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 MJL » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:01 pm

Wondering the same thing.

Yep, So many time reading the transcripts you wonder why they didn't ask this question or that question, and dig a little deeper with their question, There so much more I want to know.


Introspectre wrote:When the Medina's house was being burglarized, where was their dog? Was the dog muzzled, kept in a room/closet, hiding on its own?

I ask because no burglar ever mentioned the dog which was described as a loud yipper of a dog.

The Medinas come home and see their gate open, go to their backyard and see their back door kicked open. The Medinas never mentioned finding their dog to Sergeant Wend, who took the burglary report of what the Medinas saw was taken and not taken.

Graybill never mentioned that the Medina's dog barked at him when delivering the mail on 12/24/02. He mentions when the dog would be there the dog would bark loudly behind the gate and when the dog was not behind the gate Graybill would walk towards the dog to get it behind the gate. This did not happen on 12/24/02. Graybill said he went around the gate to get to the Medina's house

Susan Medina was not asked by either the prosecution or the defense, but by the judge about where was their dog on 12/24/02 and she said that their dog was left at home in the backyard the 2 days they were gone. 

Another part of her testimony is that she said the gate was locked and her husband, Rudy, unlocked the pad lock to their gate. ??? 

Now, maybe they had two gates, one on either side of their house. One of the gates was open and nobody heard the loud barking yipper of a dog behind the gate.

So, where was the Medina's dog after the Medinas left, when Graybill delivered the mail, when the burglary happened and when the Medinas came home?
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:59 am

Edited by Moderator
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:02 am

Edited by Moderator
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:05 am

Edited by Moderator. Enough with the personal attacks. Discuss the case. Stop attacking members here. I am not going to warn you again.

Bruce
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:10 am

This is the real truth from that show. It needs to be repeated. Lsmith should opine instead of stalking this thread & whining. All the while describing herself to a T. Really stinks to be a Scott excuser that's for sure. Oh well. That show was a giant sham, period.

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!
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:40 am

lsmith510 wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
To Ismith

I totally agree with you even yes Nick is out the doubt worst troll I had ever heard, even I miss Jane. She had done so much in here, even I know she worked her way through this and most of all, 2 of the trolls are causing this, even I don't care, even I go out of my way. But my god, if some per person who want to proclaim to use evil task to attack a sister is outrage on even if Scott sister is a kind lady, it would be my honor that I would glad to meet her and willing to help? I wanted to help. But noooooooo 2 trolls come in here, and start trashing and keep on doing it, even it is an outrage. I was thrill of something that Jane show, and I more thrill that if a sister or a brother would help out a helping hand. But no you Nick & Anon are the worst in here, even you both like to proclaim your guilt. No! I am not going to take it. Even there might be nothing for me to do, even sure I ignore both of you. But you 2 keep on the trash of talk, and I had enough of you 2. I wanted some peace, but do we need to hate the loving brother & sister? No! What we need is to care for what is right for the innocent and that is what I care and it who I am and it who I will be the rest of my life, and if they don't like it? Sue me! Right now, even I am willing to go more fear into criminal law, even I support another person who might be more danger then Scott, even she to is 100 percent innocent as well!!!


Thank you SciFiTom.


Sci-FiTom is on your side! You can have him!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:43 am

lsmith510 wrote:
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


What an ugly and completely off base thing to say. Old Betty's?? Just curious - ow old are you Anonshy? As usual your perception is completely wrong and off. You are a rude, horrible human being.


I am an intelligent, young at heart, wonderful human being - When I watched the A&E Series, Every one of these SAP Delusionist were older post menopausal women, which we know is Scott Peterson's sweet spot! SO just calling it what it is!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:47 am

lsmith510 wrote:
Nick wrote:
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::


Unlike you - Scott's sister is an incredibly kind person. So, horrible troll with no human decency,.....you've obviously been around the message boards of this case for quite a while. Why don't you tell me some of the nic's you've used? I'd be willing to bet we've crossed paths before. Funny how the docuseries brought you out of your hole.....a little worried are you?


No one is worried about that Lame Ass - Series, it is actually having the exact opposite effect the SPA group had hoped. And you can stop with the character assesments, we get it, if your not pro Scott, your a horrible person noted!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:55 am

Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:And one last post from one of the "lonely old Betty's". Every member of the SPA team have incredibly full and happy lives. 4 out of 5 of us are married and happily at that. We have husbands and children that adore us and support us in this endeavor. None of us are in love with Scott. We saw a wrong that needed to be righted - and have taken time out of our very full and busy lives to help the Peterson family. My fellow members of the SPA team are some of the most selfless, intelligent and kind people I have ever known. As are the Petersons.

I am also concerned about the "troll-like" responses that seem to have graced this thread in the last while, so I am with you on that one. Those responses are meant to shut down well intentioned dialogue, as well as well-intentioned questions that some might have - like those of us have who do not know everything there is to know about this case.

With that said, this is where I am coming from - I think Scott probably did it, but that the prosecution at trial failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm still stuck - my bad, I guess - by the closing argument of the prosecutor who admitted not being able to say when or how Laci had died.

With that said - it's not as if there are reasonable alternatives to Scott having done it out there. Not that make sense to me, and I've read on Marlene's site, and on this thread (trying to cut through the ad hominem as best as able). Charlie Wilkes said it best upthread on this score - I cannot readily find it.


I don't see anyone from the innocence side debating opposite position from the ones being posted, there is a lot of good information coming out if you took the time to look! As a Question, post an Idea!

We all know what your position is on this case, and the idea that the prosecutor has to tell the jury exactly how Laci died is a a falsehood projected by the innocence side that you seem to cling to. There are many cases where the actual method of the killing is unknown or undetermined, the prosecution tells you when she died, the evidence tells you that there were a limited number of ways she died based on the condition of the home. Shit or get off the pot!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:02 am

lsmith510 wrote:And one last post from one of the "lonely old Betty's". Every member of the SPA team have incredibly full and happy lives. 4 out of 5 of us are married and happily at that. We have husbands and children that adore us and support us in this endeavor. None of us are in love with Scott. We saw a wrong that needed to be righted - and have taken time out of our very full and busy lives to help the Peterson family. My fellow members of the SPA team are some of the most selfless, intelligent and kind people I have ever known. As are the Petersons.


Blah Blah Blah, A Gaggle of older woman who enable a group delusion! From the exposure in the Series, the SPA group is far from intelligent or selfless, they are miss-informed and perpetuate lies and deception, all in an attempt to free a guilty man who murdered his wife and son and disposed of them like they were garbage!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:27 am

lsmith510 wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
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.)


Scott also used the word "lost" the first night he met Shawn Sibley when the two were drinking and discussing favorite sexual positions until 3:00 in the morning two months earlier in October. Do you think he was plotting the murder of his wife back then?

SIBLEY: Yeah. I was talking about how my fiancé is my soul mate. And Scott told me that, he said that at one point in his life he had found a woman that he thought was his soul mate, but then he lost her. And he asked me, did that mean I thought that this was going to mean that he was going the to spend the rest of his life alone. I told him, I said, No, I don't believe that. I believe there is a thousand people out there in this world who can be your soul mate, but because of circumstances, or whatever, you are not going to meet all thousand of those people. And, you know, you may, they may already have someone else, or whatever. But, you know,

HARRIS: You can always tell when the judge turns his head, I need to ask another question. You are having this conversation talking about soul mates. Is it, the defendant that says he's lost his soul mate?

SIBLEY: Yes.


It was a line. Both in October and in December. In December it was Scott's way of shutting the conversation down, getting out of getting caught and keeping everyone happy - without disparaging his wife in the process (which is what A LOT of cheaters do - "my wife is horrible", "we don't love each other anymore").

The timing of the boat purchase could be a coincidence. There is no proof that it wasn't. It was two weeks before Christmas and they wanted to tell the family on Christmas as a Christmas surprise since Ron loved to fish. You don't tell people about a surprise. And geez - it's not like that boat was anything to brag about.

Coincidences DO happen in life. Look at Scott Hornoff (who was a cop). He was having an affair, told the girl it was over, and the next day she was found dead in her apartment. He lied about the affair initially. He was wrongfully convicted and spent 9 years in prison before the real killer's mother died and he confessed to the murder. He had been waiting for his mother to die so she wouldn't be ashamed of him. Then take Michael Morton. On his birthday - he was expecting sex with his wife and she fell asleep on him. The next morning, before leaving for work, he wrote her a note telling her how unwanted she had made him feel. She was murdered that day in her home with her 3 year old present. Police said he didn't act right. Said he flew into a rage over sex and killed her. He was arrested and wrongfully convicted. He spent 20 years in prison. Until a bloody bandanna found near the home was finally tested by the defense and proved his innocence.

And coincidentally another man had told Amber that his wife was dead - and Amber - that same December that Scott told her he had "lost his wife" - ran into the wife in a store - alive and well.

Coincidences happen - so do wrongful convictions.

Oh - and Amber Frey is a liar. She posted on her Facebook page about a month ago that the docuseries had asked her to do an interview and she declined/refused. Lie. There has always been a disconnect between how Amber portrayed their relationship pre-recorded tapes - and what we heard on the tapes. She claimed Scott talked of a future with her. On the tapes we hear her desperately trying to get him to say he loves her - to no avail. And when she flat out asks him if he wants a future with her - he says....obviously we could be wonderful together - and could take care of each other and Ayianna - but there are contentions between us....like your faith, and the fact that you want more children...and whether we would agree on how to raise Ayianna......so as of right now - I don't know. (Obviously I'm paraphrasing). Scott never promised Amber a future. On the tapes - she asks him if she can call him her boyfriend. He tells her he prefers the word lover. I mean seriously - do you kill your wife and your unborn child for a woman you not only won't say I love you to....but won't even let her call you her boyfriend? Amber was a fling. I used to give her the benefit of the doubt - thinking that maybe Scott did make it sound like he wanted a future with her - but after that Facebook post - how this good Christian woman lied to her Facebook friends....she no longer gets the benefit of the doubt or any sympathy from me.

It's a real shame that the people on this board weren't interested in truly learning about this case. You had members of the SPA team here....willing to share their wealth (and yes - wealth) of knowledge with everyone...and instead you allowed trolls like Anonshy and "Nick" and Introspectre to insult us and CONTINUALLY repeat falsehoods and misrepresent the facts of the case.

Go ahead - insult away (this is not aimed at you Mediocrates). Your insults say much more about you than they do about me.


The people on this board discuss the evidence, give examples from the transcripts, seek out and report information from multiple sources. There was much discussion about the series as it was taking place and it continues. We have gone through every argument raised in the series, the Appeal and Habeas and there is nothing in any of that that shows Scott is innocent. People here are interested in this case and in truth, SPA members were unwilling to participate or answer even basic questions, so their collective WEALTH of information was useless. The Falsehoods and misrepresentations you mention are the facts of the case, of coarse you and your ilk label them in this fashion, you have to ignore reality to believe what you collectively believe. You and Jane are members of the SPA Group, that is no shock to anyone, you are so heavily invested in Scott's innocence that you have lost all perspective, and that shows in your posts! SPA's involvement in this forum has nothing to do with truth, it is about controlling the message and advocating for Scott regardless of what the evidence shows. I have been in here for awhile dealing with the evidence, and only recently have others joined in, for some time it was just myself debating the SPA group (as we are now aware), and as long as you had the louder voice you were happy to stick around, now that others have decided to partake and they don't share your views, you want to leave, calling everyone trolls. If you really in your heart of hearts felt Scott was innocent, nothing would deter you. SO as I have said previously, if you don't want to debate, then get lost!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:51 am

Nick wrote:So why didn't Scott take a polygraph nor take the stand? Why is a SAP falsely claiming he did and the police covered that up? :noway:


I don't give much weight to the lack of the polygraph. First off it is a losing proposition, polygraphs are not admissible as evidence and are very subjective. If I was faced with the same decision, having been asked to take the test for any reason I would decline purely on principle, Why take a test that's results are useless. If the polygraph shows you are not lying, The police are not obligated to stop investigating based on that result. Smart people guilty or innocent with good representation will never take a polygraph. This, just like not taking the Stand in your own defense, should not be viewed as reflection of innocence or guilt of the individual in question, as these are usually legal + strategic decision.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:33 am

anonshy wrote:You and Jane are members of the SPA Group, that is no shock to anyone, you are so heavily invested in Scott's innocence that you have lost all perspective, and that shows in your posts! SPA's involvement in this forum has nothing to do with truth, it is about controlling the message and advocating for Scott regardless of what the evidence shows.

This is perhaps the most unhelpful argument to make, purely ad hominem.

How on earth do you know that these people are "heavily invested in Scott's innocence"? On the face of it that is simply a meaningless statement - why wouldn't they be invested if they were convinced of it?

C'mon people!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:37 am

anonshy wrote:We all know what your position is on this case, and the idea that the prosecutor has to tell the jury exactly how Laci died is a a falsehood projected by the innocence side that you seem to cling to. There are many cases where the actual method of the killing is unknown or undetermined, the prosecution tells you when she died, the evidence tells you that there were a limited number of ways she died based on the condition of the home. Shit or get off the pot!

Anon

I don't think I've every said that those prosecutorial omissions/admissions are required for prosecution. However, once made it means they have to up their game on other circumstantial issues.

I just wanted to be clear on that because your response was venturing into "strawman" territory.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:51 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:You and Jane are members of the SPA Group, that is no shock to anyone, you are so heavily invested in Scott's innocence that you have lost all perspective, and that shows in your posts! SPA's involvement in this forum has nothing to do with truth, it is about controlling the message and advocating for Scott regardless of what the evidence shows.

This is perhaps the most unhelpful argument to make, purely ad hominem.

How on earth do you know that these people are "heavily invested in Scott's innocence"? On the face of it that is simply a meaningless statement - why wouldn't they be invested if they were convinced of it?

C'mon people!


Sometimes you have to point out the obvious!

Did you just learn the meaning of ad Hominem? Seems to be you favorite phrase if not somewhat over-used! The funny thing is, you are using this term incorrectly! I am not countering an argument by attacking character or motive, I am in fact directly discussing motive without any discussion of an argument, there is no deflection! If your going to critique, at least know what you are talking about!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:00 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:We all know what your position is on this case, and the idea that the prosecutor has to tell the jury exactly how Laci died is a a falsehood projected by the innocence side that you seem to cling to. There are many cases where the actual method of the killing is unknown or undetermined, the prosecution tells you when she died, the evidence tells you that there were a limited number of ways she died based on the condition of the home. Shit or get off the pot!

Anon

I don't think I've every said that those prosecutorial omissions/admissions are required for prosecution. However, once made it means they have to up their game on other circumstantial issues.

I just wanted to be clear on that because your response was venturing into "strawman" territory.


Opening and closing statements are not evidence, so there is no upping the game, they were working of of what they had at the time. You articulated reasonable doubt based on the inability of the prosecution to give 100% the cause of death. I counter with the corrected intimation that it is not necessary for a conviction and that reasonable doubt does not apply to the lack of conclusion in this case. Now you respond confirming what I put forward but call me "Strawman". The reason there is no confirmed cause of death in this case is due to decomposition and the state of the remains, but even they tell part of the story!

All you needed to say was "I agree with you, its not necessary and does not go to reasonable doubt", But I guess Strawman is, oh you guessed it! Ad Hominen!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:28 am

anonshy wrote:Opening and closing statements are not evidence, so there is no upping the game, they were working of of what they had at the time.

Nowhere did I say that Opening and Closing are "evidence", and - yes - I do "get" that you didn't accuse me of so saying.

But they are summaries of what they believe they've shown in the evidence which they have lead, and summaries of how they believe they've destroyed the other side's argument. Would not (should not?) a juror be on the look out for items contained in the summary-statements which do not fit the facts as led at trial?

Indeed, one might also regard the prosecution in the SP case with a wee bit **more** integrity for admitting that of all the stuff they'd presented at trial, that at trial's-end they still cannot say how she died or where she died. They're being honest about what the nature of the evidence is. Kudos on them.

Yet what's a juror to think? An impartial juror would/should think, "Ok there'd better be solid stuff, perhaps even extra strength solid stuff once even the prosecution makes that admission."

That's all I am saying. From what I've read the "guilters" here have shown, indeed, that there is a lot of smoke, but have - in the end - not pointed to the fire.....

...... and that's said with the caveat as to how Charlie Wilkes phrased it above. The defence has not shown a solid reason why/how Scott didn't do it. I'm getting the feeling I know how one of the Casey Anthony juror's felt. I'm probably looking at someone who is stone cold guilty, but the issue isn't how I feel about that, the issue is what the prosecution proved.

anonshy wrote:You articulated reasonable doubt based on the inability of the prosecution to give 100% the cause of death. I counter with the corrected intimation that it is not necessary for a conviction and that reasonable doubt does not apply to the lack of conclusion in this case. Now you respond confirming what I put forward but call me "Strawman". The reason there is no confirmed cause of death in this case is due to decomposition and the state of the remains, but even they tell part of the story!

All you needed to say was "I agree with you, its not necessary and does not go to reasonable doubt", But I guess Strawman is, oh you guessed it! Ad Hominen!

Anon

Well, now you've misstated my "articulation". I did not say it was, "based on the inability of the prosecution to give 100% the cause of death". I said that the prosecution conceded that they had 0% knowledge of how the woman had died, and 0% knowledge of how she had died, and perhaps a 25% knowledge (a supposition) of where she had died.

I was talking about the prosecutions admissions - not my own threshholds, and certainly not the threshholds which you assume I am demanding. **That** is strawman.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Shlobotnik » Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:45 pm

anonshy wrote:
Shlobotnik wrote:Sure, Scott most likely did it, and yet I still have these nagging questions. Anyone willing to offer some answers?

1. How is it that cadaver dogs did not light up anywhere Laci's body was alleged to have been - the bay, the boat, the house, the warehouse, the vehicle? I understand that fertilizer and other chemicals are the excuse for why the dog was confused in the shed and the warehouse, but what about the boat, the vehicle, and the bay? If Laci's body had been in the boat and the vehicle for the length of time required, shouldn't they have lit up like the 4th of July, from a cadaver-dog's perspective? These dogs are also perfectly capable of locating underwater bodies, so why no hits on the bay? Laci's body supposedly was exactly where they were looking.

2. If the recorded phone conversation between Shawn Tenbrink and his brother is really the nothingburger some claim it is, why would Lt. Aponte have bothered to contact the MPD? And how is it possible that this recording has disappeared? If you maintain that the MPD conducted a buttoned-down, top-notch investigation, how does that jibe with the fact that they lost - or ignored - what could possibly be critical evidence?

3. Back to the bay: the area where Scott Peterson was boating on 12/24 was searched extensively, by highly skilled search teams, including dogs. How common is it for search teams to come up empty in a search area of this size, given the technology they used, and the fact that, in this case, it was a specific search (i.e. a known object in a known area)? [update: per a 1988 analysis of National Water Search Reports, there's about an 88% chance of SAR dogs finding a known object in a known underwater search area]

4. Scott is alleged to have carefully planned this murder well in advance. So why would this criminal mastermind - who managed to leave no physical evidence of the murders behind - use as his alibi the exact location where he dumped Laci's body? That's beyond stupid. Or is that just part of his genius? I mean, that guy who dumped his wife's body in Whiskeytown Lake totally forgot to use that location as his alibi. What a dummy, huh?


1: Cadaver dogs
Human decomposition takes some time, and the scents associated with decomposition are not instant. There was a dog hit at the Marina but in my honest opinion, I believe this was a false positive. Scott killed Laci in the Kitchen, rolled her in plastic an duct-taped it closed, he then transferred her body to the flat bed of the truck, while doing so he had leashed and tethered Mac to a chair so he would not get in the way. Scott in his rush, left the gate open. He then drove to the warehouse and attached the trailer and then made for the marina, while at the warehouse Mac got himself free and left the yard, running around free until Servas found him and returned him to the yard. Somewhere along the way but hidden from sight, Scott moved the body from the bed to the boat and covered it with an old tarp. Scott then went to the marina, paid the launch fee, launched the boat, went out in the bay, found a suitable location, Affixed the anchors and dumped the body in the bay. Scott returned home, put the tarp in the shed and poured gasoline on it, went into the house and mopped the floor and put the bucket outside. got showered, threw his clothes in the wash, ate a piece of Pizza. Scott then went next door to report Laci Missing. With Laci being covered right away and sealed by plastic and duct-tape, there would be no exchange of air or skin contact to any surfaces except in the house where it would be expected.

2: Aponte
The sequence in which you state the events is part of your issue. The Aponte tip first and foremost is third or fourth level hearsay as the comments are in reference to something someone else said to someone else, none of this is through direct observation. Secondly, no one knows what the context of the conversation was, or who in fact this Lacy even was! The Aponte Tip was given to the defense as part of regular discovery but was never acted upon. The Aponte information was never reduced to a formal statement. Aponte thought so little of the information that he never bothered to put down a format statement and never took the time to pull and protect any recordings. By the time the defense (After the trial) decided there may be some merit to Aponte, it was too late, the recording was no longer available. When interviewed, Tenebrick/Pierce admitted to the burglary but also stated they had nothing to do with Laci Peterson, so there is no support for the hearsay statement. As for the prosecution, they had no reason to look at the burglary, another investigation had already concluded and there was no indication of involvement in the Peterson case. Criminals lie all the time, they posture, The Brag, they make things up, without context, Direct Statements or recordoings, Aponte means nothing as there is no other evidence to support laci's disapearence in association with the Burglary, No dog barking, no yelling, no screaming, no scraped rubber form sneakers on the asphalt, no disturbed grass in the lawn.......TO base an entire theory on such week evidence is a joke!

3: Bay Search
I will answer your question with a question: Lat year there was a flight that went off radar and crash landed somewhere in the indian ocean. Many military ships were called in to find the plane and were unable to do so. These ships had the most advanced and sensitive Sonar imaging and radar available, they also had ROV submersables, the most advanced technology available and yet they could not find a Jet plane, Black Boxes or any debris on the ocean floor. Given the size of Laci's body and the vast area of San Francisco Bay, they would have been extremely luck if they were able to find Anything that small in such a large area. As for SAR dogs, same issue with the vast area to search, we are not talking a fresh water lake or smaller body of water, we are talking a massive search area with winds, tides and many other factors, including cold murky Salt Water!

4: Mastermind
Initially Scott told Kriegbaum that he had been golfing that day so there was some initial attempt at miss-direction. How much planning does it really take to Strangle someone and dump the body? This could have been a well planned murder or it could just as easily be a spur of the moment emotional killing. Just because Scott had a boat and made anchors does not mean the initial purchase or production was for the sole purpose of killing Laci, all that is important is that Scott had all of the elements required to commit the crime, premeditation is up for debate, but it really could have been either! Scott thought he had done a very good Job with the bodies, so much so that he felt they would never be found! Secure in his belief, there was no reason to hide were he was. This is only a problem for Scott if the bodies are ever discovered. What we do know is that Scott rented multiple cars to conceal his multiple visits to the bay to watch over the police searches, we know it is very common for criminals to return to the scene of their crimes. So Short Answer, Scott never thought the bodies would be found!

Anon



Thanks, Anon! Those seem like pretty reasonable explanations, and you've definitely move me closer to the "give this guy the needle" side of the discussion. I only have a few gentle push-backs:

1. In 2007 forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, did a cadaver dog study, in which clothed corpses - within only three hours of death - were placed on carpet squares. The dogs had an accuracy rate of 94% when the bodies were in contact with the squares for only two minutes (it was 98% when the contact was for no more than ten minutes). Now, I imagine that a carpet square is much more absorptive of odors than, say, the steel bed of a truck, and in the study the bodies weren't wrapped in duct-taped plastic; but if it's true that a dog can follow the scent of a person who was transported by car (still blows my mind, and makes me have that much more respect for my beagle), I would think Peterson would've had to hermetically seal Laci in that tarp to prevent cadaver scent from being all over the truck and boat (did Scott own a man-sized Ziploc bag or something?). I still find it unlikely that a well-trained cadaver dog would miss that, even if Laci were bound in plastic and duct tape, unless it were done in such a way as to create an hermetically sealed environment. But I'm no expert myself, so I could be way off here.

2. I think you are too dismissive of the Aponte tip. Is it not true that Aponte became aware of the recorded conversation "within a couple weeks of [Laci's] missing"? This case was much discussed in media from coast to coast, so there's no way they didn't know "who in fact this Lacy (sic) even was". They obviously knew enough about the case to call the Modesto Police Dept. And Aponte says he listened to the recorded conversation himself, so how is that "fourth level hearsay"? You also imply that the defense was aware of the tip, but didn't act on it. The defense says the relevant information was buried among thousands of tips on a CD, and the true nature of the tip was only discovered after it was too late. Can you ascertain that the defense knew before or during the trial that there was a conversation between an inmate and his brother in which Laci was mentioned? Why in the world would they ignore a thing like that? Because if there is any truth to it, then the barking, screaming, yelling, scraped rubber, etc. you expect someone to have noticed are irrelevant. If those guys saw Laci, it means she was alive when Peterson left for the warehouse. It's not necessary to prove the burglars abducted her, just that they saw her at a time she was supposed to be deceased.

3. You're employing a false equivalence to compare the search for Laci with the disappearance of Flight MH370. For one thing, the search area for that aircraft was about 4,600,000 square km. The main part of San Francisco Bay is about 1,800 sq km (and they weren't even searching that entire area - just where they thought Scott had dumped the bodies; based on currents and where the bodies were found, they were supposedly looking in the right place). For another thing, SF Bay is relatively shallow. Where they were searching for MH370 had depths up to around three miles! But having said that, I've also heard that SF Bay is a difficult place to find even a known object, because there's so much crap on the bottom, plus it's murky, muddy, and the currents in the bay are notoriously treacherous. So I'm not willing to call the SAR teams' inability to find the bodies or anchors as some kind of proof of Peterson's innocence. I mean, the bodies were certainly in the bay for some time, one way or another, right?

4. It still seems kind of crazy to me that a killer could be so confident his victims' bodies wouldn't be found that he'd use the body-dump location for his alibi. But Scott Peterson obviously isn't a normal person, and I'm wiling to accept that he figured it like this: any other alibi he used could potentially be proved a lie, in which case he'd be instant toast, so maybe he decided to take his chances the bodies wouldn't be found. Let's face it, if those bodies never showed up, he'd never have been convicted.

Thanks again, Anon. Good food for thought!
Shlobotnik
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:39 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:20 am

Edited by Moderator.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:26 am

Edited by Moderator.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:33 am

Edited by Moderator.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:36 am

anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:So why didn't Scott take a polygraph nor take the stand? Why is a SAP falsely claiming he did and the police covered that up? :noway:


I don't give much weight to the lack of the polygraph. First off it is a losing proposition, polygraphs are not admissible as evidence and are very subjective. If I was faced with the same decision, having been asked to take the test for any reason I would decline purely on principle, Why take a test that's results are useless. If the polygraph shows you are not lying, The police are not obligated to stop investigating based on that result. Smart people guilty or innocent with good representation will never take a polygraph. This, just like not taking the Stand in your own defense, should not be viewed as reflection of innocence or guilt of the individual in question, as these are usually legal + strategic decision.

Anon


He should have taken the stand though. My point was really why the SAPs are lying about him taking it and the police hid that info. The lies they make up are down right DELUSIONAL! :batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:45 am

Regarding that dumb show that won't free Scott.

One of the producers has been a member of the Scott Peterson is innocent group on facebook long before the series aired. That's why they left out evidence and outright lied on the program because she was behind it.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:11 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
To Ismith

I totally agree with you even yes Nick is out the doubt worst troll I had ever heard, even I miss Jane. She had done so much in here, even I know she worked her way through this and most of all, 2 of the trolls are causing this, even I don't care, even I go out of my way. But my god, if some per person who want to proclaim to use evil task to attack a sister is outrage on even if Scott sister is a kind lady, it would be my honor that I would glad to meet her and willing to help? I wanted to help. But noooooooo 2 trolls come in here, and start trashing and keep on doing it, even it is an outrage. I was thrill of something that Jane show, and I more thrill that if a sister or a brother would help out a helping hand. But no you Nick & Anon are the worst in here, even you both like to proclaim your guilt. No! I am not going to take it. Even there might be nothing for me to do, even sure I ignore both of you. But you 2 keep on the trash of talk, and I had enough of you 2. I wanted some peace, but do we need to hate the loving brother & sister? No! What we need is to care for what is right for the innocent and that is what I care and it who I am and it who I will be the rest of my life, and if they don't like it? Sue me! Right now, even I am willing to go more fear into criminal law, even I support another person who might be more danger then Scott, even she to is 100 percent innocent as well!!!


Thank you SciFiTom.


Sci-FiTom is on your side! You can have him!

Anon


To Ismith

First off your welcome Ismith and Anon really you can have him. Hmmmmm it not about having him or her. It who we are for the innocent and that what really count even no side never counts. My god you are a terrible person of not knowing the side of side!!!
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: 4685
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:18 am

Nick wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
To Ismith

I totally agree with you even yes Nick is out the doubt worst troll I had ever heard, even I miss Jane. She had done so much in here, even I know she worked her way through this and most of all, 2 of the trolls are causing this, even I don't care, even I go out of my way. But my god, if some per person who want to proclaim to use evil task to attack a sister is outrage on even if Scott sister is a kind lady, it would be my honor that I would glad to meet her and willing to help? I wanted to help. But noooooooo 2 trolls come in here, and start trashing and keep on doing it, even it is an outrage. I was thrill of something that Jane show, and I more thrill that if a sister or a brother would help out a helping hand. But no you Nick & Anon are the worst in here, even you both like to proclaim your guilt. No! I am not going to take it. Even there might be nothing for me to do, even sure I ignore both of you. But you 2 keep on the trash of talk, and I had enough of you 2. I wanted some peace, but do we need to hate the loving brother & sister? No! What we need is to care for what is right for the innocent and that is what I care and it who I am and it who I will be the rest of my life, and if they don't like it? Sue me! Right now, even I am willing to go more fear into criminal law, even I support another person who might be more danger then Scott, even she to is 100 percent innocent as well!!!


Thank you SciFiTom.


Sci-FiTom is on your side! You can have him!

Anon

When in actuality Tom, lsmith & Jane are proving themselves to be the trolls. Deflection on their part is most pathetic.


To Nick

I would be really careful right now because I focus on the innocent and I would like to keep that part, into criminal law style. Do we need this of playing games. Let focus, on the case even that is my part not messing around. I am trying to explain that part as well!!!
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: 4685
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:31 am

MJL wrote:Wondering the same thing.

Yep, So many time reading the transcripts you wonder why they didn't ask this question or that question, and dig a little deeper with their question, There so much more I want to know.


Introspectre wrote:When the Medina's house was being burglarized, where was their dog? Was the dog muzzled, kept in a room/closet, hiding on its own?

I ask because no burglar ever mentioned the dog which was described as a loud yipper of a dog.

The Medinas come home and see their gate open, go to their backyard and see their back door kicked open. The Medinas never mentioned finding their dog to Sergeant Wend, who took the burglary report of what the Medinas saw was taken and not taken.

Graybill never mentioned that the Medina's dog barked at him when delivering the mail on 12/24/02. He mentions when the dog would be there the dog would bark loudly behind the gate and when the dog was not behind the gate Graybill would walk towards the dog to get it behind the gate. This did not happen on 12/24/02. Graybill said he went around the gate to get to the Medina's house

Susan Medina was not asked by either the prosecution or the defense, but by the judge about where was their dog on 12/24/02 and she said that their dog was left at home in the backyard the 2 days they were gone. 

Another part of her testimony is that she said the gate was locked and her husband, Rudy, unlocked the pad lock to their gate. ??? 

Now, maybe they had two gates, one on either side of their house. One of the gates was open and nobody heard the loud barking yipper of a dog behind the gate.

So, where was the Medina's dog after the Medinas left, when Graybill delivered the mail, when the burglary happened and when the Medinas came home?


I want to know why Susan Medina lied on the stand to the judge when she said that their dog was left at home for the two days they were gone.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:12 am

MichaelB wrote:This sums *it* up perfectly. :::WeatherWhisperer:::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook.

Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views.

1.Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2.Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3.Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4.Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.


Bingo! :::thumbs up:::

I'm at a loss as to why lsmith thought he/she were part of the conversation when they don't appear to be here for a long time? Not a soul mentioned them by name or knew they were part of the silly SAP group that can't even free a fly, let alone a killer. :Fishy: Someone seems to be overly concerned about what truth is posted here. :wow:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:14 am

Introspectre wrote:
MJL wrote:Wondering the same thing.

Yep, So many time reading the transcripts you wonder why they didn't ask this question or that question, and dig a little deeper with their question, There so much more I want to know.


Introspectre wrote:When the Medina's house was being burglarized, where was their dog? Was the dog muzzled, kept in a room/closet, hiding on its own?

I ask because no burglar ever mentioned the dog which was described as a loud yipper of a dog.

The Medinas come home and see their gate open, go to their backyard and see their back door kicked open. The Medinas never mentioned finding their dog to Sergeant Wend, who took the burglary report of what the Medinas saw was taken and not taken.

Graybill never mentioned that the Medina's dog barked at him when delivering the mail on 12/24/02. He mentions when the dog would be there the dog would bark loudly behind the gate and when the dog was not behind the gate Graybill would walk towards the dog to get it behind the gate. This did not happen on 12/24/02. Graybill said he went around the gate to get to the Medina's house

Susan Medina was not asked by either the prosecution or the defense, but by the judge about where was their dog on 12/24/02 and she said that their dog was left at home in the backyard the 2 days they were gone. 

Another part of her testimony is that she said the gate was locked and her husband, Rudy, unlocked the pad lock to their gate. ??? 

Now, maybe they had two gates, one on either side of their house. One of the gates was open and nobody heard the loud barking yipper of a dog behind the gate.

So, where was the Medina's dog after the Medinas left, when Graybill delivered the mail, when the burglary happened and when the Medinas came home?


I want to know why Susan Medina lied on the stand to the judge when she said that their dog was left at home for the two days they were gone.


Sounds like she just wanted to be part of the case for fame which didn't work out too well for her.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:16 am

Edited by a Moderator. Personal attack. This one earned you a week off.

Bruce
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:19 am

Edited by a Moderator. Personal attack.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:22 am

Edited by a Moderator. Inappropriate language.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:49 am

Oh brother. George Barwood is so off track and like a true SAP has continued to ignore reality 13 yrs later. Stupid lasts forever.

Scott Peterson is Innocent
Yes, and I don't believe Scott did it. It made no sense. His affair with Amber Frey caused him to behave as if he were guilty, but I believe he was framed by someone planting the bodies of Laci and Conner.

I suspect it was Edward Wayne Edwards (the serial killer) that planted the bodies, there are anonymous messages that suggest his involvement.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:03 am

Remember this from Scott?

When the detectives showed him a picture of he and Amber at the xmas party..."is that supposed to be me?" came flying out of his lying mouth. He denied knowing Amber.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:23 am

Even Scott discounted these supposed sightings made up by the SAPs. Geesh, they believe his lies, but when he tells the truth because he had already killed Laci??? They have ignored it since day one.

HIS BIZARRE BEHAVIOR TIPPED COPS
THAT HE WAS GUILTY FROM GET-GO!
SYNOPSIS

Scott Peterson's peculiar actions after his wife went missing sent up red flags, quickly changing the
cops heartfelt sympathy for the young husband, into suspicion that he was a cold blooded killer.

Scott left a message on Laci's cell phone at 2:15 p.m. on the day that she vanished, telling her
he was leaving the marina after his fishing trip. But it was well known among her friends
and family that Laci's cell phone battery was dead and had been for weeks.

Detective Brocchini knew Laci's cell phone battery was dead as early as Christmas Eve, because
he had examined the phone and taken messages off it. "If the cell phone had been dead for weeks,
why had Scott left a message on it on Christmas Eve, that started with the words, "Hey, beautiful?",
asks a source close to the case. "Brocchini figured it was highly suspicious.

"Was the message part of Scott's alibi, left for the benefit of LE whom he knew would listen
to it after Laci disappeared?" "Did he know Laci would never hear it anyway because she
was already dead?" Brocchini was concerned enough to record the conversation in his report.

Just 24 hours after his pregnant wife disappeared, Scott hosted his parents for turkey dinner on
Christmas Day at his home in Modesto. He also invited next door neighbor Karen Servas, who
had found McKenzie running loose near her home on X-mas Eve. She turned him down because
she is a vegetarian, but a calm and cool Scott called her a few minutes later to tell her he was
also making tortellini. "The only other guests at Scott's house where his parents, Jackie
and Lee, who unlike their son seemed "very upset."

After some small talk, Scott left the table, opened a bottle of wine and began cooking the tortellini
-- which the neighbor found bizarre seeing as though his pregnant wife was missing. "Karen told LE,
he was acting like everything was fine," says the source. "She couldn't believe it. "During the meal,
he told his parents several times that he'd volunteered to take a polygraph test, but that police had
advised him he was "too emotional" and shouldn't do it. (lie!) Later he said he couldn't take a
polygraph because too much time had passed since the disappearance. (lie)

"Police were more than surprised when Karen told them. The truth was, they'd been trying
without success to get Scott to take one." Karen says that from the look in Scott's eyes
and his demeanor, she was so scared of him that she fled her home and stayed with friends.

Scott's stonewalling and curious behavior practically screamed out that he was a prime suspect.
When police went to the warehouse with him, to photograph the boat he'd been fishing in, Scott
suddenly blurted out "Don't let my boss see that." He obviously meant that he didn't want his boss
to know he stored his boat in the company warehouse. "Brocchini made a mental note that it
seemed like a very odd thing for someone to be worrying about when his wife was missing."

Another officer, Deputy Chris Boyer, who was in charge of the bloodhound tracking team, was
left speechless when he wanted to take a pink slipper, a hairbrush and a pair of Laci's
sunglasses to give his dogs a scent to track her and Scott demanded a receipt for them.

"Boyer later told colleagues that in 20 years of experience, it was the first time anyone
had asked for a receipt for something that could help find a missing person."

And while trying to corroborate the Christmas Eve fishing trip, Det. Grogan had alarms go off in his
head when Scott refused to give him his debt card number to check out his gas purchase at a filling
station. "A few days later Scott gave Grogan a piece of paper with the Chevron station location and the
amount $13.08 handwritten by himself and still refused to give Grogan his card number" said a source.

On one occasion, cops found witnesses who thought they had seen Laci walking the dog at the
time Scott said she had gone out. But instead of being elated by someone who might help
find his wife, the source reveals, Scott said, "It wasn't Laci. She doesn't walk that way."

Adds the source, cops were forced to ask themselves, "Did Scott dismiss the sighting
because he KNEW she never walked in the park that day?"

LE also had doubts about Scott from his interaction with other witnesses. Stacey Boyers, a close
friend of Laci visited Scott on Christmas Day and while she was there, he spent an unusual
amount of time vacuuming, especially around the couch, armchairs, and washer and dryer.
"No one had ever accused Scott of being a 'clean freak' and Stacy thought it was very weird that
he was calmly vacuuming, while Laci's family and friends were joing the police in searching for her.

On Jan. 9, 2003, Laci had been missing for 16 days. Bishop Bergstrom, 57, a volunteer searcher,
asked Scott if there where any new leads. Says the source, "In a flat, cold tone and with
an odd smile on his face, Scott told him, 'No- I doubt they'll ever find her."

Laci's Mom, was also puzzled by Scott, when she over heard him tell someone that
Conner's due date was Feb. 16, says the source. "She asked Scott when it
had changed and Scott didn't say a word, he just looked at her." (Due date was Feb. 10)

According to a source Scott also told Sharon that he last saw Laci sitting in a chair with a
beautiful smile on her face, combing her hair. "She looked very cute." But Scott told
police and others that "Laci was mopping the kitchen floor when he left."

Finally, as police were trying to keep the case in the public eye, they got a video from Laci's Mom to pass
clips along to media. But Scott forbade them to use any shots of him, and they figured out why when they
saw the tape, which was dated Dec. 21, 2001, a year to the day before Laci disappeared. "In the video,
Laci has someone's baby and asks Scott to hold it," says the source. "He says, 'This isn't much fun.'

The detectives looked at each other, "From Scott's own mouth had come confirmation of something
they had heard from his own friends-Scott wasn't happy about his own impending fatherhood."
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:38 am

I find it rather disturbing that Jane & lsmith think the Ps are wonderful people.. Poppy cock! That's why think a killer is a great person too. Sick!


Scott's family has a whole are evil just like him. Whomever thinks they are wonderful people have zero morals. Worried? That's hilarious! :lol: That's deluded speak. Holy crow! they have no idea the appeal is over. His own lawyers didn't contest the State's response.

I'd rather be a happy person with morals & intelligence then a SAP any day of the week. Reality behooves them as they wallow in misery day after day. . Oh well. Scott isn't going anywhere. :noway:

Makes me happy. :::thumbs up:::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:46 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:To answer a question posed earlier on this thread about the chances that anyone else committed this crime:

There is a 100% chance that someone else committed this crime. There is a 0 % chance that Scott Peterson committed this crime.

The condition of the bodies is fully exonerating for Scott.

The condition of the fetus is in no way consistent with being inside a decomposing mother who has been subjected to animal feeding and wave action for a period of months.

Laci's uterus had no magical properties. It's position low in the pelvis at autopsy indicates that the baby had been removed from Laci's body before she was put into the bay. Had the uterus been high in the abdomen consistent with late pregnancy, it would have been subjected to the same type of decomposition and animal feeding that all of the other organs in that area were. All of them were missing.

A pregnant uterus is one of the first internal organs to decompose. A non-pregnant uterus is the last internal organ to decompose. Laci's uterus at autopsy measured 11 centimeters less than the measurement at her ob-gyn appointment on December 23. This difference can be explained only by the baby being removed from the uterus while Laci was still alive and the initial involution that occurs after birth. That the uterus did not continue to retract means that she died within minutes of the time the baby was removed.(There are studies by Shalev about the involution of the uterus.)

The prosecution theory about a miraculous release of the baby from a fully pregnant uterus at the bottom of the bay is absolute nonsense. A dead uterus does not contract at all. It is an involuntary muscle and loses its ability to contract at death. (Gray's Anatomy)


You base your whole theory on medical facts that are just plain wrong! Your contention that the uterus is the first thing to break down is simply false. The placment of bodily organs in a high or low position means nothing as gravity is not the sole force in water. Until you base your theroy on reality you will not get any traction. Anyone with some understanding of anatomy will understand that the Baby would be protected longer than the mother, The mothers Skin, Fat layer, muscle layer, birthing sac, amneotic fluid, the placenta all would have to break down in sequence. I have given a SA article that describes cold water and lack of oxygen as factors that will delay decomposition. Others have presented that the uterus is not the first thing to break down and in fact the coroner noted that the partial woumb and cervix were still intact and in the case of the cervix, it was not dialated. You may have a different intrepretation of the facts but there is substantial scientific evidence that supports Laci going into the water with the baby in her womb. You also forget that there was substantial decomposition of the baby's body, no evidence of freezing (nucular crystalization) to the fetus. Wave force and exposure had worn the baby's shoulder down to the bone as well as opening up fisures in the skin, the brain was liquified, the scull collapsed to the point where crown measurement was diminshed.

There is 100% chance that Scott kileed his wife and Baby
There is 0% chance anyone else did it

Is there 100% evidence to convict, I'm not so sure however, the jury convicted!

Anon


You are ignoring the facts. I am not wrong about this. Do some research.


THE ORDER OF DECOMPOSITION OF THE BODY

Histological Order: A. Cells B. Tissues C. Organs

Tissue Order:
A the liquid tissue...blood and lymph
B. Soft tissue...The parenchyma of organs
C. Firm Tissue...Muscles and the stroma of organs
D. hard tissue...... Cartilage and bone.

Order in the organs:
A. Lining of the larynx and trachea
B. Stomach
C. intestines
D. Spleen
E. mesentery and omentum
F. Liver
G. Adult brain
H. heart
I. lungs
J. kidney
K. urinary bladder
L. esophagus
M. pancreas
N. diaphragm
O. blood vessels
P. non-pregnant uterus

THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE SEQUENCE OUTLINED ABOVE.

FIRST.... the infantile brain putrefies more rapidly than any other organ because of its consistency and unusually rich blood supply.

SECONDLY, the pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness, and occasionally due to direct infection. The dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, however may be found almost unchanged after all the soft tissue have disappeared

From a book "The Principles and Practice of Embalming Mortuary Death".


Now addo cold water to your notation! and also explaing the degredation to the babys shoulder by tidal forces over some period of time, oe was that caused by the freezer!

You are just scatter brained trying to defend what is indefensible.

here si a simple question:

if connor was inside of Laci's body for a period of time, would tidal effect have the same result on the baby as they did with the mother. here you have the forces of current and tide washing over the surfaces of laci's body, with the baby still being protected by skin, fat, muscle that takes time to wear away. Are they degraded to the same degree? Now remember they are in cold water!

YOu can talk all you want, no one is goin to believe a word you say if you dont stipulate that the moters body would provide some measure of protection and cold water is a factor in delaying decomposition.

You also have to consider as your quote determines, that the degredation of the contents of the womb are due to the increased level of stored oxygen in these parts (Rich Blood refers to High Oxygen Level). in the case of strangulation or disruption of any kind to natural breathing of the mother, this would cause the oxygen concentration level of post amneotic areas to decrease and Laci died first and no doubt Laci stopped breating, the oxygen rich areas would be robbed of oxygen in fact causing the fetus to suffocate due to a lack of oxygen, as a reult, leaving these areas devoid of the oxygen required to enhance decomposition!

The point is, Connor had normal internal decomposition based on cold water conditions and in fact, his brain had liquified and some of the internal organs had started to change also. But the outside surfaces were inconsistient and much less degraded than the internal, decomposition to the skin that was consistient with being acted on by tidal forces for only weeks, not months. And Again, fully consistient with a body that was in cold water protected by the mothers body for a few months, to the point where the mothers body could no longer hold the baby, relesing it, the placenta and birthing sack still intact. Thene the ocean set to work on the baby, the birthing sack was eventually copromised starting at the baby's shoulder and eventually exposing the rest of the body over some weeks leading to the body washing to shore.


Anon
t
Finally I was able to find the made up theory of Conner being kept in a freezer. :facepalm:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:02 am

Wow, that describes someone very well to the letter, that I know, that have the initials GB



Nick wrote:
MichaelB wrote:This sums *it* up perfectly. :::WeatherWhisperer:::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook.

Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views.

1.Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2.Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3.Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4.Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.


Bingo! :::thumbs up:::

I'm at a loss as to why lsmith thought he/she were part of the conversation when they don't appear to be here for a long time? Not a soul mentioned them by name or knew they were part of the silly SAP group that can't even free a fly, let alone a killer. :Fishy: Someone seems to be overly concerned about what truth is posted here. :wow:
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:03 am

Introspectre wrote:
jane wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
jane wrote:The reason the outcome will change is that Laci was not missing when Servas found the dog. Laci was still alive. The police and prosecutors had this information and they ignored it. Their entire case was based on a lie.


Nope, you, Jane, have it all wrong. Your ire has to be with the defense. It was their decision to not use the info.


Ultimately, it does not matter who takes the blame. The fact remains that Laci was alive after Scott left home. Scott is innocent.


There is no evidence (none!) that Laci was alive when SLP left the house.

The jury's verdict is SLP is Guilty!

We will see what the State's response to the Writ of Habeas Corpus is.

The state responded to their lame claims by Scott's lawyers. The SAPs are completely ignorant to this reality. ::doh::

"Peterson offers no persuasive reason to have the court reconsider its prior decisions," the state's brief reads in refuting one of his claim.

http://www.abc10.com/news/local/modesto ... /464641424
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:05 am

MJL wrote:Wow, that describes someone very well to the letter, that I know, that have the initials GB



Nick wrote:
MichaelB wrote:This sums *it* up perfectly. :::WeatherWhisperer:::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook.

Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views.

1.Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2.Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3.Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4.Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.


Bingo! :::thumbs up:::

I'm at a loss as to why lsmith thought he/she were part of the conversation when they don't appear to be here for a long time? Not a soul mentioned them by name or knew they were part of the silly SAP group that can't even free a fly, let alone a killer. :Fishy: Someone seems to be overly concerned about what truth is posted here. :wow:

That one is off the charts. :lol: :batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:14 am

Speaking of Scott's sister, Anne Bird whom Lsmith has not met. She is a good person. She was in the position to know Scott was an killer and all around db trying to get in her nanny's pants. Jackie tried to force her to lie for Scott on the stand.

Jackie taught her evil spawn well. Nice people huh? deny, deny, deny. lie, lie, lie. Oh here is 10 grand to help you run. Of course I'm going to make up a story of taking it out by mistake on the stand. Karma got her & Scott real good.

The sister-in-law has some sort of sick crush on Scott. She came across as a complete nutter on tv. Even when evidence was proven in court. She denied. That's what Scott's mother taught her.

"Jan 23, 2003 - "We have no knowledge of [evidence of an affair]," said Scott Peterson's sister-in-law, Janey Peterson. "We haven't seen the pictures, and both .."
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:01 am

SLP supporters are delusional.

1. They do not want people to consider the times of the Laci sighting witnesses.

2. They do not want people to consider what Laci was wearing by the Laci sighting witnesses.

People should not even consider Laci's hairstyle, nor jewelry she was wearing.

SLP supporters pride themselves as advocates for the wrongfully convicted, yet they know that Eyewitness Misidentification is a cause for wrongful convictions. However, when it comes to their beloved SLP, Eyewitness Misidentification does not matter.

Go figure!
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:34 am

Introspectre wrote:SLP supporters are delusional.

1. They do not want people to consider the times of the Laci sighting witnesses.

2. They do not want people to consider what Laci was wearing by the Laci sighting witnesses.

People should not even consider Laci's hairstyle, nor jewelry she was wearing.

SLP supporters pride themselves as advocates for the wrongfully convicted, yet they know that Eyewitness Misidentification is a cause for wrongful convictions. However, when it comes to their beloved SLP, Eyewitness Misidentification does not matter.

Go figure!

Yup, they are . Advocates? That's not true at all. Cranks on a computer aren't doing a thing for the killer. It's all talk. They don't want to believe the whole world did not conspire against the shit salesman.

What I want to know is why these SAPs don't think for themselves? Brain washed boobs copying complete and utter horse manure from a pro site.

The fact is Scott is a sociopath.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-pete ... sociopath/

:batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:02 am

Laci's Voice wrote:This is back in 2009. Whilst you make false claims. Good lord, how hypocritical. You and your followers say everyone lied. You've got no cred!!! :noway:

by marlene on Wed May 27, 2009

And the Jury was given false and misleading information from Cheng and Devore.

Someone said that Devore is the expert on Conner's age. NO, he is not. He is an expert on using sonograms to asses the age of a living fetus inside a living woman. Dr. Galloway is the expert on assessing the age of a dead fetus outside the woman's body.

Neither is Devore the expert on determining Conner's age on December 23 -- Laci's doctors are the experts for that, and as recorded on her medical chart, they concluded she was 32w. Interesting, isn't it, that Devore rejected Laci's sonogram, but that is exactly the procedure he used in measuring Conner's bone. Such a fraud!

Even with the false info from Devore, the jurors could have believed Galloway. Probably the only reason they didn't is because of where the bodies were found. Here enters Cheng, with his lies about the storm's intensity and duration, and Distaso lying about how a debris line is formed.

I'm still waiting for that data from the NOAA and SFPORTS, Intro.


:batshit crazy::

:wow: I rest my case on the poor SAPs being brain washed by this MN person who has zero credibility.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:27 am

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:It's pretty pathetic that when losing an argument, you resort to false accusations. I don't know what other poster/alias you are referring to....but you are WAY off base here. I post under lsmith510 and only lsmith510 - here and many other places - and have for years. I don't need to create aliases to add weight to my opinion, don't like when people do and REALLY resent you accusing me of doing that.

So to summarize your post in addition to FALSELY accusing me of posting under another alias..... 1. You are using the jury's guilty verdict to bolster your argument (gee - what's the name of this forum? - INJUSTICE ANYWHERE?). Do I need to remind you that juries found someone guilty (sometimes multiple times) in every one of this forum's featured cases?. Oh and 2. that the prosecution's case was well structured because it consisted of motive (um.....what was that motive they presented again? - oh yeah - that a married man decided 7 1/2 months into his wife's PLANNED [took a year and a half to get pregnant] pregnancy that he decided he didn't want to be married or be a father so he decided to murder his wife and unborn son. Or wait - was the motive Amber Frey??) opportunity and a body - well....if that's enough - every poor happily or unhappily married man whose wife turns up dead had better watch their backs then. They didn't present a motive - they presented speculation with no evidence.

And "so what if the fella had some mis-hits?" LOL - oooookay.

And as far as pretending to be something we are not - you can stop pretending you are on the fence in this case. Your posts ooze with a guilty bias. You're not fooling anyone.


No, the motive was, he killed his wife to be with his lover - just because you do not agree with it, does not make it any less viable in the minds of the Jury. If you dont understand actus rea mens rea, thats ok.

The timing of your entry into this forum and your constant support verbatim of Jane's (your own) posts does make this alias very suspect. you even have the same tendency to cut and paste fro PWC, so yeah.....there it is

Im not saying the prosecutions case was overly strong, just that it met all of the elements necessary to find guilt - not surprised that notion is lost on you!

If I had an ongoing affair on my pregnant wife, I was the last person who knew her who saw her alive, I referred to her in past-tents on national TV, Lied about where I was during the time she went missing, Hid big purchases from my family,Leid about Business trips so I could continue my affair, foreshadowed my wife's death by telling my lover she was dead, Lied about the location and quantity of cement anchors I made, Tried to sell my wife's car when there was still a chance she might return, tried to sell my house while there was still a chance she could return, Changed my TV subscription to include porn switching to a bachelor lifestyle, Rented at least 5 different cars and at 5 different times went to the marina to watch police activity as they searched for my wife where I just happend to have driven my boat the day she vanished, and where the bodies would eventually be found, I changed my appearance, died my hair, loaded my car with survival gear, had a large amount of money, my parents credit card, passports from other family members. I think I would realize the trouble I was in. so it is a lot more than just a body and opportunity. And lacking any semblance of another even remotely possibly theory based on the trial or new evidence in the last decade, I see nothing evidence based that would lead me to believe anyone else killed Laci. Is the defense trying to use the standard bag of last-ditch judicial tool, yes. The One armed man did it, The judge screwed me, my lawyer screwed me. The truth is guilty or not Scott Peterson screwed himself!

Anon


Aaand here come the insults. LOL. No surprise there.

So you go with the "he killed his pregnant wife to be with the woman he had had 4 dates with and had known less than a month" motive. Interesting.

The timing of my entry to this forum? Why don't you take a moment and search all posts made by me. I've been around a long time. So yeah....there it is. Jane and I are two different people. We've been posting on forums together for a VERY long time. We cut and paste from PWC (uh - the trial transcripts) because typically people want proof that what we are saying is true. Not to mention it's a great source for people who actually want the facts about this case.

No surprise - much of the "evidence" you posted is overly exaggerated or simply not true. It's typical with the guilties in the case. I won't bother addressing each one - because anyone who buys into all of that is not worth my time. It's interesting though....if the case against Scott Peterson is so strong - why do people who believe in his guilt have to exaggerate and spin the evidence against him? Clearly it's not strong enough to stand on it's own. None of what you posted is evidence of murder....and no....all put together it isn't evidence of murder either. Much of it is simply evidence of an affair. The anchors were a figment of the prosecution's imagination.....and the rest....well.....I find it sad that so few people are able to put themselves in Scott Peterson's shoes to put much of the events in perspective. How ironic that those same people accuse Scott Peterson of being narcissistic when they themselves exhibit one of the key signs of narcissism - lack of empathy.


Oh so the evidence is all spin? you contribute nothing but nasty insults and no facts. The case was so strong he landed on death row. You can't address because you never followed the case. You speak of a person that only exist in your tiny mind. It's 2017 and you're still clueless and very unhappy person. Poor thing.

Fact: Scott is a narcissist killer. He's a sociopath.

He's on death row.

Where were you when he wasn't fighting for his freedom in court? No where. All talk, no action. You're a hanger on.

:bop:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:34 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:This is what the evidence shows.

He planned to tell everyone he was playing golf. When he got back from the 'fishing trip' he stuck with that story to begin with, telling the neighbours that's what he had been doing, However, once it became apparent, as it immediately did (both sides agree about this) that the police were keenly interested in him, he realised he would be a dead duck if the golf lie was unpicked. So he switched to the fishing trip, making a virtue of necessity by producing unasked for evidence of where he had been. He at least had a fall back position - no one was ever going to find Laci and Connor.

That makes sense of 'the whole of the evidence' pertaining to this issue. Pro-innocence explanations only work by ignoring the inconvenient parts, which is to say - they don't work.

:clap: Absolutely!
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:57 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Just another note: Crown to Rump lenghts for almost full term infants is not very accurate for determing gestational age. All of the standards agree that early ultrasounds are the best indicator but the are not 100% accurate and formulate based on mid-ovulation conception, whereas conception can and does happen much earlier in the 11 day window. I don't think you will ever agree that this is an imperfect science as you hold this as a pillar of your belief in petersons innocence, There really is not much more to discuss, unless you feel ike giving us your theory as to what you think happened, but I think we all know why you are avoiding that exercise.

Anon


The September 24 ultrasound on a GE machine included calculations by Hadlock and Robinson. The measurements taken were for biparietal diameter, femur length, abdominal circumference, and head circumference. The machine calculated Conner's age on that date at 19 weeks 2 days. Carrying that forward puts his age at 32 weeks 1 day on December 23 for a fetus In the 50th percentile.

Galloway took 11 different measurements and consulted different studies to determine the age of the fetus at death. She chose the Sherwood study which placed an average size fetus at 35-36 weeks gestation. The Fazekas and Kosa study put an average size fetus at 36-38 weeks gestation.

I don't see how this Information can be ignored. It clearly shows that Conner Peterson lived a matter of weeks after Laci disappeared.

Even if you dismiss all of the scientific information, please tell me what evidence proves that Scott Peterson was the person who put Laci's body in the bay.


The Sep 24 ultrasound is almost 3.5 months after conception, hardly the best starting point for gestational age as it is outside the first trimester. But you will never see reason, Please tell me your theory, and we can proceed.

There is not alot of direct evidence as I have stated previously, but the circumstantial evidence is proven and each piece bolsters the next, to the point where the case is strong.

After all it is people that decide the case, not robots or Lawyers:

He had a Motive - The Affair.
He had Opertunity - Fishing or Golfing, Take your pick.
He had the Tools - Boat
+ All of his actions and lies of self protection, knowing Laci would not return.

You cant just sweep this stuff under the rug, you argue the science, the scientist in this case all gave differeent opinions and there was no concensus raised that would prove innocences, if all the scientist as a whole said there was no way connor died on Dec 24th, then that would have been the end of it, but that is not what they said!

Scott buys a boat without telling anyone, and it just so happens that Laci's / Connor's body wash up on shore in the same area Scott Fished (kind of hard for the real killer to follow Scott to the Marina and be killing Laci at the same time.

Scott makes at least 4 anchors in his worshop as the patterns on the trialer depict, yet only one is found in the boat.

Scott just happense to be fishing on the night of the crime

Scott does not tell the police he was having an afair, in fact he tells Fry that his wife died, or he recently lost his wife.

Scoot did what guilty people do, he fled, and not just with camping gear but 15 Thousand dollars, an disguise and other peoples Credit cards, and passports.

This is all compelling and speaks to, Mens Rea + Actus Rhea. All on their own these action dont really meant much but put them together and what you get is a perfect framework that matche s the crime that was comitted!

Anon


All these facts are still being ignored. :clap:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:21 pm

anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:
MJL wrote:Well we haven't heard the answer yet.

Jane , what is it that has been said about the sightings is not true?

Jane, I pretty much agree with the times you say here. and I have double checked your times with other sources and they are correct. Why the need to change them now??

http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/sightings/Walk.htm

Are you seeing they don't work, and now have to give a range of 10:00 -11:00 a.m, so anything can work? This not what has been stated in original reports.

So if you look at all the times of 10:00 from the different people that makes sense, because they were in the same area, it would not make sense if one said 11:00 and then a 1/2 block away one says 10:00

I'm quite sure these sighting were at 10:00, they all gave the same time. except the 2 odd ones out in right and left field in the park.




jane wrote:What has been said about the sightings is not true.

She's probably watching instead as the deliberate deception has been figured out. You'll have to ask on the blog, but don't be shocked if your ? gets deleted. Facts are not allowed. Only bs & delusions apply only.


You have to find the post where Jane's theory has Conner being Frozen for many months, I'f you see it be sure to re-post it!

I would caution everyone to just let Jane go, If she does not want to participate in reasonable discussion, there is no need to keep bringing her up just to say all the things wee observe to be true about her. Keep it to issues around the case, if she pops back up spewing nonsense, then call he on her BS

Anon

Found it. :wow: There are no words.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:56 pm

MJL wrote:Well we haven't heard the answer yet.

Jane , what is it that has been said about the sightings is not true?

Jane, I pretty much agree with the times you say here. and I have double checked your times with other sources and they are correct. Why the need to change them now??

http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/sightings/Walk.htm

Are you seeing they don't work, and now have to give a range of 10:00 -11:00 a.m, so anything can work? This not what has been stated in original reports.

So if you look at all the times of 10:00 from the different people that makes sense, because they were in the same area, it would not make sense if one said 11:00 and then a 1/2 block away one says 10:00

I'm quite sure these sighting were at 10:00, they all gave the same time. except the 2 odd ones out in right and left field in the park.




jane wrote:What has been said about the sightings is not true.


Just like on that fb page. They can't answer. :sadno:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:25 pm

Remember when Scott's father yelled out? How rude of him.

A judge formally sentenced Scott Peterson to death Wednesday after family members got into a shouting match and Laci Peterson's mother sobbed as she called her son-in-law "an evil murderer."
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi allowed only Laci's family members to speak at the hearing after indicating he believed the death penalty was warranted.

Peterson's father yelled from the audience as Laci's brother, Brent Rocha, spoke to the court, saying "Laci and Conner are the true victims here."

"What a liar!" Lee Peterson said before the judge admonished him and he stormed out of the courtroom. Jackie Peterson, Scott Peterson's mother, also interrupted Rocha but her voice was inaudible.

CBS News Correspondent John Blackstone, who was inside the courtroom, reports Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, told Peterson: "Scott, you deserve death as soon as possible. Did she know you were killing her."

Sharon Rocha sobbed and trembled from a podium as she lashed out at her former son-in-law. Scott Peterson stared back at her without emotion.

"You decided to throw Laci and Conner away, dispose of them like they were just a piece of garbage," she said. "You were wrong; dead wrong."

Dabbing at her eyes with tissues, she called him "an evil murderer."

"The fact that you no longer wanted Laci did not give you the right to murder her," Sharon Rocha said. "She was my daughter ... I trusted you, and you betrayed me ... You betrayed everybody."

A judge formally sentenced Scott Peterson to death Wednesday after family members got into a shouting match and Laci Peterson's mother sobbed as she called her son-in-law "an evil murderer."
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi allowed only Laci's family members to speak at the hearing after indicating he believed the death penalty was warranted.

Peterson's father yelled from the audience as Laci's brother, Brent Rocha, spoke to the court, saying "Laci and Conner are the true victims here."

"What a liar!" Lee Peterson said before the judge admonished him and he stormed out of the courtroom. Jackie Peterson, Scott Peterson's mother, also interrupted Rocha but her voice was inaudible.

CBS News Correspondent John Blackstone, who was inside the courtroom, reports Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, told Peterson: "Scott, you deserve death as soon as possible. Did she know you were killing her."

Sharon Rocha sobbed and trembled from a podium as she lashed out at her former son-in-law. Scott Peterson stared back at her without emotion.

"You decided to throw Laci and Conner away, dispose of them like they were just a piece of garbage," she said. "You were wrong; dead wrong."

Dabbing at her eyes with tissues, she called him "an evil murderer."

"The fact that you no longer wanted Laci did not give you the right to murder her," Sharon Rocha said. "She was my daughter ... I trusted you, and you betrayed me ... You betrayed everybody."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peterson-g ... -sentence/
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:13 pm

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:And one last post from one of the "lonely old Betty's". Every member of the SPA team have incredibly full and happy lives. 4 out of 5 of us are married and happily at that. We have husbands and children that adore us and support us in this endeavor. None of us are in love with Scott. We saw a wrong that needed to be righted - and have taken time out of our very full and busy lives to help the Peterson family. My fellow members of the SPA team are some of the most selfless, intelligent and kind people I have ever known. As are the Petersons.


Blah Blah Blah, A Gaggle of older woman who enable a group delusion! From the exposure in the Series, the SPA group is far from intelligent or selfless, they are miss-informed and perpetuate lies and deception, all in an attempt to free a guilty man who murdered his wife and son and disposed of them like they were garbage!

Anon


You got that right. Speaking of deception. Someone is worried about the truth on this thread. When I pointed out the flat out lie "Scott took a poly, but the police hid that information". They changed it to "Scott did not take a poly'. There is no truth to what lsmith said. That's all in their head. They did not prove to be selfless intelligent people. What are they smoking?

:noway: :batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:06 pm

I agree, Just what I was thinking.


Nick wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:This is what the evidence shows.

He planned to tell everyone he was playing golf. When he got back from the 'fishing trip' he stuck with that story to begin with, telling the neighbours that's what he had been doing, However, once it became apparent, as it immediately did (both sides agree about this) that the police were keenly interested in him, he realised he would be a dead duck if the golf lie was unpicked. So he switched to the fishing trip, making a virtue of necessity by producing unasked for evidence of where he had been. He at least had a fall back position - no one was ever going to find Laci and Connor.

That makes sense of 'the whole of the evidence' pertaining to this issue. Pro-innocence explanations only work by ignoring the inconvenient parts, which is to say - they don't work.

:clap: Absolutely!
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:12 pm

I get no resistance on the times I have posted from the many sources, the only times that are listed a for these witnesses anywhere, and they still want to say there are witnesses that saw Laci that day. They ignore the fact that these witnesses don't even fit the timeline and continue on with what they want to believe, I just don't get it.


Introspectre wrote:SLP supporters are delusional.

1. They do not want people to consider the times of the Laci sighting witnesses.

2. They do not want people to consider what Laci was wearing by the Laci sighting witnesses.

People should not even consider Laci's hairstyle, nor jewelry she was wearing.

SLP supporters pride themselves as advocates for the wrongfully convicted, yet they know that Eyewitness Misidentification is a cause for wrongful convictions. However, when it comes to their beloved SLP, Eyewitness Misidentification does not matter.

Go figure!
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:31 am

MJL wrote:I get no resistance on the times I have posted from the many sources, the only times that are listed a for these witnesses anywhere, and they still want to say there are witnesses that saw Laci that day. They ignore the fact that these witnesses don't even fit the timeline and continue on with what they want to believe, I just don't get it.


Introspectre wrote:SLP supporters are delusional.

1. They do not want people to consider the times of the Laci sighting witnesses.

2. They do not want people to consider what Laci was wearing by the Laci sighting witnesses.

People should not even consider Laci's hairstyle, nor jewelry she was wearing.

SLP supporters pride themselves as advocates for the wrongfully convicted, yet they know that Eyewitness Misidentification is a cause for wrongful convictions. However, when it comes to their beloved SLP, Eyewitness Misidentification does not matter.

Go figure!


You can't reason with the unreasonable who dare to think their deception will free their beloved murderer!
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:39 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:It might be a reasonable inference if such searches were usually successful but it seems they aren't. And you are still dodging questions.


Clive, the link you posted was about the use of scent dogs in underwater body recovery.

If you check my posts on the previous page, you should understand that the 51 bay searches for Laci Peterson's body involved numerous teams of expert divers and sonar operators who are routinely successful in their searches. One of the people involved was Gene Ralston.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ology.html

Also read these testimonies to fully understand the scope of the searches:

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcript ... -Trial.htm

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Cloward.

You still have not posted anything to support your claim that it was out of the ordinary that the searches yielded no result. That means at least one of your beliefs about the case is lacking foundation. You also decline to discuss the implications of the idea that the bodies were not in the bay. That's because what follows is utterly absurd. That Steven Todd, a bum living in a shed in someone's back yard, who was interviewed and charged by the police within a few days of Laci's dsappearance, had the wherewithal to store the body elsewhere for months in conditions simulating immersion and then retrieve it and dump it to frame Scott at a time when he (Todd) was probably in custody (it would be interesting to know whether he made bail pending sentence - I bet not) is beyond absurd and it is testament to the strength of the case against Scott that resort must be had to such wild nonsense in order to construct an alternative scenario.


:clap:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:42 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I am always ready to dscuss alternative scenarios. However, I question the basis on which you classify things as evidence. There is admittedly little (but not zero) forensic evidence but there is more than enough damning circumstantial evidence to convict. It was not a rant btw. but your perception that it was is unintentionally revealing.


On what basis do you presume that Steve Todd and his accomplices are innocent? How much do you know about them?

Do you agree with these statements?

Burglars do not abduct witnesses to their crimes.
Burglars do not hold people hostage for any reason.
Burglars do not kill people.
Burglars do not read newspapers or watch TV.
Burglars would not drive 90 miles for any reason.

Oh please. Laci marches across the street and demands to know what's going on (1st improbable - why not just call the police?). The burglars, rather than scarper, bundle her into their van and carry right on with the burglary (2nd). They detain her somewhere, demanding no ransom, and Connor grows a bit as the days go by. They kill her or she dies somehow, exponentially increasing the risk of a petty burglary, and then ..... they brilliantly put her in a fish tank (or something) for three months (3rd) and then brilliantly dump her and Connor on the shores of SF bay (4th) thereby brilliantly framing Scott who, as luck would have it, just by concidence, happened to have bought a secret boat two days after Amber found out he was married (5th), and at the same time researched the area of the bay online (6th), and secretly went fishing (7th) after falsely claiming he was/would be/had been playing golf (8th) and took a shower and laundered his clothes rather than enquire about his missing wife (9th). Gee! those guys were criminal masterminds, werent they (10th)?

That was a rant btw.


Which is it? Fish tank or freezer? Inquiring minds want to know. I always heard about that delusional fish tank theory. Now I know. :batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:54 am

Introspectre wrote:
jane wrote:
Introspectre wrote:^ Well, the court might just affirm the conviction.


That is the prosecutor's fantasy.


Nope, no fantasy.

This was an actual case.

The only fantasy & delusions comes from Jane & her cohort. They prove they didn't follow the actual case. ::doh::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:20 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon

This is absolutely true. No lies from lsmith & Jane will change the fact the Ps are deplorable people. They should have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice. What they put Laci's family thru was down right evil.

Anyone who claims they are good people are lying.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:30 am

anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon


Don't forget the condoms.

The dentist? Scott claimed he was going to play golf. Jane & her cohort tell the silliest lies to excuse his many, many lies. Not normal at all.

That delusional thinking that Todd intentionally framed Scott comes from pwc where no facts & lies only apply. How much do the Ps pay the SAP leader? How come none of their failed theories were mentioned on the A&E special? :facepalm:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:52 am

Introspectre wrote:What a piece of nonsense this docuseries is!

It was badly edited -- chopped up.

The filmed characterizations of SLP boating, Laci walking, Graybill looking at an open gate are false. Even the three men behind a van scenario is untrue. Diane Jackson never saw a safe.

Clearly, this was a Dalton, Ermoian, Harris and Geragos driven drivel that SLP supporters swallow with glee.


True, it was such non sense. Blame that MN person who is out of her cotton pick'n mind. That crank used to claim Ron killed Laci & Connor. Anyone but Scott. I am at a loss as to how she is not sued for her lies & deception. tsk, tsk, that's all Scott attracts. Exactly what he is.

:devil:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:00 am

Wonder why Scott needed a shovel? A fishing pole? Knives? All that cash. His family lied again by saying Scott was living in San Diego with friends or was it family. They flip flopped on that lie.

Scott changed his appearence & when busted. He lied by saying it happened in a pool. What a load of bs. The SAPs make silly excuses for that too. :roll eyes:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-found-s ... d=49773987

Inside they said they found a rope, knives, four cell phones, camping supplies, children’s books and several other items like hiking gear.

“The guy had like, I don’t know, $14,000, $15,000, cash, he had his brother’s ID,” Brocchini said. “Hiking boots and... a shovel and [a] fishing pole.”

Also -- they found a dozen Viagra pills.

“This guy is like James Bond without the secret agent mission,” Buehler said.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:18 am

I'd forgotten about this. Someone posted this reality on youtube.

Scott came home... And ate pizza and drank milk?! WTF! Who the hell does that,? A psychopath! That's who!

What a disgusting sociopath.
"Hey, Happy New Year! I'm, uh, I'm at the Eiffel Tower. The crowd's huge!"

:clap:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:03 am

I've been doing research on this MN person. Why were people sending her money? For what? I would think a former secretary could have gotten another job, right? All that enters into my mind is "scam".

I found this blog that is pretty funny. She wanted to accept Euros that were obsolete. How stupid. :facepalm:

http://bloggershallofshame.blogspot.com ... ncore.html

I found this which to me proves they are out of their tiny mind. Holy off the charts insanity!

http://www.pwc-sii.com/Media.htm <<weak excuses & delusions only apply on that page.

:sadno: SMH
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:33 am

Wow, look who just made a fake fb page using a fake name. :roll eyes:

https://www.facebook.com/jane.hamilton. ... f=ufi&rc=p

"Jane Hamilton I suppose it has never occurred to the people who believe Scott to be guilty that even though the police failed to interview the sighting witnesses to get the exact locations of the sightings and more exact times that there were other investigators doing exactly that as early as January 2003. This is not public information."

They made the same bull shat claim posting as Scott Peterson Appeal. Yup, it's so super duper secret, not even Scott nor his lawyers know about it. Give us a break

:roll eyes:

By the way, Janey being deceptive as usual. The Ps stupid Challenge was answered yrs ago. It yet again proved Scott a stone cold sinner. Guess what the Ps did. THEY IGNORED THE ANSWERS.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:58 am

Shlobotnik wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Shlobotnik wrote:Sure, Scott most likely did it, and yet I still have these nagging questions. Anyone willing to offer some answers?

1. How is it that cadaver dogs did not light up anywhere Laci's body was alleged to have been - the bay, the boat, the house, the warehouse, the vehicle? I understand that fertilizer and other chemicals are the excuse for why the dog was confused in the shed and the warehouse, but what about the boat, the vehicle, and the bay? If Laci's body had been in the boat and the vehicle for the length of time required, shouldn't they have lit up like the 4th of July, from a cadaver-dog's perspective? These dogs are also perfectly capable of locating underwater bodies, so why no hits on the bay? Laci's body supposedly was exactly where they were looking.

2. If the recorded phone conversation between Shawn Tenbrink and his brother is really the nothingburger some claim it is, why would Lt. Aponte have bothered to contact the MPD? And how is it possible that this recording has disappeared? If you maintain that the MPD conducted a buttoned-down, top-notch investigation, how does that jibe with the fact that they lost - or ignored - what could possibly be critical evidence?

3. Back to the bay: the area where Scott Peterson was boating on 12/24 was searched extensively, by highly skilled search teams, including dogs. How common is it for search teams to come up empty in a search area of this size, given the technology they used, and the fact that, in this case, it was a specific search (i.e. a known object in a known area)? [update: per a 1988 analysis of National Water Search Reports, there's about an 88% chance of SAR dogs finding a known object in a known underwater search area]

4. Scott is alleged to have carefully planned this murder well in advance. So why would this criminal mastermind - who managed to leave no physical evidence of the murders behind - use as his alibi the exact location where he dumped Laci's body? That's beyond stupid. Or is that just part of his genius? I mean, that guy who dumped his wife's body in Whiskeytown Lake totally forgot to use that location as his alibi. What a dummy, huh?


1: Cadaver dogs
Human decomposition takes some time, and the scents associated with decomposition are not instant. There was a dog hit at the Marina but in my honest opinion, I believe this was a false positive. Scott killed Laci in the Kitchen, rolled her in plastic an duct-taped it closed, he then transferred her body to the flat bed of the truck, while doing so he had leashed and tethered Mac to a chair so he would not get in the way. Scott in his rush, left the gate open. He then drove to the warehouse and attached the trailer and then made for the marina, while at the warehouse Mac got himself free and left the yard, running around free until Servas found him and returned him to the yard. Somewhere along the way but hidden from sight, Scott moved the body from the bed to the boat and covered it with an old tarp. Scott then went to the marina, paid the launch fee, launched the boat, went out in the bay, found a suitable location, Affixed the anchors and dumped the body in the bay. Scott returned home, put the tarp in the shed and poured gasoline on it, went into the house and mopped the floor and put the bucket outside. got showered, threw his clothes in the wash, ate a piece of Pizza. Scott then went next door to report Laci Missing. With Laci being covered right away and sealed by plastic and duct-tape, there would be no exchange of air or skin contact to any surfaces except in the house where it would be expected.

2: Aponte
The sequence in which you state the events is part of your issue. The Aponte tip first and foremost is third or fourth level hearsay as the comments are in reference to something someone else said to someone else, none of this is through direct observation. Secondly, no one knows what the context of the conversation was, or who in fact this Lacy even was! The Aponte Tip was given to the defense as part of regular discovery but was never acted upon. The Aponte information was never reduced to a formal statement. Aponte thought so little of the information that he never bothered to put down a format statement and never took the time to pull and protect any recordings. By the time the defense (After the trial) decided there may be some merit to Aponte, it was too late, the recording was no longer available. When interviewed, Tenebrick/Pierce admitted to the burglary but also stated they had nothing to do with Laci Peterson, so there is no support for the hearsay statement. As for the prosecution, they had no reason to look at the burglary, another investigation had already concluded and there was no indication of involvement in the Peterson case. Criminals lie all the time, they posture, The Brag, they make things up, without context, Direct Statements or recordoings, Aponte means nothing as there is no other evidence to support laci's disapearence in association with the Burglary, No dog barking, no yelling, no screaming, no scraped rubber form sneakers on the asphalt, no disturbed grass in the lawn.......TO base an entire theory on such week evidence is a joke!

3: Bay Search
I will answer your question with a question: Lat year there was a flight that went off radar and crash landed somewhere in the indian ocean. Many military ships were called in to find the plane and were unable to do so. These ships had the most advanced and sensitive Sonar imaging and radar available, they also had ROV submersables, the most advanced technology available and yet they could not find a Jet plane, Black Boxes or any debris on the ocean floor. Given the size of Laci's body and the vast area of San Francisco Bay, they would have been extremely luck if they were able to find Anything that small in such a large area. As for SAR dogs, same issue with the vast area to search, we are not talking a fresh water lake or smaller body of water, we are talking a massive search area with winds, tides and many other factors, including cold murky Salt Water!

4: Mastermind
Initially Scott told Kriegbaum that he had been golfing that day so there was some initial attempt at miss-direction. How much planning does it really take to Strangle someone and dump the body? This could have been a well planned murder or it could just as easily be a spur of the moment emotional killing. Just because Scott had a boat and made anchors does not mean the initial purchase or production was for the sole purpose of killing Laci, all that is important is that Scott had all of the elements required to commit the crime, premeditation is up for debate, but it really could have been either! Scott thought he had done a very good Job with the bodies, so much so that he felt they would never be found! Secure in his belief, there was no reason to hide were he was. This is only a problem for Scott if the bodies are ever discovered. What we do know is that Scott rented multiple cars to conceal his multiple visits to the bay to watch over the police searches, we know it is very common for criminals to return to the scene of their crimes. So Short Answer, Scott never thought the bodies would be found!

Anon



Thanks, Anon! Those seem like pretty reasonable explanations, and you've definitely move me closer to the "give this guy the needle" side of the discussion. I only have a few gentle push-backs:

1. In 2007 forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, did a cadaver dog study, in which clothed corpses - within only three hours of death - were placed on carpet squares. The dogs had an accuracy rate of 94% when the bodies were in contact with the squares for only two minutes (it was 98% when the contact was for no more than ten minutes). Now, I imagine that a carpet square is much more absorptive of odors than, say, the steel bed of a truck, and in the study the bodies weren't wrapped in duct-taped plastic; but if it's true that a dog can follow the scent of a person who was transported by car (still blows my mind, and makes me have that much more respect for my beagle), I would think Peterson would've had to hermetically seal Laci in that tarp to prevent cadaver scent from being all over the truck and boat (did Scott own a man-sized Ziploc bag or something?). I still find it unlikely that a well-trained cadaver dog would miss that, even if Laci were bound in plastic and duct tape, unless it were done in such a way as to create an hermetically sealed environment. But I'm no expert myself, so I could be way off here.

2. I think you are too dismissive of the Aponte tip. Is it not true that Aponte became aware of the recorded conversation "within a couple weeks of [Laci's] missing"? This case was much discussed in media from coast to coast, so there's no way they didn't know "who in fact this Lacy (sic) even was". They obviously knew enough about the case to call the Modesto Police Dept. And Aponte says he listened to the recorded conversation himself, so how is that "fourth level hearsay"? You also imply that the defense was aware of the tip, but didn't act on it. The defense says the relevant information was buried among thousands of tips on a CD, and the true nature of the tip was only discovered after it was too late. Can you ascertain that the defense knew before or during the trial that there was a conversation between an inmate and his brother in which Laci was mentioned? Why in the world would they ignore a thing like that? Because if there is any truth to it, then the barking, screaming, yelling, scraped rubber, etc. you expect someone to have noticed are irrelevant. If those guys saw Laci, it means she was alive when Peterson left for the warehouse. It's not necessary to prove the burglars abducted her, just that they saw her at a time she was supposed to be deceased.

3. You're employing a false equivalence to compare the search for Laci with the disappearance of Flight MH370. For one thing, the search area for that aircraft was about 4,600,000 square km. The main part of San Francisco Bay is about 1,800 sq km (and they weren't even searching that entire area - just where they thought Scott had dumped the bodies; based on currents and where the bodies were found, they were supposedly looking in the right place). For another thing, SF Bay is relatively shallow. Where they were searching for MH370 had depths up to around three miles! But having said that, I've also heard that SF Bay is a difficult place to find even a known object, because there's so much crap on the bottom, plus it's murky, muddy, and the currents in the bay are notoriously treacherous. So I'm not willing to call the SAR teams' inability to find the bodies or anchors as some kind of proof of Peterson's innocence. I mean, the bodies were certainly in the bay for some time, one way or another, right?

4. It still seems kind of crazy to me that a killer could be so confident his victims' bodies wouldn't be found that he'd use the body-dump location for his alibi. But Scott Peterson obviously isn't a normal person, and I'm wiling to accept that he figured it like this: any other alibi he used could potentially be proved a lie, in which case he'd be instant toast, so maybe he decided to take his chances the bodies wouldn't be found. Let's face it, if those bodies never showed up, he'd never have been convicted.

Thanks again, Anon. Good food for thought!


I don't want to move you closer to the needle, everyone should make up their own minds, I for one am no fan of Capital Punishment so when I consider this case I try to concentrate on Guilt/Innocence and ignore the sentence:

To answer your questions:

1. If you roll someone in plastic, fold over the ends and seal it with Duct tape, there will never be any air exchange or skin contact to anything in any of the crime scenes. If Laci was wrapped up right away, there would be no scent for the dog to pickup, in all Laci could have been killed and put in the truck in the matter of minutes. The study you listed is without any physical barriers to scent and in a 3 hour time frame. If you can find an article that explains how long it takes the chemical reactions which emit cadaver scents, it would be useful to any conversation, my initial thoughts are that it might take as much as an hour, which is about the same time lividity and Rigor set in.

2. I don't think you understand the Aponte Tip. First off the hearsay component is 3rd or 4th level, we know this because even what little we know about this phone call, NO one ever equates directly the statement about someone called Lacy to Todd or Pierce. So this evidence is not as direct as you are thinking. I overheard someone say that he overheard someone say that Todd told him that he confronted Lacy. SO you have level one, They guy who is unknown who supposedly repeated Todd's statement, then you have the next guy who is also unknown that heard the first unknown make his statement, then you have the person on the phone telling someone else what he overheard, then you have what Aponte overhears, not one of these instances is ever attributed as to having first hand observation of Todd or this supposed statement, without Aponte's actual recording he only adds to the Hearsay. The fact of the matter is, there is no way to know if Todd actually ever made any statement, and there is no way to know how accurate any of this information is! This could have been another inmate talking about some guy last-named Lacy who was involved in an entirely different crime! The APonte tip was handed over to the defense, they had it before trial and had every opportunity to investigate it. You are also looking at this evidence from the wrong direction, if you had no knowledge of the burglary and what people speculate might have happened, you would then see this evidence for what it is!

3. The bodies were in the bay for some time. The search area for the missing plane was not the whole ocean, it was much smaller based on the the trajectory and the amount of fuel (Both Known Values). SO when I equate the 2 searches, I think it is a decent comparrison. On the innocence side, they claim that the bodies were in some sort of tube or cave in shallow water which was subject to tides, we know this is flase based on the formation of barnicles and the Death Wax (adipocere) which requers submersion in cold water and a lack of oxygen. The other point to this is related to Scott's statement about Brooks Island, It is quite likely that Scott puts himself around Brooks Island to conceal the real area where he dumped the bodies, which would put the search (at least initially) in the wrong area!

4. I think it is as stated in this thread. He was over-confident, but initially he was going to run with the "Golfing" Alibi, as this si the first thing he states when Krigbuam asks Scott where he has been. I think he scrambles and changes to Fishing feeling like it will be easier to explain as it is the truth and will be easier to maintain. If he tells the police he was around Brooks Island, he knows they will never find the bodies where he actually dumped them.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:04 am

Nick wrote:I'd forgotten about this. Someone posted this reality on youtube.

Scott came home... And ate pizza and drank milk?! WTF! Who the hell does that,? A psychopath! That's who!

What a disgusting sociopath.
"Hey, Happy New Year! I'm, uh, I'm at the Eiffel Tower. The crowd's huge!"

:clap:


Dec 24th the night Laci went missing Scott wanted Karen Servas to stay for dinner, She told him she would pass as she did not eat meat (or some other dietary reason), scott called her back and insisted she come over and that he would make her pasta, she agrees and scott takes the time to prepare food for his family an to make a special pasta dish for Karen Servas, all this at a time that Scott should have been inconsolable over his missing wife or out running the street trying to find her!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:07 am

Nick wrote:Wonder why Scott needed a shovel? A fishing pole? Knives? All that cash. His family lied again by saying Scott was living in San Diego with friends or was it family. They flip flopped on that lie.

Scott changed his appearence & when busted. He lied by saying it happened in a pool. What a load of bs. The SAPs make silly excuses for that too. :roll eyes:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-found-s ... d=49773987

Inside they said they found a rope, knives, four cell phones, camping supplies, children’s books and several other items like hiking gear.

“The guy had like, I don’t know, $14,000, $15,000, cash, he had his brother’s ID,” Brocchini said. “Hiking boots and... a shovel and [a] fishing pole.”

Also -- they found a dozen Viagra pills.

“This guy is like James Bond without the secret agent mission,” Buehler said.


He stayed with and spent a great deal of time with his half sister who ultimately came forward with her suspicion that he was guilty based on how he acted during this time!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:21 am

anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:I'd forgotten about this. Someone posted this reality on youtube.

Scott came home... And ate pizza and drank milk?! WTF! Who the hell does that,? A psychopath! That's who!

What a disgusting sociopath.
"Hey, Happy New Year! I'm, uh, I'm at the Eiffel Tower. The crowd's huge!"

:clap:


Dec 24th the night Laci went missing Scott wanted Karen Servas to stay for dinner, She told him she would pass as she did not eat meat (or some other dietary reason), scott called her back and insisted she come over and that he would make her pasta, she agrees and scott takes the time to prepare food for his family an to make a special pasta dish for Karen Servas, all this at a time that Scott should have been inconsolable over his missing wife or out running the street trying to find her!

Anon


Yes, he acted like everything was normal. He was just hanging out drinking wine, smiling and having no reaction. Just like in that newly released video of him lying to the police. No reaction from a true sociopath.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:27 am

anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:Wonder why Scott needed a shovel? A fishing pole? Knives? All that cash. His family lied again by saying Scott was living in San Diego with friends or was it family. They flip flopped on that lie.

Scott changed his appearence & when busted. He lied by saying it happened in a pool. What a load of bs. The SAPs make silly excuses for that too. :roll eyes:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-found-s ... d=49773987

Inside they said they found a rope, knives, four cell phones, camping supplies, children’s books and several other items like hiking gear.

“The guy had like, I don’t know, $14,000, $15,000, cash, he had his brother’s ID,” Brocchini said. “Hiking boots and... a shovel and [a] fishing pole.”

Also -- they found a dozen Viagra pills.

“This guy is like James Bond without the secret agent mission,” Buehler said.




He stayed with and spent a great deal of time with his half sister who ultimately came forward with her suspicion that he was guilty based on how he acted during this time!

Anon

I do believe she kicked his murdering behind out way before that. Hitting on the nanny really pissed off her husband too. He wanted Scott out a.s.a.p.

I reread this interview with Anne Bird. I forgot Scott's mother told the nanny "Wish Scott could meet someone like you". Jesus, Laci was still supposedly missing, irrc. :devil:

Jackie sighed. “I wish Scott would meet someone like Lorraine,” she said. The 22 yr old nanny.

“What?” I had heard this from Lorraine: I hadn’t believed it then, and I couldn’t believe it now. It sounded like Jackie was becoming unhinged.

http://people.com/archive/restricted-la ... l-63-no-9/
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:32 am

Kind of like playing that game telephone, by the time the last person hears it , it's totally something different then what was originally said.

anonshy wrote:2. I don't think you understand the Aponte Tip. First off the hearsay component is 3rd or 4th level, we know this because even what little we know about this phone call, NO one ever equates directly the statement about someone called Lacy to Todd or Pierce. So this evidence is not as direct as you are thinking. I overheard someone say that he overheard someone say that Todd told him that he confronted Lacy. SO you have level one, They guy who is unknown who supposedly repeated Todd's statement, then you have the next guy who is also unknown that heard the first unknown make his statement, then you have the person on the phone telling someone else what he overheard, then you have what Aponte overhears, not one of these instances is ever attributed as to having first hand observation of Todd or this supposed statement, without Aponte's actual recording he only adds to the Hearsay. The fact of the matter is, there is no way to know if Todd actually ever made any statement, and there is no way to know how accurate any of this information is! This could have been another inmate talking about some guy last-named Lacy who was involved in an entirely different crime! The APonte tip was handed over to the defense, they had it before trial and had every opportunity to investigate it. You are also looking at this evidence from the wrong direction, if you had no knowledge of the burglary and what people speculate might have happened, you would then see this evidence for what it is!


Anon
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:36 am

This may help answer many questions right off the bat.

Scott seems to have that go for it attitude, over confident, nothing can phase him, didn't seem to have a care in the world. You can see that in his actions right after Laci went missing, during the calls to Amber. That would explain his plans, many of his actions through out the day of the 24th, over confident when planning a murder, not a good thing, mistakes will be made, so his thoughts might not be the same as ours, what we think is a bad idea, he may not think that so.
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:52 am

MJL wrote:This may help answer many questions right off the bat.

Scott seems to have that go for it attitude, over confident, nothing can phase him, didn't seem to have a care in the world. You can see that in his actions right after Laci went missing, during the calls to Amber. That would explain his plans, many of his actions through out the day of the 24th, over confident when planning a murder, not a good thing, mistakes will be made, so his thoughts might not be the same as ours, what we think is a bad idea, he may not think that so.

That DB is a major tool without a clue. He actual said this after he was rightfully found guilty. A sociopath has no conscience. Someone who is a sociopath is impulsive and unreliable. As a result of these traits, the sociopath also lacks the ability to set long-term goals. Further, he can't, or won't, accept responsibility for his actions.

"I mean, I know it’ll take a while. These appeals can drag on. But I’ll get out. When it’s all over, I’ll get out. And I won’t need much, either. By that time, I’ll have been in a six-foot cell for a while, so what would I need? Just a little space. I wouldn’t even mind if I had to sleep with a toilet next to my head; I do that now.”

He smiled again. “Everything I need, I’ll find right at Home Depot. Not much at all. I’m going to live a very simple life. Everything is going to work out fine, Sis. Don’t worry about a thing. Everything is going to be all right.”"

:batshit crazy::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:55 am

MJL wrote:Kind of like playing that game telephone, by the time the last person hears it , it's totally something different then what was originally said.

anonshy wrote:2. I don't think you understand the Aponte Tip. First off the hearsay component is 3rd or 4th level, we know this because even what little we know about this phone call, NO one ever equates directly the statement about someone called Lacy to Todd or Pierce. So this evidence is not as direct as you are thinking. I overheard someone say that he overheard someone say that Todd told him that he confronted Lacy. SO you have level one, They guy who is unknown who supposedly repeated Todd's statement, then you have the next guy who is also unknown that heard the first unknown make his statement, then you have the person on the phone telling someone else what he overheard, then you have what Aponte overhears, not one of these instances is ever attributed as to having first hand observation of Todd or this supposed statement, without Aponte's actual recording he only adds to the Hearsay. The fact of the matter is, there is no way to know if Todd actually ever made any statement, and there is no way to know how accurate any of this information is! This could have been another inmate talking about some guy last-named Lacy who was involved in an entirely different crime! The APonte tip was handed over to the defense, they had it before trial and had every opportunity to investigate it. You are also looking at this evidence from the wrong direction, if you had no knowledge of the burglary and what people speculate might have happened, you would then see this evidence for what it is!


Anon

:::thumbs up:::
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:58 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC1gAi0BmhM

After his pregnant wife Laci Peterson disappeared in 2002, police say Scott Peterson kept his cool and called his then-mistress from Laci's vigil.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:29 pm

BS meter x 100. Janey is full of it. Yes, it was proven in court. Did she wear head phones & blinders while she sat there day after day? Denial ain't just a river.

"Janey Peterson No one has ever said how he carried out this crime, and the reason no one has done this is because what he would have had to do is ridiculously impossible. If it’s so simple, why has no one timelined it out? You’ve put a lot of time into searching facts - research the time." While they never research this case and make crap up.

court docs behoove them. http://www.modbee.com/news/local/articl ... 20Document
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:32 pm

This is patently untrue. He put weights on her as she was wrapped in a tarp.

"Marlene Newell If he put her wrapped body in the Bay, the wrapping would make it very difficult for her to sink, because of the air pockets in the wrapping."

Rubbish! He did put her in the bay and she sunk. She was there for 4 mos. FACT!
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:40 pm

How come Garagos didn't mention this during the A&E special?

"Geragos had theorized that vagrants or men in a suspicious van must have killed Laci Peterson and framed her husband by putting her body where everyone knew he had been fishing. But authorities watching Scott Peterson proved that he visited the marina five times in five different rented vehicles as law enforcement officers searched the bay before the bodies were recovered, surmising that he was “checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.”

Good stuff in this article. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/local ... 11796.html

Details emerge to counter Scott Peterson appeal.

FROM THE PROSECUTION BRIEF
Excerpts from a California Supreme Court brief filed Jan. 26 by state prosecutors supporting the death penalty for Modesto’s Scott Peterson:

▪ When Laci disappeared on Christmas Eve, (Scott) was weeks away from a life-altering event: the birth of his first child – a responsibility that would last a lifetime. Or, so it seemed. During a conversation with (girlfriend Amber) Frey, (Scott) lamented that he had never enjoyed “a prolonged period of freedom from responsibility” in his life.

▪ (Scott’s) statement that he went fishing by himself on Christmas Eve was, indeed, a fish story.

▪ As the search for Laci and Conner expanded to include San Francisco Bay, (Scott) made repeated surreptitious trips to the Berkeley Marina in January 2003, driving a different vehicle every time. He never stopped to talk to anyone at the marina. As the prosecutor argued, (Scott) was checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.

▪ The condition of the bodies suggested they had been in the bay for a matter of months, and Laci died while she was still carrying Conner. The forces of nature carrying Laci’s and Conner’s bodies ashore constituted unimpeachable evidence that (Scott) did not go to the bay to fish; he went to dispose of his pregnant wife’s body.

▪ One would reasonably expect that if (Scott) had truly been concerned about the disappearance of his wife and child, then he would take some action when he learned that the bodies of a woman and a baby were recovered. He did not. (Scott) never returned Sharon Rocha’s call about the discovery of the bodies.

▪ (Scott’s) penchant for lying was on a par with his unfailing dedication to self-interest. It was also corroborative of his guilt.

▪ There is no requirement that jurors be totally ignorant of the facts of a case, so long as they can lay aside their impressions and render an impartial verdict.

▪ No one, except for (Scott), knew exactly how he positioned Laci’s body in the boat, where he was in the boat, and how he maneuvered Laci’s body into the bay. Contrary to (Scott’s) suggestion, those circumstances mattered very little. What mattered was that, in the midst of his clandestine affair with another woman, (Scott) drove about three hours and 180 miles round-trip from Modesto to go “fishing” for about 45 minutes to an hour on San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve – in a recently purchased boat that he told no one about – on the day his pregnant wife went missing.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:02 pm

If we're just gonna make things up, I really like my Alien theory the best.

We could say that aliens grabbed Laci did some experiments, took the baby, kept the baby in a frozen fish tank, took Laci to the bay within seconds of the abduction, weighted her down threw her in the bay before Scott ever even left the warehouse on his trip to the bay to go fishing, and it's just a coincidence that the aliens happen to throw Laci in the same bay Scott went fishing on, then 4 months later the aliens gently place the baby above the high tide mark, tied some string around his neck, taped his ears flat, and just a coincidence Laci turned up a day later.
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:30 pm

MJL wrote:If we're just gonna make things up, I really like my Alien theory the best.

We could say that aliens grabbed Laci did some experiments, took the baby, kept the baby in a frozen fish tank, took Laci to the bay within seconds of the abduction, weighted her down threw her in the bay before Scott ever even left the warehouse on his trip to the bay to go fishing, and it's just a coincidence that the aliens happen to throw Laci in the same bay Scott went fishing on, then 4 months later the aliens gently place the baby above the high tide mark, tied some string around his neck, taped his ears flat, and just a coincidence Laci turned up a day later.

:wow: :lol: Seems that was Voice of Insanity person. Oh man. :lol:

I really hate to laugh, but that's how deluded the SAPs are. :wow:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:43 pm

I keep reading the deranged thinking of the SAPs. I can not find anyone of them coming up with one fact that prove Laci was not in the water for mos? She lost her limbs and head due do being weighted down by weights. Yet the SAPs flat out lie, deny..etc. Why make up a fake fb page if you're that invested?
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:27 am

MJL wrote:If we're just gonna make things up, I really like my Alien theory the best.

We could say that aliens grabbed Laci did some experiments, took the baby, kept the baby in a frozen fish tank, took Laci to the bay within seconds of the abduction, weighted her down threw her in the bay before Scott ever even left the warehouse on his trip to the bay to go fishing, and it's just a coincidence that the aliens happen to throw Laci in the same bay Scott went fishing on, then 4 months later the aliens gently place the baby above the high tide mark, tied some string around his neck, taped his ears flat, and just a coincidence Laci turned up a day later.

Sorry, I misread your post. You made that up. LOL :lol:

Please raise your hand if you were in on setting Scott up/ :wave: Yup, that was me. I got him right where I want him. My diabolical plan worked.

Watch the SAPs run with that desperate for anything other than cold hard facts.

:knight:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:30 am

Who knew a body does not sink while wrapped in a tarp? Especially a pregnant woman according to a delusional SAP. Crock o meter. Did Marlene actually test that hogwash theory for herself? She's pretty obese as seen on A&E. Fact: you would sink like a stone.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:35 am

Anyone have the answers to the Ps (dumb) challenge that was answered yrs ago? The Ps didn't like the truth, so they ignored it. Can't believe janey is trying to pimp it again.

All lies mind you. http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/our-challenge.html
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:12 am

In one of those calls to Amber: She asked him if he killed Laci & his baby? His answer: "No, but I know who did".
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:00 am

Nick wrote:I keep reading the deranged thinking of the SAPs. I can not find anyone of them coming up with one fact that prove Laci was not in the water for mos? She lost her limbs and head due do being weighted down by weights. Yet the SAPs flat out lie, deny..etc. Why make up a fake fb page if you're that invested?

There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:03 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Nick wrote:I keep reading the deranged thinking of the SAPs. I can not find anyone of them coming up with one fact that prove Laci was not in the water for mos? She lost her limbs and head due do being weighted down by weights. Yet the SAPs flat out lie, deny..etc. Why make up a fake fb page if you're that invested?

There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.


Best Ignored, you and now I, have added to the idle commentary.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:07 am

Looks like we're in the waiting game at this point, waiting for the results of the appeal, and folks are just talking. It seems the facts and evidence are in, nothing new on that, but we all keep going over it. Just like in the Jodi Arias, we're still talking about it waiting for the appeal.

Lately I tried to put in fine detail, the Laci witnesses, to show they just don't fit, but someone may have already done that since I didn't read the whole thread, I would hope someone has done that already.

Bill Williams wrote:There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:04 pm

anonshy wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Nick wrote:I keep reading the deranged thinking of the SAPs. I can not find anyone of them coming up with one fact that prove Laci was not in the water for mos? She lost her limbs and head due do being weighted down by weights. Yet the SAPs flat out lie, deny..etc. Why make up a fake fb page if you're that invested?

There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.


Best Ignored, you and now I, have added to the idle commentary.

Anon

Why is that guy whining? He's on ignore and knows it. If it doesn't like my post. Why can't he just use the ignore feature? :popcorn:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:08 pm

MJL wrote:Looks like we're in the waiting game at this point, waiting for the results of the appeal, and folks are just talking. It seems the facts and evidence are in, nothing new on that, but we all keep going over it. Just like in the Jodi Arias, we're still talking about it waiting for the appeal.

Lately I tried to put in fine detail, the Laci witnesses, to show they just don't fit, but someone may have already done that since I didn't read the whole thread, I would hope someone has done that already.

Bill Williams wrote:There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.

It's good to over the case that is over 12 yrs old. Some facts are missing on this thread instead of spam from pwc site. Bill doesn't have to my posts as I never read his. He knows he's on ignore. Doesn't he get that when I never answer him? Guess not.

I've been mocking because I find it hard not to. These SAPs are not concerned with truth at all. I'll try to curb that, but can't promise anything.

:wave:
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby MJL » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:09 pm

Looks like I did put a halt to the the Laci witnesses on a SP support page. No resistance there on the topic, Laci walking the dog.

and I would say Scott Peterson Appeal is wrong, Law enforcement brought out the Laci Witlessness in their testimony during the trial. You can find in the transcripts.

Scott Peterson Appeal Says:

Mike LeBlanc Thank you for seeking out the truth. Unfortunately, the tips are not part of the public record.
Like · Reply · October 25 at 9:43am
MJL
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:29 pm

Nick wrote:
MJL wrote:Looks like we're in the waiting game at this point, waiting for the results of the appeal, and folks are just talking. It seems the facts and evidence are in, nothing new on that, but we all keep going over it. Just like in the Jodi Arias, we're still talking about it waiting for the appeal.

Lately I tried to put in fine detail, the Laci witnesses, to show they just don't fit, but someone may have already done that since I didn't read the whole thread, I would hope someone has done that already.

Bill Williams wrote:There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.

It's good to over the case that is over 12 yrs old. Some facts are missing on this thread instead of spam from pwc site. Bill doesn't have to my posts as I never read his. He knows he's on ignore. Doesn't he get that when I never answer him? Guess not.

I've been mocking because I find it hard not to. These SAPs are not concerned with truth at all. I'll try to curb that, but can't promise anything.

:wave:


Bill is not a bad guy, he is interested in the case. As for the SPA's, they are not here and have not been for some time, that is why the repetitive remarks become counter productive.....

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:24 pm

MJL wrote:Looks like I did put a halt to the the Laci witnesses on a SP support page. No resistance there on the topic, Laci walking the dog.

and I would say Scott Peterson Appeal is wrong, Law enforcement brought out the Laci Witlessness in their testimony during the trial. You can find in the transcripts.

Scott Peterson Appeal Says:

Mike LeBlanc Thank you for seeking out the truth. Unfortunately, the tips are not part of the public record.
Like · Reply · October 25 at 9:43am

I saw that. So the tips are being kept a secret?
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:27 pm

anonshy wrote:
Nick wrote:
MJL wrote:Looks like we're in the waiting game at this point, waiting for the results of the appeal, and folks are just talking. It seems the facts and evidence are in, nothing new on that, but we all keep going over it. Just like in the Jodi Arias, we're still talking about it waiting for the appeal.

Lately I tried to put in fine detail, the Laci witnesses, to show they just don't fit, but someone may have already done that since I didn't read the whole thread, I would hope someone has done that already.

Bill Williams wrote:There's about 5 posts in a row not about this case or its appeal, but about how deluded a poster believes someone else is. Is that what this thread has devolved to? Please at least put some link to some actual evidence which is about the case or its appeal. It is tiresome reading these gloating=posts which have to do with other posters rather than the case or its appeal.

It's good to over the case that is over 12 yrs old. Some facts are missing on this thread instead of spam from pwc site. Bill doesn't have to my posts as I never read his. He knows he's on ignore. Doesn't he get that when I never answer him? Guess not.

I've been mocking because I find it hard not to. These SAPs are not concerned with truth at all. I'll try to curb that, but can't promise anything.

:wave:


Bill is not a bad guy, he is interested in the case. As for the SPA's, they are not here and have not been for some time, that is why the repetitive remarks become counter productive.....

Anon


He has been nasty to me since I showed up. I blocked him. He knows this.

They were here until lsmith announced she was leaving while she has not been here for mos.
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:12 pm

It would really be better to have comments which provide a coherent statement of relevant facts so that those of us who are still somewhat on the fence can get some guidance rather than a string of 6 or 7 consecutive badly worded comments which include derogatory comments about other participants in the forum. It would also encourage an exchange of views between people with differing viewpoints which is the purpose of a forum like this. It will be really discouraging if we become an echo chamber like TJMK or PMF with nothing but a string of comments alternating between attacks on those who disagree with us and "attaboy" praise for the attacker.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:00 am

erasmus44 wrote:It would really be better to have comments which provide a coherent statement of relevant facts so that those of us who are still somewhat on the fence can get some guidance rather than a string of 6 or 7 consecutive badly worded comments which include derogatory comments about other participants in the forum. It would also encourage an exchange of views between people with differing viewpoints which is the purpose of a forum like this. It will be really discouraging if we become an echo chamber like TJMK or PMF with nothing but a string of comments alternating between attacks on those who disagree with us and "attaboy" praise for the attacker.


I agree. This thread has had a difficult time from the beginning. It's one of those cases where there is constant hostility.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:01 am

Nick is taking a week off due to repeated personal attacks. Please keep that in mind when posting responses to Nick. Thanks.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:14 pm

erasmus44 wrote:It would really be better to have comments which provide a coherent statement of relevant facts so that those of us who are still somewhat on the fence can get some guidance rather than a string of 6 or 7 consecutive badly worded comments which include derogatory comments about other participants in the forum. It would also encourage an exchange of views between people with differing viewpoints which is the purpose of a forum like this. It will be really discouraging if we become an echo chamber like TJMK or PMF with nothing but a string of comments alternating between attacks on those who disagree with us and "attaboy" praise for the attacker.


To Erasmus

I agree with you Erasmus even it was getting out of hand and I was no mood for it even I let them to do the work of that I wasn't going to answer of there comment. I did not like it and it was turning into TJMK of PMF. I was focusing on the case and even it never sound so good that they only believe into guilt and it was discouraging of what I was seeing and I wanted no more, even I focus on the innocent and only that part and it were I stand for a very long time 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: 4685
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:45 pm

lsmith510 wrote:For those who are still on the fence or are still convinced of Scott's guilt - what do you think of Lt. Aponte's statement regarding the Tenbrink brothers talking about Todd and Laci having a confrontation that morning? Just curious as to why this is dismissed as proof that Laci was alive after Scott left that morning.


To everyone

Hey everyone, I want to bring this up of the past when the Lt. Aponte's statement regarding the Tenbrink brothers were talking about Todd & Laci having a confrontation that morning? Remember if we go back and Ismith said it was dismissed of proof that Laci was alive after Scott left that morning. So if it is true. I bet we can make some type of that statement and show it, to prove his innocent even it would be a good way to go!!!

I was going to go with the black hood gang style of Ms Jackson said even it might not work. Let follow an old approach in the past and refresh the case and what you think about this Erasmus!!!
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: 4685
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:16 am

Anyone see this video of Beth Karas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRBzMprrg3o

Beth Karas Talks Scott Peterson Case on LawNewz Network
Nick
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests