNs blog was used on the biased A&E show? All she did was mumble and wretch her giant man hands. No kermit experiment & her junk science was mention.

I found it highly suspect that person used this case to make $$ for herself. It's up thread that she collected $$ on Scott's behalf (no one asked her to do that) and when she was busted using it for herself. Her excuse was she had expenses while sitting outside court most days. Excuse me, but who asked her to do that instead of getting a job? Screams scam to me.
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:05 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Crabs in the SF Bay are very selective according to the Peterson prosecutors.

Is this the 'she was kept in a fish tank' point again?

LOL I finally figured out who made the "fish tank" claim and crabs are selective which they are not.

I got it. So MN throws in a kermit doll into the bay and the crabs didn't want any part of it.

My stomach hurts from laughing so hard. :wow: :lol: :jaw-dropping:
Nick
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:16 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Here's where I am on this at this point.
1. I would really like to hear from Jane or someone on the innocence side to respond to MJL. But I think that his work on this issue is helpful and it is beginning to make me understand why a sophisticated defense counsel decided not to emphasize the siting of Laci evidence in the trial.
2. I am still troubled by the fact that the police didn't follow up on all leads. We really don't know what would have happened if they had followed up. The Aponte evidence is weak because it is double or triple hearsay but it is something which should have followed up on.
3. Nick - I understand that you have strong feelings about the case and sincerely hold those beliefs but calling people names does not add to the quality or depth of the discussion here. You may have successfully driven Jane away which will deprive me of the opportunity to hear what she might say in response to MJL. Rather than putting people on the innocence side to their proof and forcing them to confront the fact, you are given them an excuse to duck the issue.
4. I am still concerned that this is a case in which the police jumped to the conclusion that Scott did it very very early in the game and that creates very dangerous confirmation bias.
5. But the bottom line is that - if MJL is correct about the siting evidence, we really don't have anything here that is strong enough to overcome the argument that it is implausible that someone else would have dumped Laci in the Bay.


To Erasmus

Hey Erasmus even those are the facts of unknown and I know it not going so well for you or for me, as well. I don't know? What am I going to say even here is what I have to say of right now!!!

1st:I would like someone else to answer from MJL even I just can't do it even I know my theory is just not working and I am stepping out of the case! But someone need to answer even Jane you are the one I trust, and if there anyone who can answer, even I wouldn't mind if it Bill, Clive or anyone please respond to MJL!!!

2nd: I would like Nick to understand if he has a heart of courage to realize this case and the belief of some way to understand even I know he ignoring me? Because he want to play along or not understood that this forum is not a playground. It about true crime!!!

3rd: I would like to know where is Bruce? He never show up and his he hiding again of backing away and not looking or is he to busy of rooting for his team of Chicago Cubs. I really think he should forget about baseball and focus on this site even he knows he got to do work! Not root for his baseball team. I know that and everyone knows that one day it going to get out of hand when things don't go well!!!

4th: I wish that Randy N was here? Why? Because he knows what to do and how it is done even he left for good and I trust the guy and he a great guy even I came here for a reason of people who are wrongful convicted of crime and no I am not going to listen to Anon, even he can blah, blah, blah, all day long and Nick if you really understood this case that well, give out some chance, if not fine! Be like Anon because that is what he is a blah, blah, blah guy with no love of courage who hate himself for the guilt even he never cares for the innocent, even only guilty party 4-life and that is final for me of what I have to say even it were I stand and goodnight!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4647
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:55 pm

If you watch one of the videos from the A&E series, don't remember which one. One of the lawyers for the defense team said there were contradictions in their story's, and felt it would hurt the defense.

and I did find problems with these witnesses as you can see in my comments above. The pros would have chewed them up and spit them out on cross.
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:38 pm

There is even problems with Scott's Habeas Appeal, where they are saying there are witnesss to say Laci even walked her dog on the 23rd. According to the house keeper that was there on the 23rd to clean from 8:30 a.m - 2:30 p.m, all Laci did was go shopping.


DISTASO: What time did you get to the house?
NAVA: At 8:30.

DISTASO: When you got to the house at 8:30, you said Laci Peterson was home?
NAVA: Yes.

DISTASO: Did Laci Peterson go anywhere during the day while you were there at the house from 8:30 to 2:30? Did she go anywhere?
NAVA: Yes.

DISTASO: And do you know where she went? Where did she go?
NAVA: She didn't tell me where she was going, but she returned with four paper bags from the store.

DISTASO: And what was in the bags? Did you look in the bags at all?
NAVA: I cannot say, but what do you call there were groceries.

DISTASO: And do you know what time of day it was she went to go buy the groceries?
NAVA: I'm not too sure. But around eleven, more or less.

DISTASO: And do you know if she went anywhere else that day while you were home? I mean while you were at the house?
NAVA: Not that I know of.

DISTASO: What did you see her doing from 8:30 to eleven?
NAVA: Only that. I was busy doing my cleaning.

DISTASO: Did she spend, did you see her sitting with her feet up, or anything like that?
NAVA: Yes, she would do that.

DISTASO: And did she do that on the 23rd?
NAVA: Yes.



From Scott's Habeas Appeal

28. Evidence from other witnesses that defense counsel similarly
referenced in opening statements – but then failed to introduce at trial –
establishes that there was nothing unusual about Laci walking near the time of
her disappearance.

29. Anita Azevedo lived in Modesto in 2002. (Exh. 15 at HCP-
000344.) On December 23, 2002 – one day before Laci’s disappearance –
Azevedo saw Laci walking McKenzi on La Loma and Encina Avenues. (Ibid.)
Ms. Azevedo told both the police and a member of the defense team what she
had seen. (Id. at HCP-000344-45.) And though she was available to testify
at the time of trial, neither side called her. (Id. at HCP-000345.)

30. But Azevedo was not alone in seeing Laci walking the dog on
the morning of December 23, 2002.

Thus, Grace Wolf, who lived a short
distance from the Petersons, has declared that she too saw Laci walking
193
McKenzi the morning of December 23, 2002. (Exh. 16 at HCP-000346-47.)
Ms. Wolf observed that Laci was “walking strongly” and “at a reasonable
pace.” (Id. at HCP-000347.) Ms. Wolf told two people that she had seen Laci
walking on December 23. (Id. at HCP-000347-48.) She later told police and
the defense team about what she had seen. (Ibid.) And though she was
available at the time of trial, neither side called her to testify. (See id. at HCP-
000348.)
31. M


http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Nava-Trial.htm
MJL
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris_Halkides and 4 guests