Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

[Booth]

8 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I've answered your questions. Thought I had already, but either it was deleted for content or I failed to hit the submit button.

So, you don't know who or why, can't possibly even fathom a guess. For all you know then, in theory, it's possible it could have been Scott just as easily as it could have been someone else. No, not on the 24th, but on whatever day it was done by someone else.

If Laci wasn't dumped in the bay, how did she get there? I mean, she was found there, right? 

 

In theory, of course it's possible. It could've just as easily been Scott on the 24th, or it could have been anyone else, that day or after.

Yes, Laci was found in the bay. I don't know how she got there. Most likely(assuming she was killed), her killer dumped her there, but I'm just speculating.

[Regi]

7 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I considered your premise that Laci might have told Scott about the prior episode, but since she checked out at Trader Joe's at 10:08am on the 23rd, with all mentions of meringue being in the back half of the 23rd episode, it would be difficult for her to have watched that, drive to store, shop and check out in that time frame. But you have it exactly right, so much of the Brocchini interview gives Scott away. The "ah's", "but Laci" and the nonsensical discrepancies are obviously evidence of deception. And all that is supposed to be washed away, with the premise that a totally innocuous side comment of "ooh, you want to make meringues" represents absolute evidence Laci was alive.

Thanks for considering my idea; although I was aware that Laci had shopped the morn. of the 23rd, I hadn't taken that into account, but I wish I'd at least read the transcripts before I put that out there. Sorry 'bout that.

So, now that I have read the the transcripts, not only do I see that no, there hadn't been mention of what was coming up in the next episode, but I also noticed what you pointed out in your post, that no, they hadn't been "talking about what to do with meringue"...

7 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

"And when I get back, if you are not at home, leave the dog out on the leash, leave the lights off, leave the back door unlocked, clear the house of baking smells, hide the stuff for creme brule, make sure the house is exactly as I am leaving it, so that I can assume you blew everything I said you were going to do and got an Uber to your mom's house.

"And I won't try to reach you on your cell..."

7 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

 And that boat cover for Ron's gift...he's a big fan of the scent of 87 Octane/5W30 so I have the perfect plan for that, he's gonna love it!"

I take it that Ron's surprise was to be revealed on Christmas day....Interesting it couldn't be revealed just one day sooner...

Edited February 24, 2018 by regi

[Regi]

37 minutes ago, Booth said:

 It wasn't simply wrapped or looped around Connor's body.

It was looped.

[Sly Humour]

 

 

 

On 2018-02-18 at 7:20 PM, regi said:

Brocchini: So you put the umbrellas in there this morning?

Peterson:Umhum

Brocchini: Because you were gonna store 'em at the warehouse?

Peterson: Yeah but I didn't.

Brocchini:What did you just forget?

Peterson: Umhum. Ah I, I even saw 'em there when I locked the door.

Brocchini: Umhum

Peterson: You know, but Laci

Brocchini interrupted Peterson.

Essentially, Peterson said "I saw them, but...." which I think is saying that he didn't actually forget.

So, whattaya think?

 

You don’t mind if I help you out and Gallo out with this one do you?

I understand that it’s difficult for some people to make out the word simple in simpleton, so allow me to finish off Scooter’s sentence for him with the most reasonable thing he would have said had Brocchini not opened his mouth at that overwhelmingly suspicious moment in time.

 

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were already late for dinner when I pulled up so I just left the stuff in the truck and went straight in to change and take a shower.

[Regi]

7 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

I understand that it’s difficult for some people to make out the word simple in simpleton, so allow me to finish off Scooter’s sentence for him with the most reasonable thing he would have said had Brocchini not opened his mouth at that overwhelmingly suspicious moment in time.

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were already late for dinner when I pulled up so I just left the stuff in the truck and went straight in to change and take a shower.

First, I believe I was mistaken as to whether Peterson was interrupted: 1) The punctuation used in the transcript shows that Peterson's statement was indeed a complete sentence, and 2) Brocchini's next question begins with an "Okay", which indicates to me that he understood that Peterson was finished talking.

As for "already late for dinner", they weren't expected until 6:00.

Regardless, it doesn't come across to me as though Peterson was offering an excuse as to why he didn't unload the umbrellas; he was offering an excuse as to why he'd forget again.

Edited February 25, 2018 by regi

[Jerry Gallo]

15 hours ago, Booth said:

1. But that isn't what I said, was it? I said jurors are not free to speculate or make assumptions about questions they may have. They can make logical inferences, but that's quite different.

2. And here you are again, suggesting that I am demanding that you give me direct or forensic evidence. I've never asked for that. We already agree that does not exist. What circumstances place Laci in the bed of Scott's truck? And let's not forget: "...before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."  You are inferring that Laci's body was in the truck because you think Scott lied about the umbrellas. What else is there? So first, you need to prove that Scott was lying about the umbrellas.

It isn't proof that Laci was on the computer. It is a reasonable alternative interpretation for the jury to consider when evaluating whether or not Laci was dead that morning. And, as you well know: "Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt." It's perfectly reasonable to infer that Laci, who liked sunflowers and wore scarves, was the one making those searches.

3. The question isn't whether it is evidence or not. Everything entered into the record is ostensibly evidence. The question is whether or not it is inculpatory. Again, putting a boat cover in their shed is something people do all of the time. Putting a leaf blower on top of it would be a bit strange(if he actually did so), I agree with that, but we can't simply make the leap that the only reasonable explanation is that Scott was attempting to destroy evidence. Isn't it possible the blower fell/got knocked off a shelf? Isn't it possible Scott used the cover to soak up some gas he found spilled on the floor of the shed? These are called reasonable alternative interpretations. 

5. So now you're back to claiming, just like the other poster, that the twine wasn't tied at all? Jerry, you know this isn't true. You know as well as I that all of the state's own witnesses and supporting exhibits indicate that the twine was tied, in two separate knots, no less. It wasn't simply wrapped or looped around Connor's body. We already went through this several pages ago. You are once again trying to obfuscate/misrepresent the evidence in order to fit your theory. You are being intellectually dishonest.

6. I've not claimed that Scott was framed, nor do I think the jury should presume he was. I think they should presume Scott and everyone else innocent until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. When you add logical probability to assume, it becomes presume. And that is what they did.

2. I've already answered these questions, multiple times. Why must you keep asking them expecting a different answer? And why do you insist you are the arbiter of what is perfectly reasonable when at least 14 other people disagree with you? What else is there besides the umbrellas...the bodies in the bay with ZERO reasonable alternatives. 

3. You are violating your own rule here. You are speculating and doing so is now acceptable when using it to support your argument and his innocence. Just throwing stuff against the wall and presenting it as reasonable when it absolutely isn't. Then you go on to lecture me on intellectual dishonesty?  

Is it possible that the leaf blower fell off a shelf? Yes.

Is there evidence of a shelf? Based on my knowledge of the Tupperware style storage "shed" in prosecution exhibit 1-AA and what I see in said photo, I'd say no.

Is it possible that he left the gas cap off the leaf blower the last time he used it? Yes.

Is it logical that he'd fill the leaf blower with gas after use, then store it with the cap off. Not to me, but I'll entertain the idea.

Is it possible that he realized he left the cap off the leaf blower and soaked up gas from the floor with the boat cover? Yes, but not reasonable.

Is it logical that he'd soak up gas with the boat cover, then place the only source of gas on top of the cover, leaving the cap off to allow further leakage? No

Is it possible that he'd walk the boat cover from his truck completely around to the farthest possible storage point from the truck during the first 48 hours of his wife missing. Yes.

Is that logical? Not no, but hell no.

So, yes, individually, some of your speculation is possible. But, based on the above, I see no reasonable explanation for the boat cover to be soaked with gas other than a purposeful act by Scott. Simplicity, in contrast with location of truck and shed where boat cover was found makes putting it in there 100% illogical. 

5. Not around the neck as you present it, no. The knot in 253-I was obviously tied by human hands, but having nothing to do with Conner or Laci. The loops in 253-E may or may not have been tied by human hands, I could just as easily see tidal action and the material catching on something to cause that. But again, whatever caused it, it was done before it ever came into contact with Conner and there is no connection. This was twine with knots in it that wrapped loosely like a scarf around his neck from tidal action/rolling and Peterson cut it rather than slipping it over the head or rolling the body X number of times to unfurl.  

6. Of course you don't claim anything, that would make you vulnerable and open to criticism so people could brow beat you like you do to most here who don't agree with you. You obviously lack that courage. If Scott didn't do it, it had to be a frame. You say you want truth and justice for whoever killed Laci and Conner, but in all these years since he was convicted, you've not put one minute's thought into who killed them if not Scott? That tells me you don't care about the truth or justice, you only care about Scott being freed so you can feel like you've won the argument. Your avoidance of that which paints you into a corner is telling here sir, even you know that anyone but Scott is illogical and unreasonable. 

PS - Just as a slightly humorous aside, you asked me to find another tarp. 1-Z, behind the ladders. Never once noticed it before today. Smoking gun...nah, pretty doubtful. Just funny to me how many details the eye catches and yet so many more in plain sight are missed. 

[Jerry Gallo]

17 hours ago, regi said:

Thanks for considering my idea; although I was aware that Laci had shopped the morn. of the 23rd, I hadn't taken that into account, but I wish I'd at least read the transcripts before I put that out there. Sorry 'bout that.

So, now that I have read the the transcripts, not only do I see that no, there hadn't been mention of what was coming up in the next episode, but I also noticed what you pointed out in your post, that no, they hadn't been "talking about what to do with meringue"...

"And I won't try to reach you on your cell..."

I take it that Ron's surprise was to be revealed on Christmas day....Interesting it couldn't be revealed just one day sooner...

No need to apologize, lots of information out there, easy to forget all these years later! ;-)

[Jerry Gallo]

9 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 

 

 

 

You don’t mind if I help you out and Gallo out with this one do you?

I understand that it’s difficult for some people to make out the word simple in simpleton, so allow me to finish off Scooter’s sentence for him with the most reasonable thing he would have said had Brocchini not opened his mouth at that overwhelmingly suspicious moment in time.

 

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were already late for dinner when I pulled up so I just left the stuff in the truck and went straight in to change and take a shower.

Actually, let's get it right if we're gonna make it up. In addition to regi's catch of your first gaffe...

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were on time for dinner when I pulled up, but I just left the stuff in the truck and unleashed the dog, walked through the unlocked back door, turned on the lights, dumped the mop bucket, ate, showered, got dressed, and did laundry.

And then and only then, did it occur as much to Scott as me, that the leash on the dog in the backyard and her car being there were indicators something was amiss. So, Scott's not a killer, just extremely slow on the uptake? Compelling stuff as usual!  

[Regi]

24 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

No need to apologize, lots of information out there, easy to forget all these years later! ;-)

Definitely, and some of it I'm seeing for the first time. For example, until just yesterday, I hadn't seen the exhibit photo which shows more of that debris that was associated with the fetus. Have you seen that? Whatever that stuff was, there was a bunch of it out there!

[Regi]

2 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Actually, let's get it right if we're gonna make it up. In addition to regi's catch of your first gaffe...

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were on time for dinner when I pulled up, but I just left the stuff in the truck and unleashed the dog, walked through the unlocked back door, turned on the lights, dumped the mop bucket, ate, showered, got dressed, and did laundry.

And then and only then, did it occur as much to Scott as me, that the leash on the dog in the backyard and her car being there were indicators something was amiss. So, Scott's not a killer, just extremely slow on the uptake? Compelling stuff as usual!  

I think the circumstance of her car in the driveway- just that alone- would have had anybody else on the phone, but he'd also be accepting that she'd have gone anywhere without any word to him about it and even when the plan was to meet at the house at 4:00...

[Sly Humour]

6 hours ago, regi said:

First, I believe I was mistaken as to whether Peterson was interrupted: 1) The punctuation used in the transcript shows that Peterson's statement was indeed a complete sentence, and 2) Brocchini's next question begins with an "Okay", which indicates to me that he understood that Peterson was finished talking.

As for "already late for dinner", they weren't expected until 6:00.

 

The prolific frequency and relative ease with which you arbitrarily assign suspicion to every trivial thing that Scott Peterson said or did is both appalling and arguably inadmissible from a legal perspective.

And even though they weren't expected until 6:00 pm by the Rocha's, there's sound circumstantial evidence that suggests Scott and Laci were intending to arrive long before then.

 

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Actually, let's get it right if we're gonna make it up. In addition to regi's catch of your first gaffe...

 

Of course, your best friend Jerry immediately assumes that there is gaffe in there somewhere because Sharon testifies that she was expecting Scott and Laci at 6pm. A little more homework on his part (and yours) would have revealed the fact that Scott himself clearly stated in a recorded phone conversation with Frey that he and Laci were going to meet at 4pm and then head over to the Rocha’s for dinner. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude from this statement that Scott and Laci were actually planning to leave shortly after 4pm and arrive at the Rocha’s earlier than Sharon and Ron were expecting them to. It was Christmas Eve, after all.

Now, consider what else you and Jerry overlooked… Scott leaves for Berkeley in the morning knowing his wife has a pretty busy day ahead (mop the floor, walk the dog, do the shopping, make the gingerbread, prepare the Christmas Day brunch, presumably shower, and then slip on some appropriate evening attire) before they leave shortly after 4pm for her parents place. But now he’s asking Laci to make the trip out to Dale Rd for him and common sense would tell him that if she is forced to squeeze this 50 minute round-trip into her own aforementioned busy schedule then this is likely going to push whatever tasks she has left to perform at least 50 minutes further along and well past their planned departure time.

So the moment that Scott leaves the voicemail for Laci asking her to pick up the item from Vella Farms because he won’t make it there by 4pm clearly reveals that he knows he is running late, not only for the 4pm gift basket deadline but also for the 4pm (or shortly thereafter) departure time. And sure enough, Scott arrives home between 4:30 pm 4:45 pm and that's why he considers himself and Laci to be running late for dinner.

So once again...

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were already late for dinner when I pulled up so I just left the stuff in the truck and went straight in to change and take a shower.

[Jerry Gallo]

14 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

The prolific frequency and relative ease with which you arbitrarily assign suspicion to every trivial thing that Scott Peterson said or did is both appalling and arguably inadmissible from a legal perspective.

And even though they weren't expected until 6:00 pm by the Rocha's, there's sound circumstantial evidence that suggests Scott and Laci were intending to arrive long before then.

 

Of course, your best friend Jerry immediately assumes that there is gaffe in there somewhere because Sharon testifies that she was expecting Scott and Laci at 6pm. A little more homework on his part (and yours) would have revealed the fact that Scott himself clearly stated in a recorded phone conversation with Frey that he and Laci were going to meet at 4pm and then head over to the Rocha’s for dinner. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude from this statement that Scott and Laci were actually planning to leave shortly after 4pm and arrive at the Rocha’s earlier than Sharon and Ron were expecting them to. It was Christmas Eve, after all.

Now, consider what else you and Jerry overlooked… Scott leaves for Berkeley in the morning knowing his wife has a pretty busy day ahead (mop the floor, walk the dog, do the shopping, make the gingerbread, prepare the Christmas Day brunch, presumably shower, and then slip on some appropriate evening attire) before they leave shortly after 4pm for her parents place. But now he’s asking Laci to make the trip out to Dale Rd for him and common sense would tell him that if she is forced to squeeze this 50 minute round-trip into her own aforementioned busy schedule then this is likely going to push whatever tasks she has left to perform at least 50 minutes further along and well past their planned departure time.

So the moment that Scott leaves the voicemail for Laci asking her to pick up the item from Vella Farms because he won’t make it there by 4pm clearly reveals that he knows he is running late, not only for the 4pm gift basket deadline but also for the 4pm (or shortly thereafter) departure time. And sure enough, Scott arrives home between 4:30 pm 4:45 pm and that's why he considers himself and Laci to be running late for dinner.

So once again...

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were already late for dinner when I pulled up so I just left the stuff in the truck and went straight in to change and take a shower.

So, Scott is forgetful when it's convenient, yet also mindful when it's convenient. So, let's examine this further so see how much more you have to adjust Scott's actions to fit your fictional tale. 

1. If Laci knew about the boat, knew he was going fishing in Berkeley, and she was going to be out and about, why not just add that to her list of things to do beforehand? Or, why not call Amy and tell her he changed his plans and see if she could get it? Let's go with he was still planning to pick it up because why burden Laci with a 10th thing to do that day while he jacked around enjoying me time, right? Besides, 10:08a leave time, he had plenty of time to drive three hours and test the boat in sea water.

2. Now, in addition to forgetting those pesky umbrellas in the bed of a truck backed in to the warehouse to hook up the boat, he decides to spend his extra me time to send an e-mail and assemble the mortiser. Now he's leaving the warehouse at 11:00-11:25, giving him roughly 30-45 minutes to fish and still pick up the 3pm basket. Again, it's 3pm, not 4pm. Why not call Laci or Amy as he's leaving the warehouse, "got tied up at warehouse, just now leaving, probably won't make it back by 3pm"? 

3. Finally, at Berkeley at 12:54. Yet another opportunity to call and let Laci or Amy know it looks dicey. Called neither. 

4. On the 2:12 or 2:17 message, why no mention about "not only is the basket out, but I'm not even sure I will be back by 4pm to leave for dinner"?

5. Doesn't reach Laci on either phone, leaves messages, but Mr. Conscientious doesn't call Amy to ensure the basket is picked up or to see if Amy had spoken to Laci about it.

6. 3:52, he's in Livermore, 45 miles away from warehouse. So, even though he made three calls on the road back to Modesto, at some point between Castro Valley and Livermore when he hits traffic, the deadline to make it home on time expires. It doesn't occur to him that Laci hasn't called one time all day to break balls about the basket, get an update on his ETA. At 3:44, Amy calls and he ignores, misses, whatever. Doesn't bother to call her back or check in with her.

7. 4:35, Scott arrives at warehouse. Why not just go straight home to change clothes, then drop the boat off at the warehouse on the way to Sharon's? Especially the way you have to double back on the highway. Why no call saying "hey, if you wanna leave for your mom's, I can drive separate"?

8. 4:50, Laci's car is there, we know all that you ignore/excuse when he entered that gate. Add to that, no basket. We know he mentions two specifics that occur even to him at 5:15p that didn't at 4:50p. 

You protest people who assign suspicion to trivial things, yet you whitewash legitimate questions with BS excuses. All your matter-of-fact preening and extra flair for dramatic effect (prolific) doesn't change the fact this weasel backs you into a corner on every issue. I'm sure my best friend agrees.    

  

[Regi]

18 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 A little more homework on his part (and yours) would have revealed the fact that Scott himself clearly stated in a recorded phone conversation with Frey that he and Laci were going to meet at 4pm and then head over to the Rocha’s for dinner.

So? Is that what he told Brocchini? (I've only read to page 13 in that transcript.)

Speaking of Frey, he also told her that he'd gotten up on the morn. of Dec. 23rd at "um...like 8:30" (Jan. 8, 1:30pm.), yet he told Brocchini that it was around 8:00 or so, and so clearly, he was lying one of them, probably both.

Speaking of the recorded phone conversations, I haven't read through all of those between Peterson and Frey, but I'm currently searching through those to see whether it was in one of those calls that he told Frey that the blood on the car door was from a prior injury rather than from an injury that occurred that very day.

18 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

Scott leaves for Berkeley in the morning knowing his wife has a pretty busy day ahead (mop the floor, walk the dog, do the shopping, make the gingerbread, prepare the Christmas Day brunch, presumably shower, and then slip on some appropriate evening attire) before they leave shortly after 4pm for her parents place.

Re: Laci's day ahead, in response to Gloria Gomez about having left his 8 1/2 mo. pregnant wife home alone at home on Christmas eve. to go fishing, he said "preparations were all made, um, gifts done, Laci was simply going to do baking that day."

Now that ^ makes sense! And especially so, since we know that mopping and shopping had already been done just the day before.

(And note it there again how he minimizes circumstances when he thinks it's to his benefit.)

2 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So, Scott is forgetful when it's convenient, yet also mindful when it's convenient. So, let's examine this further so see how much more you have to adjust Scott's actions to fit your fictional tale. 

1. If Laci knew about the boat, knew he was going fishing in Berkeley, and she was going to be out and about, why not just add that to her list of things to do beforehand? Or, why not call Amy and tell her he changed his plans and see if she could get it? Let's go with he was still planning to pick it up because why burden Laci with a 10th thing to do that day while he jacked around enjoying me time, right? Besides, 10:08a leave time, he had plenty of time to drive three hours and test the boat in sea water.

2. Now, in addition to forgetting those pesky umbrellas in the bed of a truck backed in to the warehouse to hook up the boat, he decides to spend his extra me time to send an e-mail and assemble the mortiser. Now he's leaving the warehouse at 11:00-11:25, giving him roughly 30-45 minutes to fish and still pick up the 3pm basket. Again, it's 3pm, not 4pm. Why not call Laci or Amy as he's leaving the warehouse, "got tied up at warehouse, just now leaving, probably won't make it back by 3pm"? 

3. Finally, at Berkeley at 12:54. Yet another opportunity to call and let Laci or Amy know it looks dicey. Called neither. 

4. On the 2:12 or 2:17 message, why no mention about "not only is the basket out, but I'm not even sure I will be back by 4pm to leave for dinner"?

5. Doesn't reach Laci on either phone, leaves messages, but Mr. Conscientious doesn't call Amy to ensure the basket is picked up or to see if Amy had spoken to Laci about it.

6. 3:52, he's in Livermore, 45 miles away from warehouse. So, even though he made three calls on the road back to Modesto, at some point between Castro Valley and Livermore when he hits traffic, the deadline to make it home on time expires. It doesn't occur to him that Laci hasn't called one time all day to break balls about the basket, get an update on his ETA. At 3:44, Amy calls and he ignores, misses, whatever. Doesn't bother to call her back or check in with her.

7. 4:35, Scott arrives at warehouse. Why not just go straight home to change clothes, then drop the boat off at the warehouse on the way to Sharon's? Especially the way you have to double back on the highway. Why no call saying "hey, if you wanna leave for your mom's, I can drive separate"?

8. 4:50, Laci's car is there, we know all that you ignore/excuse when he entered that gate. Add to that, no basket. We know he mentions two specifics that occur even to him at 5:15p that didn't at 4:50p. 

You protest people who assign suspicion to trivial things, yet you whitewash legitimate questions with BS excuses. All your matter-of-fact preening and extra flair for dramatic effect (prolific) doesn't change the fact this weasel backs you into a corner on every issue. I'm sure my best friend agrees.    

  

Oh, you can be sure!

(Per usual, outstanding post...  )

Edited February 26, 2018 by regi

[Jerry Gallo]

8 hours ago, regi said:

So? Is that what he told Brocchini? (I've only read to page 13 in that transcript.)

Speaking of Frey, he also told her that he'd gotten up on the morn. of Dec. 23rd at "um...like 8:30" (Jan. 8, 1:30pm.), yet he told Brocchini that it was around 8:00 or so, and so clearly, he was lying one of them, probably both.

Speaking of the recorded phone conversations, I haven't read through all of those between Peterson and Frey, but I'm currently searching through those to see whether it was in one of those calls that he told Frey that the blood on the car door was from a prior injury rather than from an injury that occurred that very day.

Re: Laci's day ahead, in response to Gloria Gomez about having left his 8 1/2 mo. pregnant wife home alone at home on Christmas eve. to go fishing, he said "preparations were all made, um, gifts done, Laci was simply going to do baking that day."

Now that ^ makes sense! And especially so, since we know that mopping and shopping had already been done just the day before.

(And note it there again how he minimizes circumstances when he thinks it's to his benefit.)

Oh, you can be sure!

(Per usual, outstanding post...  )

Thanks regi! As to the Amber/Scott phone calls...oy, I wish you luck reading Scott's part of those. What. A. Tool. His supporters claim he never told her he loved her, but dude was smitten with her. Quoting poetry, talking about Agape, "there's a tear in my eye and it's trickling. Some other entries I found interesting...

FREY: Really? (phone ringing) There’s your other phone.

PETERSON: Yeah. 

FREY: Do you want me to hold?

PETERSON: No, I turned it off.

FREY: Who’s calling?

PETERSON: I don’t know.

FREY: You didn’t look?

PETERSON: No, it’s not in my phonebook so it’s not important to me right now, Amber.

January 7, his wife's been missing two weeks. He's so anxious to find her, he ignores a call?

PETERSON: And you know, my hands around your waist like uh…you know, like anchors for people.

Freudian slip?

[Booth]

On 2/25/2018 at 8:56 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

1. When you add logical probability to assume, it becomes presume. And that is what they did.

2. I've already answered these questions, multiple times. Why must you keep asking them expecting a different answer? And why do you insist you are the arbiter of what is perfectly reasonable when at least 14 other people disagree with you? What else is there besides the umbrellas...the bodies in the bay with ZERO reasonable alternatives. 

3. You are violating your own rule here. You are speculating and doing so is now acceptable when using it to support your argument and his innocence. Just throwing stuff against the wall and presenting it as reasonable when it absolutely isn't. Then you go on to lecture me on intellectual dishonesty?  

Is it possible that the leaf blower fell off a shelf? Yes.

Is there evidence of a shelf? Based on my knowledge of the Tupperware style storage "shed" in prosecution exhibit 1-AA and what I see in said photo, I'd say no.

Is it possible that he left the gas cap off the leaf blower the last time he used it? Yes.

Is it logical that he'd fill the leaf blower with gas after use, then store it with the cap off. Not to me, but I'll entertain the idea.

Is it possible that he realized he left the cap off the leaf blower and soaked up gas from the floor with the boat cover? Yes, but not reasonable.

Is it logical that he'd soak up gas with the boat cover, then place the only source of gas on top of the cover, leaving the cap off to allow further leakage? No

Is it possible that he'd walk the boat cover from his truck completely around to the farthest possible storage point from the truck during the first 48 hours of his wife missing. Yes.

Is that logical? Not no, but hell no.

So, yes, individually, some of your speculation is possible. But, based on the above, I see no reasonable explanation for the boat cover to be soaked with gas other than a purposeful act by Scott. Simplicity, in contrast with location of truck and shed where boat cover was found makes putting it in there 100% illogical. 

5. Not around the neck as you present it, no. The knot in 253-I was obviously tied by human hands, but having nothing to do with Conner or Laci. The loops in 253-E may or may not have been tied by human hands, I could just as easily see tidal action and the material catching on something to cause that. But again, whatever caused it, it was done before it ever came into contact with Conner and there is no connection. This was twine with knots in it that wrapped loosely like a scarf around his neck from tidal action/rolling and Peterson cut it rather than slipping it over the head or rolling the body X number of times to unfurl.  

6. Of course you don't claim anything, that would make you vulnerable and open to criticism so people could brow beat you like you do to most here who don't agree with you. You obviously lack that courage. If Scott didn't do it, it had to be a frame. You say you want truth and justice for whoever killed Laci and Conner, but in all these years since he was convicted, you've not put one minute's thought into who killed them if not Scott? That tells me you don't care about the truth or justice, you only care about Scott being freed so you can feel like you've won the argument. Your avoidance of that which paints you into a corner is telling here sir, even you know that anyone but Scott is illogical and unreasonable. 

PS - Just as a slightly humorous aside, you asked me to find another tarp. 1-Z, behind the ladders. Never once noticed it before today. Smoking gun...nah, pretty doubtful. Just funny to me how many details the eye catches and yet so many more in plain sight are missed. 

1. Proof is not just showing probability; the standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Jurors can not, nor should you, presume Scott was lying because they(or you) think his actions were improbable.

2. You've never answered these questions. If you did answer them, I must've missed it, so just tell me again: What evidence of any kind is there to show that Laci's dead body was ever in the back of Scott's truck? The "bodies in the bay" don't indicate in any way that Laci's dead body was in Scott's truck on Dec 24th. It indicates the bodies were in the bay at the time they were found there.  

Isn't it the most reasonable inference that Laci made those internet searches on the 24th?

3. I'm not violating my own rule. I understand it seems that way, but that's not the case. Jurors are free to consider reasonable alternative interpretations of the evidence. The evidence presented shows the boat cover was saturated with gasoline, we agree on that. The state's argument is: Scott did that deliberately in order to destroy forensic evidence. The jury is free to say: "Destroy what evidence? From what crime scene? You found a boat cover in Scott's shed with gasoline on it; so what? I keep my boat cover in the shed, too. How does that prove he killed Laci"? YOU DON'T KNOW why the boat cover had gasoline on it, and neither do I. You presume Scott guilty and I presume him innocent. Therein lies the difference.

5. You're really starting to reach here, now. I think it's ludicrous to believe that the knot shown in 253-E could be a result of no more than tidal action, but whatever. The testimony from Dr. Peterson and criminalist Kyo(both state witnesses), is supported by the exhibits offered by the state. Both clearly reference two knots, one of which is tied tightly within an inch of Connor's body. Which of these two knots (State's exhibit 253-I or E) are they referring to? 

You keep trying to spin this idea that the twine was simply wrapped loosely around Connor's body, which is totally contradicted by the testimony from your own witnesses and from your own exhibits.

6. I really don't think that's fair to say, Jerry. I started this thread, with the declaration that Scott Peterson was innocent. That alone opened me up to a great deal of criticism and brow-beating over these ~60 pages, from you and others. I'm still here. I didn't run away from anything. I've answered every question put to me. However many times you wish to make this a question of my courage or compare me to a schoolgirl is not going to affect my opinion; I know who I am. I'm not foolish enough to offer you an alternative scenario I can't prove. I don't know who killed Laci. If you think that's a coward's position, so be it. You're convinced that Scott did, so you have the obligation to prove him guilty. I'll freely acknowledge that Scott is the most logical suspect, but that's just not enough. Convictions require evidence.

PS - LOLOL. Another blue tarp?! Hide the fertilizer!!! That's a helluva catch, man. Good eye...

 

 

 

 

[Regi]

On 2/25/2018 at 3:45 PM, Sly Humour said:

So once again...

Peterson: You know, but Laci and I were already late for dinner when I pulled up so I just left the stuff in the truck and went straight in to change and take a shower.

Needless to say, we disagree about what Peterson may have meant by that, but I want to point out that he could have explained all circumstances surrounding the umbrellas after just the first question, and certainly after Brocchini asked, "Because you were gonna store them at the warehouse?" There in the dialogue, instead of explaining why that didn't happen, Peterson stated the obvious, "Yeah but I didn't."

[Jerry Gallo]

6 hours ago, Booth said:

1. Proof is not just showing probability; the standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Jurors can not, nor should you, presume Scott was lying because they(or you) think his actions were improbable.

2. You've never answered these questions. If you did answer them, I must've missed it, so just tell me again: What evidence of any kind is there to show that Laci's dead body was ever in the back of Scott's truck? The "bodies in the bay" don't indicate in any way that Laci's dead body was in Scott's truck on Dec 24th. It indicates the bodies were in the bay at the time they were found there.  

Isn't it the most reasonable inference that Laci made those internet searches on the 24th?

3. I'm not violating my own rule. I understand it seems that way, but that's not the case. Jurors are free to consider reasonable alternative interpretations of the evidence. The evidence presented shows the boat cover was saturated with gasoline, we agree on that. The state's argument is: Scott did that deliberately in order to destroy forensic evidence. The jury is free to say: "Destroy what evidence? From what crime scene? You found a boat cover in Scott's shed with gasoline on it; so what? I keep my boat cover in the shed, too. How does that prove he killed Laci"? YOU DON'T KNOW why the boat cover had gasoline on it, and neither do I. You presume Scott guilty and I presume him innocent. Therein lies the difference.

5. You're really starting to reach here, now. I think it's ludicrous to believe that the knot shown in 253-E could be a result of no more than tidal action, but whatever. The testimony from Dr. Peterson and criminalist Kyo(both state witnesses), is supported by the exhibits offered by the state. Both clearly reference two knots, one of which is tied tightly within an inch of Connor's body. Which of these two knots (State's exhibit 253-I or E) are they referring to? 

You keep trying to spin this idea that the twine was simply wrapped loosely around Connor's body, which is totally contradicted by the testimony from your own witnesses and from your own exhibits.

6. I really don't think that's fair to say, Jerry. I started this thread, with the declaration that Scott Peterson was innocent. That alone opened me up to a great deal of criticism and brow-beating over these ~60 pages, from you and others. I'm still here. I didn't run away from anything. I've answered every question put to me. However many times you wish to make this a question of my courage or compare me to a schoolgirl is not going to affect my opinion; I know who I am. I'm not foolish enough to offer you an alternative scenario I can't prove. I don't know who killed Laci. If you think that's a coward's position, so be it. You're convinced that Scott did, so you have the obligation to prove him guilty. I'll freely acknowledge that Scott is the most logical suspect, but that's just not enough. Convictions require evidence.

PS - LOLOL. Another blue tarp?! Hide the fertilizer!!! That's a helluva catch, man. Good eye...

 

 

 

 

1. As always, we agree on the standard. Where we disagree is how the standard is applied. I've admitted that under our current system, you are free to vote as a juror to acquit Scott based on your interpretation of how to apply the standard. I've also admitted I adamantly oppose that freedom because I feel it allows a murderer too much latitude, but it is the statute that governs our justice system and I accept it, begrudgingly. The troubling part is that someone could vote to acquit or convict based on hate or like for a defendant in spite of the evidence presented. I think the reason we have 12 jurors is that the odds of all 12 liking or disliking is rare and the requirement of being unanimous tips things to fairness towards the accused. Now, we could both make a cogent case that the majority of jurors are not intelligent enough to be on a jury, but let's not go off in the weeds as we likely would agree on many of the defects of the current system.

At any rate, where we have the rub is that you refuse to accept that I have the right to presume guilt based on my interpretation of how to apply the standard. Proof does not equal presumption. You said a juror is not free to assume and I pointed out that they are free to presume and pointed out the difference. Now the argument changes to proof. There is no statute that requires proof as you define it. The statute allows a juror to presume guilt based on their interpretation of the evidence. So, they are free to presume he was lying, not because they think any one action was improbable, but because the individual explanations for odd behavior or action was not reasonable and the sum of the reasons/excuses for those actions were impossible. The fact that is takes twelve people and a judge to conclude the same thing to convict seems to not matter to you. You feel your interpretation is the only interpretation in spite of them. The appeal may answer the question if you are right or wrong, I just wonder if it is unsuccessful if that will change your mind on anything. 

2. I have answered these questions, you don't accept the answers. The evidence she was in the truck is the sum of presumptions.

No one saw or spoke to her after 8:30pm on the 23rd.

Scott was seen loading stuff in his truck on the 24th. 

In that bed were umbrellas no one can reasonably explain (for concealment) and a boat cover that was, in my opinion, saturated purposely with gasoline that no one can reasonably defend why.

I don't believe one ounce of his story in the home in the morning, in the warehouse, or in the home that evening before calling Sharon...everything filled with lies and behavior no one has reasonably explained.

Laci and Conner turning up in the bay with Laci appearing to have been there since 12/24  

No one offering up any reasonable alternative as to how Laci got there

The myriad lies and oddities leading up to her death and after that are well documented.

Bottom line...I've read every word you offered to refute these presumptions, I found them unreasonable. So, we're back to point one argument.

And no, I don't think the most logical inference is that Laci was on the computer. What is normal human behavior...two specific searches of things she likes but only one search page of one site. Most would click second pages of sites or different sites. Then the leap to San Jose weather, then Scott interrupting her about an e-mail. All in five minutes where he never mentioned computer use in a morning where she already had an improbable schedule. The most likely inference is that Scott clicked on her favorites link to appear it was her or it was on that page from the last activity. 

3. Not the only difference. The location and condition of the shed is the fundamental difference. If leaf blower and boat cover were in the patio shed with the blue tarp and near the truck and umbrellas, I'd be far more inclined to agree with you. You are right, I don't know exactly why the boat cover had gas on it. But I do know there are no reasonable alternatives to assuage my presumption of guilt.

5. Without autopsy photos to see the twine on the body, neither of us can say anything with real certainty. As for the assumption that the twine was placed there by an alternate killer, there's no evidence of ANY damage to the neck tissue nor is there any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for what purpose the twine would have had to an alternate killer tells me it was simple debris.

6. I don't expect you to prove an alternate theory with evidence, I'm just curious how you answer the question of "if not Scott, who?" You think he innocent, that is well documented and fairly well explained. Surely you are curious if he didn't do it, who was the most likely alternate suspect. The schoolgirl thing was more general, I think you argue this case like a defense attorney where it is better to try and create open ended doubt and leaving it lay there. I feel if you really are in pursuit of truth and justice, you have an alternate in mind. So there's the chasm between deftly arguing for Scott in a courtroom sense and the reality of what truly happened. Why not live a little, take a chance on the opposition not disliking you, just disliking your tone and style. You don't think these conversations would be more rewarding if there were more camaraderie and acceptance of the other side's opinions?

PS - I would imagine there is a LOT of similar details in the case file not available to either side that would clear up and yet add more angst to our discussions here. Setting guilt or innocence aside, this case is a detail-freak's dream and yet we only have 75% of the information. If they change the court system in any way, professional investigators gifted at sifting through evidence for both sides might be the first step. If they can take airplane debris or bomb fragments to tell us exactly what happened in those catastrophic events, surely we can learn more about these types of cases than we know. 

 

 

[Regi]

20 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Thanks regi! As to the Amber/Scott phone calls...oy, I wish you luck reading Scott's part of those. What. A. Tool. His supporters claim he never told her he loved her, but dude was smitten with her. Quoting poetry, talking about Agape, "there's a tear in my eye and it's trickling. Some other entries I found interesting...

"Oy" is right! In some of the calls I've read through (Jan 7, starting at 4:12pm), he kept saying to Frey that he couldn't tell her everything, a truth that would reveal his uninvolvement; now what kind of b. s. nonsense was that all about? (I haven't heard an excuse from supporters about that one, have you?)

Annnnnyway....

In my post before last, in that same recorded call, he also told Frey something else contrary to what he'd told Brocchini, that is, that "she (Laci) was having breakfast" when he got up, whereas, he'd told Brocchini that Laci had already had breakfast and told him so. Immediately following that, he told Frey "And then she was mopping the floor and ah...Martha Stewart was on after the Today Show. And I went through a couple of minutes of that and then left."

Another entry I found interesting was (Jan 12, 6:04pm) in which he told Frey that the Berkeley drive was an hour and 15 minutes.

Seriously- I haven't actually looked closely at this aspect before, but he took way too long to get back to the warehouse and then home, right?

Edit: I know he took a certain amount of time at the warehouse on the way back because he knew about that fax, I mean, needless to say, he had to have gone into the office area of the unit to have even known there was a fax.

Edited February 27, 2018 by regi

[Jerry Gallo]

2 hours ago, regi said:

"Oy" is right! In some of the calls I've read through (Jan 7, starting at 4:12pm), he kept saying to Frey that he couldn't tell her everything, a truth that would reveal his uninvolvement; now what kind of b. s. nonsense was that all about? (I haven't heard an excuse from supporters about that one, have you?)

Annnnnyway....

In my post before last, in that same recorded call, he also told Frey something else contrary to what he'd told Brocchini, that is, that "she (Laci) was having breakfast" when he got up, whereas, he'd told Brocchini that Laci had already had breakfast and told him so. Immediately following that, he told Frey "And then she was mopping the floor and ah...Martha Stewart was on after the Today Show. And I went through a couple of minutes of that and then left."

Another entry I found interesting was (Jan 12, 6:04pm) in which he told Frey that the Berkeley drive was an hour and 15 minutes.

Seriously- I haven't actually looked closely at this aspect before, but he took way too long to get back to the warehouse and then home, right?

Edit: I know he took a certain amount of time at the warehouse on the way back because he knew about that fax, I mean, needless to say, he had to have gone into the office area of the unit to have even known there was a fax.

No, but be sure there is one if you ask.

Many inconsistencies in his story between Brocchini interview and Amber tapes for sure. Not accurate in either in many cases.

The Berkeley drive was approximately 90 miles pulling a boat. Under the best conditions that's likely an hour and forty-five at best. We can also benchmark he made a call in Livermore at 3:52. That creates a question mark of why it took him an hour and seven minutes to drive the 17 miles between Castro Valley and Livermore. He said traffic, on Christmas eve. There's also the question of why he stopped in Livermore for gas being late, yet only getting $13.08 worth. Lastly, 46 miles from Livermore to warehouse with a little backtracking off the highway. So that puts him at warehouse 4:45ish. We don't know his actual arrival home, but I'd say 4:55ish off the top of my head. The big delay was the Livermore area. If you look at the maps, there are some bodies of water south of the highway with easy access and the gas stations likely had car washed with power sprayers. 

[Sly Humour]

On 2/26/2018 at 8:42 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

So, Scott is forgetful when it's convenient, yet also mindful when it's convenient. So, let's examine this further so see how much more you have to adjust Scott's actions to fit your fictional tale. 

1. If Laci knew about the boat, knew he was going fishing in Berkeley, and she was going to be out and about, why not just add that to her list of things to do beforehand? Or, why not call Amy and tell her he changed his plans and see if she could get it? Let's go with he was still planning to pick it up because why burden Laci with a 10th thing to do that day while he jacked around enjoying me time, right? Besides, 10:08a leave time, he had plenty of time to drive three hours and test the boat in sea water.

2. Now, in addition to forgetting those pesky umbrellas in the bed of a truck backed in to the warehouse to hook up the boat, he decides to spend his extra me time to send an e-mail and assemble the mortiser. Now he's leaving the warehouse at 11:00-11:25, giving him roughly 30-45 minutes to fish and still pick up the 3pm basket. Again, it's 3pm, not 4pm. Why not call Laci or Amy as he's leaving the warehouse, "got tied up at warehouse, just now leaving, probably won't make it back by 3pm"? 

3. Finally, at Berkeley at 12:54. Yet another opportunity to call and let Laci or Amy know it looks dicey. Called neither. 

4. On the 2:12 or 2:17 message, why no mention about "not only is the basket out, but I'm not even sure I will be back by 4pm to leave for dinner"?

5. Doesn't reach Laci on either phone, leaves messages, but Mr. Conscientious doesn't call Amy to ensure the basket is picked up or to see if Amy had spoken to Laci about it.

6. 3:52, he's in Livermore, 45 miles away from warehouse. So, even though he made three calls on the road back to Modesto, at some point between Castro Valley and Livermore when he hits traffic, the deadline to make it home on time expires. It doesn't occur to him that Laci hasn't called one time all day to break balls about the basket, get an update on his ETA. At 3:44, Amy calls and he ignores, misses, whatever. Doesn't bother to call her back or check in with her.

7. 4:35, Scott arrives at warehouse. Why not just go straight home to change clothes, then drop the boat off at the warehouse on the way to Sharon's? Especially the way you have to double back on the highway. Why no call saying "hey, if you wanna leave for your mom's, I can drive separate"?

8. 4:50, Laci's car is there, we know all that you ignore/excuse when he entered that gate. Add to that, no basket. We know he mentions two specifics that occur even to him at 5:15p that didn't at 4:50p. 

You protest people who assign suspicion to trivial things, yet you whitewash legitimate questions with BS excuses. All your matter-of-fact preening and extra flair for dramatic effect (prolific) doesn't change the fact this weasel backs you into a corner on every issue. I'm sure my best friend agrees.    

  

 

I love the way you and Regi work as a tag team with your posts. It’s much more entertaining than Wrestlemania. And the frequency with which you click on each other’s Love button suggests that it’s only a matter of time before both of you wind up at the Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas mumbling your wedding vows in front of Aunt Yolanda.
Regi’s dog could be the ring bearer!

There’s no argument from me that Amy told Scott the night before to pick up the basket between noon and 3pm. However, 4pm was the gift basket deadline when Vella Farms closed for the day, unless you think its standard retail practise on Christmas Eve for shops to call their customers 45 minutes after they close instead of 15 minutes before, to remind them to swing by. We even have Amy second guessing the closing time on the stand with Distaso and then admitting that the Farm was closing up when she walked in the door just after four. I should have phrased it differently in the post regarding Scott, but no one is perfect. You’ve proved that a hundred times already.

 

1.  The arrangement had been made the night before at the salon for Scott to pick up the basket, not his wife, and not Amy.  So that was the plan. And at the time he left for the warehouse the next morning he would have had ample time to make the round-trip to Berkeley Marina and pick up the basket on the way there. Therefore it wasn’t necessary for Scott and Laci to discuss other options in the morning.

2.  Meanwhile the argument can be made that by the time Scott arrived at the warehouse around 10:08 he had already forgotten about the appointment. Since he left the warehouse with the boat around 11:20 there was clearly not enough time for him to drive to Berkeley first, launch a boat for an hour, and then pick up the basket on the way back by 3pm. So the obvious solution would be to pick up the basket on the way out to the Marina and then everything would work out just fine. But the fact that he didn’t do that is a very strong indication that he had forgotten about the appointment altogether.

Now I’ll stipulate that Scott Peterson was a forgetful guy at times if you stipulate that he had a lot on his mind in the month of December. I’m certain that we both agree he was having an affair with Amber Frey and trying to hide his marriage from her while at the same time probably trying to hide the affair from his wife as well. A licensed neurologist will tell you that this kind of complicated ongoing subterfuge would likely increase the level of forgetfulness in the average human being.  And since he forgets to offload the umbrellas twice in one day, it’s not unreasonable to consider that he forgets that he has to swing by Vella Farms for the basket as well.

3.  Scott arrives at Berkeley and puts the boat in the water at 12:54. He still hasn’t remembered the appointment yet which is why he doesn’t call anyone to pick up the basket for him.

4.  His plan was to be back at the marina around 13:45, on his way by 14:00, at the warehouse around 15:45, and home by 16:00 to take a quick shower and change, but he’s running almost 15 minutes behind when he pulls the boat out of the water and climbs into the truck. And if he happens to run into any Christmas Eve traffic along the way then he’s really screwed. So as he drives out of the parking lot he knows he’s going to be late arriving home, traffic or not.

He checks his voicemail at 14:12 and this is the moment when he suddenly remembers the appointment. He realizes that he won’t be able to pick up the basket on time and so he immediately dials the home number first and when Laci doesn’t answer he calls her cell phone and leaves the message asking her to pick up the basket for him. At this point he considers the basket issue potentially resolved unless she calls him back to say that she can’t do it. 

5.  He doesn’t need to call Amy and have her pick up the basket because he just left a message for Laci asking her to do it.

6.  In the meantime, he calls his friend, he calls his dad, and he decides to make a quick stop in Livermore for a sandwich because the Cinnamon Puffs from 8am have long since worn off. So he pulls into a Chevron and pays cash for a Ham & Swiss and then he either tops off the F150 or the boat tank at the pump with his debit card. Might as well since he’s there.

Meanwhile, Laci hasn’t called back to tell him that she can’t pick up the basket, and since he didn’t ask for a callback, he’s not too concerned and probably even a bit relieved that she’s bailing him out. Meanwhile, Vella Farms contacts Amy at 15:45 to inquire about the basket because they are closing in 15 minutes (that would be 4pm by the way) and after she hangs up the phone with them she calls Scott on his cell phone and the home phone but he doesn’t answer. Meanwhile Scott decides to call Laci again at 15:52 to let her know that he won’t be arriving home by 16:00 because traffic on the way back from the Bay is bumper to bumper after all. It’s also possible he places this call shortly after leaving the Chevron and if that’s the case then the reason why he missed the call from Amy is because the cell phone was in the truck while he was topping up the tank and Amy didn’t think to leave a message.

7.  If the whole point of meeting Laci at 16:00 was to head over to the Rocha’s early (which Scott’s statement in the recorded conversation between him and Frey suggests) the obvious reason why he doesn’t go home first, then drop off the boat, and then drive to the Rocha’s house is because this would actually take even longer considering the close proximity of Emerald Ave to a driver inbound from the west on the 132 or the 99.  

8.  He arrives home over 45 minutes late and heads inside to shower and change. The Land Rover is in the driveway, the dog is in the back yard with the leash still attached, and the French doors are unlocked. Maybe Inspector Gallo would immediately assume that something truly horrific has happened here and it’s time to call up the National Guard, but Scott Peterson is a fertilizer salesman, not a soothsayer. Besides, these things make perfect sense to him if Laci is already home from Vella Farms and just brought the dog back from a quick one at the fire hydrant three doors down.   

He dumps the bucket outside so the cats don’t lap up the Lysol. He inhales the slice of Garlic Tuscon and gargles the milk after flipping the rags out of the washer for his soiled clothing (which any paralegal will tell you is incontrovertible proof of murder).

He doesn’t see the basket on the kitchen table and figures she left it in the Land Rover. It’s a basket not a boomerang so why would she make the round-trip with it from her car to the house and back to her car again when she can just leave it there for later when they split for dinner at the Rocha’s. 

And how do I conclude that they were probably planning to take the Land Rover?

It’s Christmas Eve, men usually drink, and she’s pregnant. Who do you think the likely designated driver is going to be… Santa Claus?

He takes a quick shower and then pulls on the some clean clothes. There’s still no sign of Laci in the house and he wonders if maybe Ron picked her up earlier and she's already over there now. That would make sense because she wanted to be over there early to help Sharon with the dinner and since Scott is the tardy fool he can find his own way over there now. Then again maybe she went next door with a plate of gingerbread cookies to wish Karen a Merry Christmas… only there is no smell of gingerbread in the house. Wait a second…?

He starts thinking about Ron again and it seems strange that she would leave with him and not lock the French doors or take the leash off the dog. He looks around the kitchen and inside the fridge to see if there is French toast marinating in there, or some gingerbread cookies in a container on the counter, but he finds nothing. He goes into the master bedroom and opens the closet door and right there is Laci’s purse. Something is off here.

By this time it’s 17:15 and Scott goes straight to the answering machine and plays back the three messages that have not been listened to yet. Two from him and one from Ron asking Laci to pick up some whipped cream on the way. He thinks to himself that something is definitely wrong here now. He picks up the phone and dials Sharon at 17:17 and asks her if Laci is over there with her and Ron. And when Sharon tells him that she’s not, the alarm bells start going off in his head.

Now, he certainly could have said to Sharon that Laci was away, absent, misplaced, lost, astray, or any of the other 18 plus words in the thesaurus to describe the fact that she appeared to missing, but it looks like he simply decided to use the word missing.  

And the miscarriage of justice unfolded from there.

 

Meanwhile, the only fictional tale that exists in the entire Scott Peterson saga is the colossal one that the prosecution sold to a hostile jury in San Mateo County… and obviously to you too.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

8 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 

I love the way you and Regi work as a tag team with your posts. It’s much more entertaining than Wrestlemania. And the frequency with which you click on each other’s Love button suggests that it’s only a matter of time before both of you wind up at the Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas mumbling your wedding vows in front of Aunt Yolanda.
Regi’s dog could be the ring bearer!

There’s no argument from me that Amy told Scott the night before to pick up the basket between noon and 3pm. However, 4pm was the gift basket deadline when Vella Farms closed for the day, unless you think its standard retail practise on Christmas Eve for shops to call their customers 45 minutes after they close instead of 15 minutes before, to remind them to swing by. We even have Amy second guessing the closing time on the stand with Distaso and then admitting that the Farm was closing up when she walked in the door just after four. I should have phrased it differently in the post regarding Scott, but no one is perfect. You’ve proved that a hundred times already.

 

1.  The arrangement had been made the night before at the salon for Scott to pick up the basket, not his wife, and not Amy.  So that was the plan. And at the time he left for the warehouse the next morning he would have had ample time to make the round-trip to Berkeley Marina and pick up the basket on the way there. Therefore it wasn’t necessary for Scott and Laci to discuss other options in the morning.

2.  Meanwhile the argument can be made that by the time Scott arrived at the warehouse around 10:08 he had already forgotten about the appointment. Since he left the warehouse with the boat around 11:20 there was clearly not enough time for him to drive to Berkeley first, launch a boat for an hour, and then pick up the basket on the way back by 3pm. So the obvious solution would be to pick up the basket on the way out to the Marina and then everything would work out just fine. But the fact that he didn’t do that is a very strong indication that he had forgotten about the appointment altogether.

Now I’ll stipulate that Scott Peterson was a forgetful guy at times if you stipulate that he had a lot on his mind in the month of December. I’m certain that we both agree he was having an affair with Amber Frey and trying to hide his marriage from her while at the same time probably trying to hide the affair from his wife as well. A licensed neurologist will tell you that this kind of complicated ongoing subterfuge would likely increase the level of forgetfulness in the average human being.  And since he forgets to offload the umbrellas twice in one day, it’s not unreasonable to consider that he forgets that he has to swing by Vella Farms for the basket as well.

3.  Scott arrives at Berkeley and puts the boat in the water at 12:54. He still hasn’t remembered the appointment yet which is why he doesn’t call anyone to pick up the basket for him.

4.  His plan was to be back at the marina around 13:45, on his way by 14:00, at the warehouse around 15:45, and home by 16:00 to take a quick shower and change, but he’s running almost 15 minutes behind when he pulls the boat out of the water and climbs into the truck. And if he happens to run into any Christmas Eve traffic along the way then he’s really screwed. So as he drives out of the parking lot he knows he’s going to be late arriving home, traffic or not.

He checks his voicemail at 14:12 and this is the moment when he suddenly remembers the appointment. He realizes that he won’t be able to pick up the basket on time and so he immediately dials the home number first and when Laci doesn’t answer he calls her cell phone and leaves the message asking her to pick up the basket for him. At this point he considers the basket issue potentially resolved unless she calls him back to say that she can’t do it. 

5.  He doesn’t need to call Amy and have her pick up the basket because he just left a message for Laci asking her to do it.

6.  In the meantime, he calls his friend, he calls his dad, and he decides to make a quick stop in Livermore for a sandwich because the Cinnamon Puffs from 8am have long since worn off. So he pulls into a Chevron and pays cash for a Ham & Swiss and then he either tops off the F150 or the boat tank at the pump with his debit card. Might as well since he’s there.

Meanwhile, Laci hasn’t called back to tell him that she can’t pick up the basket, and since he didn’t ask for a callback, he’s not too concerned and probably even a bit relieved that she’s bailing him out. Meanwhile, Vella Farms contacts Amy at 15:45 to inquire about the basket because they are closing in 15 minutes (that would be 4pm by the way) and after she hangs up the phone with them she calls Scott on his cell phone and the home phone but he doesn’t answer. Meanwhile Scott decides to call Laci again at 15:52 to let her know that he won’t be arriving home by 16:00 because traffic on the way back from the Bay is bumper to bumper after all. It’s also possible he places this call shortly after leaving the Chevron and if that’s the case then the reason why he missed the call from Amy is because the cell phone was in the truck while he was topping up the tank and Amy didn’t think to leave a message.

7.  If the whole point of meeting Laci at 16:00 was to head over to the Rocha’s early (which Scott’s statement in the recorded conversation between him and Frey suggests) the obvious reason why he doesn’t go home first, then drop off the boat, and then drive to the Rocha’s house is because this would actually take even longer considering the close proximity of Emerald Ave to a driver inbound from the west on the 132 or the 99.  

8.  He arrives home over 45 minutes late and heads inside to shower and change. The Land Rover is in the driveway, the dog is in the back yard with the leash still attached, and the French doors are unlocked. Maybe Inspector Gallo would immediately assume that something truly horrific has happened here and it’s time to call up the National Guard, but Scott Peterson is a fertilizer salesman, not a soothsayer. Besides, these things make perfect sense to him if Laci is already home from Vella Farms and just brought the dog back from a quick one at the fire hydrant three doors down.   

He dumps the bucket outside so the cats don’t lap up the Lysol. He inhales the slice of Garlic Tuscon and gargles the milk after flipping the rags out of the washer for his soiled clothing (which any paralegal will tell you is incontrovertible proof of murder).

He doesn’t see the basket on the kitchen table and figures she left it in the Land Rover. It’s a basket not a boomerang so why would she make the round-trip with it from her car to the house and back to her car again when she can just leave it there for later when they split for dinner at the Rocha’s. 

And how do I conclude that they were probably planning to take the Land Rover?

It’s Christmas Eve, men usually drink, and she’s pregnant. Who do you think the likely designated driver is going to be… Santa Claus?

He takes a quick shower and then pulls on the some clean clothes. There’s still no sign of Laci in the house and he wonders if maybe Ron picked her up earlier and she's already over there now. That would make sense because she wanted to be over there early to help Sharon with the dinner and since Scott is the tardy fool he can find his own way over there now. Then again maybe she went next door with a plate of gingerbread cookies to wish Karen a Merry Christmas… only there is no smell of gingerbread in the house. Wait a second…?

He starts thinking about Ron again and it seems strange that she would leave with him and not lock the French doors or take the leash off the dog. He looks around the kitchen and inside the fridge to see if there is French toast marinating in there, or some gingerbread cookies in a container on the counter, but he finds nothing. He goes into the master bedroom and opens the closet door and right there is Laci’s purse. Something is off here.

By this time it’s 17:15 and Scott goes straight to the answering machine and plays back the three messages that have not been listened to yet. Two from him and one from Ron asking Laci to pick up some whipped cream on the way. He thinks to himself that something is definitely wrong here now. He picks up the phone and dials Sharon at 17:17 and asks her if Laci is over there with her and Ron. And when Sharon tells him that she’s not, the alarm bells start going off in his head.

Now, he certainly could have said to Sharon that Laci was away, absent, misplaced, lost, astray, or any of the other 18 plus words in the thesaurus to describe the fact that she appeared to missing, but it looks like he simply decided to use the word missing.  

And the miscarriage of justice unfolded from there.

 

Meanwhile, the only fictional tale that exists in the entire Scott Peterson saga is the colossal one that the prosecution sold to a hostile jury in San Mateo County… and obviously to you too.

 

"Men usually drink"...your posts certainly give that thought merit! 

[Regi]

On 2/27/2018 at 5:12 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

Many inconsistencies in his story between Brocchini interview and Amber tapes for sure. Not accurate in either in many cases.

Re: the blood on the door of the truck, I've since read through the taped call with Det. Grogan in which Peterson told him the same thing he later told Amber, that is, that the injury occurred when he reached into the pocket on the door. In other words, he told both Grogan and Amber that a cut occurred that day, but there no mention that the cut was from reaching into his toolbox.

On 2/27/2018 at 5:12 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

The Berkeley drive was approximately 90 miles pulling a boat. Under the best conditions that's likely an hour and forty-five at best.

I agree it would have been reckless to have traveled over the rated speed for that particular trailer, but that isn't enough to convince me that he actually hadn't. 

On 2/27/2018 at 5:12 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

We can also benchmark he made a call in Livermore at 3:52. That creates a question mark of why it took him an hour and seven minutes to drive the 17 miles between Castro Valley and Livermore. He said traffic, on Christmas eve. There's also the question of why he stopped in Livermore for gas being late, yet only getting $13.08 worth. Lastly, 46 miles from Livermore to warehouse with a little backtracking off the highway. So that puts him at warehouse 4:45ish. We don't know his actual arrival home, but I'd say 4:55ish off the top of my head. The big delay was the Livermore area. If you look at the maps, there are some bodies of water south of the highway with easy access and the gas stations likely had car washed with power sprayers. 

This is very interesting! Of course, I remember your suggestion about the possibility of him having used a carwash, and I see now that you're absolutely correct about there having been a big delay in the Livermore area. (I actually hadn't seen the cell tower info., and so I hadn't correlated that with the cell calls.)

What's the source of the $13.08 gas purchase? I've searched through the exhibits but didn't find anything.

Edited March 1, 2018 by regi

[Jerry Gallo]

6 hours ago, regi said:

Re: the blood on the door of the truck, I've since read through the taped call with Det. Grogan in which Peterson told him the same thing he later told Amber, that is, that the injury occurred when he reached into the pocket on the door. In other words, he told both Grogan and Amber that a cut occurred that day, but there no mention that the cut was from reaching into his toolbox.

I agree it would have been reckless to have traveled over the rated speed for that particular trailer, but that isn't enough to convince me that he actually hadn't. 

This is very interesting! Of course, I remember your suggestion about the possibility of him having used a carwash, and I see now that you're absolutely correct about there having been a big delay in the Livermore area. (I actually hadn't seen the cell tower info., and so I hadn't correlated that with the cell calls.)

What's the source of the $13.08 gas purchase? I've searched through the exhibits but didn't find anything.

Defense exhibit 7D

[Regi]

15 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Defense exhibit 7D

So first, I had to find the defense exhibits; I realized that I hadn't noticed that I've been studying only the people's exhibits, that the defense exhibits are accessible only through that supporter website.

Anyway, re: Def. Ex. 7D, whaaaaat?! Never mind that something such as that would be allowed entered into evidence, but in the first place, what could possibly be the value? I'm at a loss!

[Booth]

On 2/27/2018 at 9:28 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

1. As always, we agree on the standard. Where we disagree is how the standard is applied. I've admitted that under our current system, you are free to vote as a juror to acquit Scott based on your interpretation of how to apply the standard. I've also admitted I adamantly oppose that freedom because I feel it allows a murderer too much latitude, but it is the statute that governs our justice system and I accept it, begrudgingly. The troubling part is that someone could vote to acquit or convict based on hate or like for a defendant in spite of the evidence presented. I think the reason we have 12 jurors is that the odds of all 12 liking or disliking is rare and the requirement of being unanimous tips things to fairness towards the accused. Now, we could both make a cogent case that the majority of jurors are not intelligent enough to be on a jury, but let's not go off in the weeds as we likely would agree on many of the defects of the current system.

At any rate, where we have the rub is that you refuse to accept that I have the right to presume guilt based on my interpretation of how to apply the standard. Proof does not equal presumption. You said a juror is not free to assume and I pointed out that they are free to presume and pointed out the difference. Now the argument changes to proof. There is no statute that requires proof as you define it. The statute allows a juror to presume guilt based on their interpretation of the evidence. So, they are free to presume he was lying, not because they think any one action was improbable, but because the individual explanations for odd behavior or action was not reasonable and the sum of the reasons/excuses for those actions were impossible. The fact that is takes twelve people and a judge to conclude the same thing to convict seems to not matter to you. You feel your interpretation is the only interpretation in spite of them. The appeal may answer the question if you are right or wrong, I just wonder if it is unsuccessful if that will change your mind on anything. 

2. I have answered these questions, you don't accept the answers. The evidence she was in the truck is the sum of presumptions.

No one saw or spoke to her after 8:30pm on the 23rd.

Scott was seen loading stuff in his truck on the 24th. 

In that bed were umbrellas no one can reasonably explain (for concealment) and a boat cover that was, in my opinion, saturated purposely with gasoline that no one can reasonably defend why.

I don't believe one ounce of his story in the home in the morning, in the warehouse, or in the home that evening before calling Sharon...everything filled with lies and behavior no one has reasonably explained.

Laci and Conner turning up in the bay with Laci appearing to have been there since 12/24  

No one offering up any reasonable alternative as to how Laci got there

The myriad lies and oddities leading up to her death and after that are well documented.

Bottom line...I've read every word you offered to refute these presumptions, I found them unreasonable. So, we're back to point one argument.

And no, I don't think the most logical inference is that Laci was on the computer. What is normal human behavior...two specific searches of things she likes but only one search page of one site. Most would click second pages of sites or different sites. Then the leap to San Jose weather, then Scott interrupting her about an e-mail. All in five minutes where he never mentioned computer use in a morning where she already had an improbable schedule. The most likely inference is that Scott clicked on her favorites link to appear it was her or it was on that page from the last activity. 

3. Not the only difference. The location and condition of the shed is the fundamental difference. If leaf blower and boat cover were in the patio shed with the blue tarp and near the truck and umbrellas, I'd be far more inclined to agree with you. You are right, I don't know exactly why the boat cover had gas on it. But I do know there are no reasonable alternatives to assuage my presumption of guilt.

5. Without autopsy photos to see the twine on the body, neither of us can say anything with real certainty. As for the assumption that the twine was placed there by an alternate killer, there's no evidence of ANY damage to the neck tissue nor is there any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for what purpose the twine would have had to an alternate killer tells me it was simple debris.

6. I don't expect you to prove an alternate theory with evidence, I'm just curious how you answer the question of "if not Scott, who?" You think he innocent, that is well documented and fairly well explained. Surely you are curious if he didn't do it, who was the most likely alternate suspect. The schoolgirl thing was more general, I think you argue this case like a defense attorney where it is better to try and create open ended doubt and leaving it lay there. I feel if you really are in pursuit of truth and justice, you have an alternate in mind. So there's the chasm between deftly arguing for Scott in a courtroom sense and the reality of what truly happened. Why not live a little, take a chance on the opposition not disliking you, just disliking your tone and style. You don't think these conversations would be more rewarding if there were more camaraderie and acceptance of the other side's opinions?

PS - I would imagine there is a LOT of similar details in the case file not available to either side that would clear up and yet add more angst to our discussions here. Setting guilt or innocence aside, this case is a detail-freak's dream and yet we only have 75% of the information. If they change the court system in any way, professional investigators gifted at sifting through evidence for both sides might be the first step. If they can take airplane debris or bomb fragments to tell us exactly what happened in those catastrophic events, surely we can learn more about these types of cases than we know. 

 

 

1. Do you think Scott being endlessly vilified by the media in the several months leading up to trial might have impacted the ability of the court to find 12 impartial jurors? I think it would've been difficult to find 12 jurors in that area who didn't hate Scott. And those impaneled who didn't seem to hate him, who were willing to look at the evidence objectively, were removed with little or no cause.

You do not(nor do jurors) have the right to presume guilt. You and they have the obligation to presume innocence. No offense intended, but this post leads me to think you don't quite understand the word "presume". Presumption is the opposite of proof! 

2. There can be no presumptions, and therefore no "sum" of presumptions. What you have are questions. Why was Laci found in the bay? Why were the umbrellas in the truck? Why was there gasoline on the boat cover? The state has the sole obligation to provide evidence to answer those questions, whether the defense offers an alternative explanation or not. To assume/presume these answers is rank conjecture and speculation. Consider: How do you know Laci wasn't placed in the back seat rather than the truck bed?

On the computer activity, you make further assumptions about what you think most people would do. Even if you think Laci didn't likely do those searches, you have to acknowledge that the scenario I offered is a perfectly reasonable alternative. 

3. See #1 and 2.

5. This is simply not true. We have the photos and the testimony of the state's experts, Dr. Peterson and criminalist Kyo. Are you just going to ignore all of that? The twine was within an inch of Connor's neck. Kyo closely examined the knots, one of them a tight overhand, and took several clear photographs of them, which I linked for you. They show us exactly what was tied around Connor's neck. EXACTLY. You are ignoring/dismissing this evidence because it does not support your beliefs.

So as to the question of whether this conversation would be more rewarding if there was more camaraderie and consideration of other's opinions, I agree that it would. But it has to start with intellectual honesty. There's a reason I stopped responding to your friend several pages ago. You have to offer some reasonable explanation, within the laws of physics, as to how that twine was knotted tightly within an inch of Connor's neck. Look at that knot. You can't seriously claim that was tied by tidal action.

6. Fair enough. I think the Medina burglars represent credible alternative suspects. This theory has holes in it as well, and it hasn't been thoroughly investigated or evaluated under oath. Based on what I've seen, I couldn't find them guilty either, but for those who place high value in suspicious coincidences, there's a lot to look at.

I believe Scott is factually innocent, yes. Now, if I were forced to correctly identify Laci's killer with a gun to my head, my answer would be: Scott Peterson. He's clearly the most logical suspect. That being said, I can not believe for a moment that it happened the way the prosecution alleged. There's too many unanswered questions.