Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?


Booth

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, regi said:

And subsequent to that you learn that no one who knew Laci has reported to have seen or spoken to her since the night before.

 

Wrong. I learn that her husband both saw and spoke with her the next morning before he left for the warehouse. And at this preliminary stage of a missing person report I have no business assuming anything one way or another regarding the credibility of his statements to me.

Meanwhile, it is not necessary for any of the witnesses who observed Laci walking the dog to actually know her for their observations to be credible. If I happen to notice a very pregnant you walking that beautiful Labrador Retriever of yours down a residential street in Houston as I drive past one morning, there is no doubt in my mind that if I see a photo of you on a flyer several days later I will recognise you as the woman I saw despite having never met you.
 

Edited by Sly Humour
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

It's been obvious to me that rather than have a serious discussion, you'd rather play games.

 

Humor me, and I'll give you a serious response.

 

Edited by Sly Humour
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

It's the way you ask questions that dictate how you are received.

Todd and Pearce were white, not short and dark skinned. If you think Todd and Pearce gathered three friends within 70 minutes, which requires knowing that the Medinas were leaving at 10:32am, had those three friends milling around in broad daylight while Todd and Pearce were out of sight, then took the rap for the burglary but mentioned nothing about the friends and the van, that's your prerogative. I find it ludicrous. As for putting two and two together, how honest are you being about this? Diane saw people on the lawn on that block. Sees a safe. Doesn't put two and two together that the Medinas safe was in the yard with three people who aren't the Medinas. She then hears about Laci. She doesn't put two and two together about the people she saw the minute she finds out about Laci disappearing that very morning from directly across the street, she puts it together when she hears about the burglary. Somehow, robbery equals kidnap and murder. The "hmmm, that's weird" realization should have come long before it did. You can't understand all that?

Point to anything in Todd's criminal history that indicated he had the intelligence or means to frame Scott when he was well known to police as a bumbling criminal. How many killers do you know whose primary transportation is a bike? How many meth heads do you know that are detail oriented enough to frame someone perfectly...except for the twine. This is request two for you to explain this.

I corrected myself and your still whining. Do you think the police set up a checkpoint, stopping anyone traveling that street to ask their business? Todd rides his bike up the street, sees a car missing. What is impossible to believe about that? You think there was some hyper vigilant mob out there that would have jumped Todd riding his bike through there? Why? As for how he knew, I don't know if he always saw two cars there previously or what. What I do know is that however unlikely you feel his story is, deciding to rob a home 70 minutes after the owners leave, with friends, is INFINITELY more unlikely. He was casing the place in spite of how many people out on that block that morning? 

You may be right, maybe Ted the Head couldn't have testified. Plenty of pundits raising questions during the trial. Nary a word from Ted in his media spots mentioning there being no chance the burglary happened when it did. Why not? Another person putting two and two together, this time a decade later? Career stagnated, he's become an opportunist.

I also called Scott a liar. Now, if you want to discuss hypocrisy, you trust every word of every person whose input supports Scott, though most didn't testify, but you rip an entire police department as co-conspirators who did an awful job. You sully anyone having anything to do with Scott's conviction. Guess you are virtuous? 

Never commented on the porn from a popularity or normality perspective. You said he was so traumatized living on Covena that he had to sell his house. Simply pointing out, he can chill enough to self-gratify in that house, just can't eat a sammich there. 

I’m not whining - you are just STILL missing my point about Todd’s story about the 25th.  I’m not saying that the people on Covena would have stopped him and questioned him.  I’m saying that no criminal with half a brain would choose a house on Covena to rob on the 25th.  Do you REALLY think he thought – gee – I’m going to go back to that house that only had one car in the driveway on that street with all those cops, cop cars, media and people and rob that house?  Let’s be real.  Todd could not have known on December 25th by passing by the Medinas on the 25th that they weren’t home.  None of Todd’s claim about how and when he decided on the Medina house to rob makes any sense.  Because it didn’t happen that way.  One car in the driveway does not in any way indicate that no one is home.  There is only one car in my driveway right now – and someone is home.  Sometimes there are no cars in my driveway and someone is home.  Even if he “always saw two cars there” – how did he know that both of them were not home? There was no mail in the mailbox to be seen on the 25th.   The only mail he could have seen sticking out of their secure mailbox was the outgoing mail that was only there from 10:15-ish on the 24th until the mailman came by and collected it on the 24th between 10:35 and 10:50.   Todd’s own description of the Medina home place him on Covena on the 24th.  He was very likely on Covena when the Medinas were leaving.

I think Todd was there on the 24th.  I think he saw the Medinas leaving.  I think he saw them check their outgoing mail as they left.  I think he saw them leave in their loaded up car.  He knew they were leaving for a while.  He called his buddies with the van – or maybe he was already with them in the white van – maybe they followed the Medinas to the freeway, saw them enter the entrance ramp and came back to the house.  Driving up they saw the mail was gone…..bingo – mailman’s been there and gone.  Only two other people home on that street – Covena was quiet on the 24th.  Perfect time to rob the Medina home.  Until Laci returned from her walk.  Makes a whole lot more sense than Todd’s ridiculous story.

I don’t know why you find it hard to believe that Todd could round up 3 people in 70 minutes.  Pearce’s home where he was staying in the airport district, was a 5 minute bike ride from the Medina home.  You don’t really think that Todd’s gang member buddies had 8-5 jobs do you? You can choose to buy into the prosecution’s claim that Todd never drove a vehicle and only rode a bicycle.  But you should try checking the online Stanislaus County Court Index and punch Steven Todd’s name into the search box.  He has at last 5 charges of driving without a license.  I doubt he was given those tickets while on his bicycle.  More smoke and mirrors from the prosecution.  You seem to be under the false assumption that all drug addicted criminals are stupid.  But Todd’s intelligence level and even his criminal history is irrelevant.  He CLEARLY did not transport all of those items on his bicycle by himself.  And thanks to the MPD’s bang up job of investigating the burglary – we don’t know anything about the people who helped him.    And yeah – I think he would keep his mouth shut about who helped him.  I think whoever helped him was someone to be feared.  Snitches get stitches babe.  And even worse in the gang life of the airport district of Modesto. 

So again – because Diane Jackson didn’t associate that van with Laci’s disappearance she’s lying?  Why would she associate the van with Laci’s disappearance?  She didn’t see Laci with them.  You know everyone is different.  Some people think crime right off the bat – others don’t.  You’re attempt to discredit Diane Jackson is coming off a little bit desperate.     

Nah – Ted Rowlands isn’t an opportunist.  I think he’s just finally convinced of Scott’s innocence and felt compelled to find the courage to speak out about what he saw (or didn’t see).   Speaking out in defense of Scott Peterson can be a career killer – especially for a media person in northern California. 

I don’t trust every word of every person whose input supports Scott.  But when all of that input paints a very clear picture – and every puzzle piece fits together without having to call multiple people a liar or having to throw puzzle pieces out – that’s called corroboration – and each gives credibility to the other.

So now I have to be virtuous to call out a pathetic police investigation?  I never said the entire MPD were co-conspirators.  I never used the word traumatized to describe Scott’s emotional state when thinking about selling the house.  You’re so dramatic!  I’m not a guy – but I hear self-gratification is a stress reliever.  So in your world – no one wants to self-gratify when their world has been turned upside down?  Duly noted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, regi said:

I know there was activity that morning w/family and friends at the house and that police were still searching the neighborhood that day, but I don't know what Brent was referring to re: the media coming out to the house because the way I understand it, there was a press conference held that afternoon at the police station.

What time of day did Todd say he rode by?

He did not give a specific time.  But he said he rode from his mother's down Covena on Christmas day.  Met up with Pearce.  Then he rode over to his kids house on Tioga and stayed there with friends and family.  Then he went back to Pearce's house until 3:00 am when he decided to go back to the Medina home.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Hicks.htm

Volunteers, friends, family and police had shown up at the Peterson home by 8:00 am on the 25th.  The media had descended by 11:30 am and Brent and two of Laci's friends talked to the media outside on the front lawn.  There was a press conference at the police station later that afternoon.  Family members were present but did not speak.  Scott was at the police station between 1:30 and 4:00 talking to Mansfield, the polygraph examiner.  Officer David Corder and others were searching Covena and the surrounding area with canines.   Brocchini and Buehler were at the Petersons by 7 or 8 am.  Buehler was still there at 11:30 because that's when he interviewed Karen Servas.  Family and friends were still at the Petersons that evening.  I don't know what time the search was called off that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lsmith510 said:

I’m not whining - you are just STILL missing my point about Todd’s story about the 25th I am well aware of your point, I just disagree with you.  I’m not saying that the people on Covena would have stopped him and questioned him.  I’m saying that no criminal with half a brain would choose a house on Covena to rob on the 25th. Can we agree that Todd being a meth-head, who hasn't owned a car in seven years, who lives in a shanty behind a trailer, who was a career lowlife, probably has an IQ in the lower 25% of Americans? Do you REALLY think he thought – gee – I’m going to go back to that house that only had one car in the driveway on that street with all those cops, cop cars, media and people and rob that house? Let’s be real. I'm being real. I think it is infinitely more likely it happened the way Todd said than the way you said.  Todd could not have known on December 25th by passing by the Medinas on the 25th that they weren’t home. But he could have suspected. None of Todd’s claim about how and when he decided on the Medina house to rob makes any sense. To you.  Because it didn’t happen that way. It could have and likely did.  One car in the driveway does not in any way indicate that no one is home. On Christmas Day, it actually does. Either the gathering is at your house or someone else's.  There is only one car in my driveway right now – and someone is home.  Sometimes there are no cars in my driveway and someone is home.  Even if he “always saw two cars there” – how did he know that both of them were not home?  I don't think he knew. He suspected. There was no mail in the mailbox to be seen on the 25th.  Agree with this IF Graybill's timeline was accurate.  The only mail he could have seen sticking out of their secure mailbox was the outgoing mail that was only there from 10:15-ish on the 24th until the mailman came by and collected it on the 24th between 10:35-10:50.  Todd’s own description of the Medina home place him on Covena on the 24th.  He was very likely on Covena when the Medinas were leaving. Frankly, I have issues with "mail" stories from both Todd and Medina. Susan testified on direct that she placed outgoing mail in the box. On cross, she says Rudy put it in there. If it's a security mailbox, I doubt Todd could see it from the street. I don't the mail thing is valid to either side, to me it's a complete non-issue.

I think Todd was there on the 24th. I know! I think he saw the Medinas leaving. I think he saw them check their outgoing mail as they left.  I think he saw them leave in their loaded up car.  He knew they were leaving for a while. Sorry, but this is a reach. A lot of speculation that requires a few leaps. Where was he when he saw this? How long was he in this spot? Why did neither Medina see him? What was loaded up about their car?  He called his buddies with the van With what, doubtful he had a cell phone – or maybe he was already with them in the white van that Medina's, Krigbaum, or Servas didn't notice? – maybe they followed the Medinas to the freeway , saw them enter the entrance ramp and came back to the house. Seriously doubt this. Driving up they saw the mail was gone…..bingo – mailman’s been there and gone. No, for the same reason I doubt Todd's version  Only two other people home on that street – Covena was quiet on the 24th.  Perfect time to rob the Medina home. How would Todd possibly know this?  Until Laci returned from her walk.  Makes a whole lot more sense than Todd’s ridiculous story. Actually, it doesn't to me. Not even close in fact. 

I don’t know why you find it hard to believe that Todd could round up 3 people in 70 minutes. And I don't know why you believe what you do.  Pearce’s home where he was staying in the airport district, was a 5 minute bike ride from the Medina home. Careful now, you just might impeach other theories here about getting all that stolen gear to Tenaya if he could have made at least 10-15 trips in the dark of night.  You don’t really think that Todd’s gang member buddies had 8-5 jobs do you? Nope. Don't think they ride around in a van at 10:30am on call for burglary assistance either. You can choose to buy into the prosecution’s claim that Todd never drove a vehicle and only rode a bicycle.  But you should try checking the online Stanislaus County Court Index and punch Steven Todd’s name into the search box.  He has at last 5 charges of driving without a license.  I doubt he was given those tickets while on his bicycle.  More smoke and mirrors from the prosecution. The last one was in 1997, nearly five full years before this case. Guess if you want to split hairs and call Hicks a liar, that is your prerogative, seems petty to argue over the first two years of the seven.  You seem to be under the false assumption that all drug addicted criminals are stupid. But Todd’s intelligence level and even his criminal history is irrelevant. He CLEARLY did not transport all of those items on his bicycle by himself.  And thanks to the MPD’s bang up job of investigating the burglary – we don’t know anything about the people who helped him.    And yeah – I think he would keep his mouth shut about who helped him.  I think whoever helped him was someone to be feared.  Snitches get stitches babe.  And even worse in the gang life of the airport district of Modesto. See, now you are getting into an area of making claims and making stuff up. Sorry, but you are.

So again – because Diane Jackson didn’t associate that van with Laci’s disappearance she’s lying?  Why would she associate the van with Laci’s disappearance?  She didn’t see Laci with them.  You know everyone is different.  Some people think crime right off the bat – others don’t.  You’re attempt to discredit Diane Jackson is coming off a little bit desperate. LOL, I am not discrediting Diane Jackson, she handled that all on her own. First, her story makes no sense. 1. No dolly. 2. Why would three men move a safe outside, set it down, then all three walk to the street together leaving the safe sitting in the yard in broad daylight? 3. Her story was too detailed for a drive by, "thinking nothing of it" and then remembering height, skin tone, the vehicle and seeing a 1.5x1.75x2 safe that most would only know it's a safe and not a file cabinet if they could see the detail of the dial and handle from the street in passing. Just happened to line up? C'mon now. 

Nah – Ted Rowlands isn’t an opportunist.  I think he’s just finally convinced of Scott’s innocence and felt compelled to find the courage to speak out about what he saw (or didn’t see).   Speaking out in defense of Scott Peterson can be a career killer – especially for a media person in northern California. I hear a lot of hyperbole in defense of Scott. Even if he believed Scott was guilty, the notion that no one could have perpetuated that burglary on the 26th would have insulted his intelligence from day one hearing about it.

I don’t trust every word of every person whose input supports Scott.  But when all of that input paints a very clear picture – and every puzzle piece fits together without having to call multiple people a liar or having to throw puzzle pieces out – that’s called corroboration – and each gives credibility to the other. Go through and see how many people you have to accuse of wrongdoing, lying, etc to make Scott innocent and compare it to the few you listed in your post. An entire police force, the prosecution, the defense, the judge, the jury, Krigbaum, Kemples, Laci's mom. Far more than a few. Aponte is dismissed because 1) he didn't hear the original conversation (hearsay), 2) he can't produce either of the two tapes of the conversation and 3) an experienced trial judge was not impressed by it.  Graybill is dismissed because based on his walk path and where Laci's car was parked, I doubt he could see the gate at all. I've covered DJ. Aponte impeaches the Tenbrinks. The sighting witnesses didn't testify, so they have no credibility. Of course you can blame this on Geragos or the police if you want, but can you really throw shade at someone who doesn't? There is absolutely nothing clear about Scott being innocent, unless you ignore everything about him and prop up only those who tell a story that supports him. 

So now I have to be virtuous to call out a pathetic police investigation?  I never said the entire MPD were co-conspirators.  I never used the word traumatized to describe Scott’s emotional state when thinking about selling the house.  You’re so dramatic!  I’m not a guy – but I hear self-gratification is a stress reliever.  So in your world – no one wants to self-gratify when their world has been turned upside down?  Duly noted. Merely tried to point out that I don't find it credible that in the first 30 days that a man's wife is missing - a man who was sobbing on national television two days later about his glorious wife, would be selling his house or upgrading his porn options as normal or expecting his wife to be found alive and returning home.   

Respectfully, I think we are off on the wrong foot because not only are you asking me questions that have been hashed out here at least twice, at great length, but you are also telling me a narrative in great detail, that I have heard at least a dozen times and have responded to. That said, I am willing to patiently walk through this so long as you can pare down posts. I just don't have the time or stomach to respond to such lengthy posts. My responses to you are in red above, which will be my method on lengthy posts to be concise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2018 at 6:32 AM, lsmith510 said:

Scott's "Journey to Justice" is far from over.  That "recommendation for rejection" is simply the state's (prosecution's) response to Scott's appeal.  Their response is exactly what I expected from this prosecution - the response to the direct appeal read like a bad romance novel.  Scott's appeal hasn't even been delivered to the judges yet who will decide whether Scott gets a new trial or not.

I wonder how long it will take for the Judges to see it? Hopefully not another ten years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully Scott will stay in Jail. If he was to be found Innocent, due to "reasonable doubt" based on the "lack" of evidence, then three quarters of all felons would have to be released from prison.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Reasonable Doubt depend on each individual? 

Quote

United States
In the United States, juries must be instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but there is much disagreement as to whether the jury should be given a definition of "reasonable doubt."[11] In Victor v. Nebraska (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unclear reasonable doubt instructions at issue, but stopped short of setting forth an exemplary jury instruction.[12]

The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship (1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

In other words, the Judge tells the Jury they must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is no instruction on what "reasonable doubt" is defined as. So every person defines it for themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

The info about Grogan's "investigation" into the Croton watch?  Grogan's testimony.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Grogan-pros.htm

Where is it in his testimony that he said Peterson identified the missing watch as the Croton?

Re: a hold on the watch, did the pawnshop owner testify to that. (I didn't come across that either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

Wrong. I learn that her husband both saw and spoke with her the next morning before he left for the warehouse. And at this preliminary stage of a missing person report I have no business assuming anything one way or another regarding the credibility of his statements to me.

You said "after an organized and thorough search of the neighborhood", so once that's accomplished, accident has been ruled out and circumstances and victimology both indicate foul play and so you look to those closest to the missing person and know you can't assume his statements are credible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

Meanwhile, it is not necessary for any of the witnesses who observed Laci walking the dog to actually know her for their observations to be credible.

I never said eyewitnesses necessarily have to know the person; I said it's a fact that none of them did.

20 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

If I happen to notice a very pregnant you walking that beautiful Labrador Retriever of yours down a residential street in Houston as I drive past one morning, there is no doubt in my mind that if I see a photo of you on a flyer several days later I will recognise you as the woman I saw despite having never met you.

You'd like to think you would, but I don't know that, and neither do you.

Edited by regi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I wonder how long it will take for the Judges to see it? Hopefully not another ten years.

I don't know the status or timeline of the direct appeal.  The defense has until I believe August to respond to the habeas and then it will go to the court.  The court will likely have an extended period of time to review the appeal (guessing a couple of years?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

He did not give a specific time.  But he said he rode from his mother's down Covena on Christmas day.  Met up with Pearce.  Then he rode over to his kids house on Tioga and stayed there with friends and family.  Then he went back to Pearce's house until 3:00 am when he decided to go back to the Medina home.

Well, how and when did he get to his mother's?

It's sounds likely to me that he rode past the Medina's twice. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

Where is it in his testimony that he said Peterson identified the missing watch as the Croton?

Re: a hold on the watch, did the pawnshop owner testify to that. (I didn't come across that either.)

You are correct - in reviewing the testimony it doesn't say Scott said Croton.  He told police Laci had two watches matching the description of the one she was wearing...the Genevieve watch was located in the Dec. 26th, 27th search.  Grogan's testimony is very strange regarding the Croton watch.  Note this testimony:

FLADAGER: On Friday, January 31st, do you meet with someone named Maria Rocha?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: During the course of that meeting did she mention an item of jewelry that you had not heard about before?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: And what was that?

GROGAN: That was the Croton watch, which she was just describing as a gold watch with diamonds around the face. She didn't know the name brand, but she did say there was one additional watch that wasn't in the jewelry box.

 

I'm not sure what Grogan means when he agrees with Fladager that he was not aware of this watch with diamonds around the face that Maria Rocha told him about.  Scott told him Laci had two watches with that description and only one was accounted for.  Grogan says he reviewed their ebay sales after that in early February.  He says that's when he figured out it was a Croton watch.

 

He also claims in his testimony that he didn't learn until his February 5th interview with Amy that Laci had sold items on ebay.  But on cross he admits to Geragos that Scott had given him that info Dec. 25th. 

 

Scott not knowing the brand name - and not thinking to go to their ebay sales to check the brand name is interesting.  Could this mean that Laci was more involved in the ebay sales than the prosecution wanted everyone to think?  And if so - how many times have we heard that "Scott's email" was checked the morning of the 24th?  The truth is both of them accessed that email (Karen Servas testified to this) - and that was the email that was used for the ebay sales.  What was the one email checked that morning?  An email regarding an ebay sale of a golf bag.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, regi said:

Well, how and when did he get to his mother's?

It's sounds likely to me that he rode past the Medina's twice. 

Yes I assume he rode his bike to his mother's.  But he doesn't say anything to Hicks about noticing the Medina home twice that day.   Even if he did - I still strongly disagree that one car in the driveway - even over the course of 4, 6 or even 8 hours means people are out of town.  And if he did ride by twice that day - the strong police/people presence would have been there both times.  Do you really think he would think that would be a good house to rob on the 25th?  And there was no mail in the mailbox that could be seen on the 25th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lsmith510 said:

I'm not sure what Grogan means when he agrees with Fladager that he was not aware of this watch with diamonds around the face that Maria Rocha told him about.  Scott told him Laci had two watches with that description and only one was accounted for. 

What was the one email checked that morning? An email regarding an ebay sale of a golf bag.

Grogan needed to account for all the jewelry to know what was missing and why, that's all.

As for the e-mail accessed that morn., the fact is, it was Peterson's account.

If I'm not mistaken, the person hadn't received the bag and it had been over a month.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Respectfully, I think we are off on the wrong foot because not only are you asking me questions that have been hashed out here at least twice, at great length, but you are also telling me a narrative in great detail, that I have heard at least a dozen times and have responded to. That said, I am willing to patiently walk through this so long as you can pare down posts. I just don't have the time or stomach to respond to such lengthy posts. My responses to you are in red above, which will be my method on lengthy posts to be concise.

Okay - I'll try to pare down my posts.

Let's talk about the mail.

Susan Medina testified that she put the outgoing mail in the mailbox - and then as they were leaving she asked her husband to check the mail she had put in the mailbox.  No contradiction there.  She doesn't say why she wanted him to check.  Maybe she wanted to make sure the mailman could see the outgoing mail.  I believe that secure mailbox was fairly new for them at that time.

You said IF Graybill's timeline is correct.  Graybill walked the same route every day and had done so for a year.  He had time stamps for when he left the post office and for when he delivered to 1424 Encina.  You don't think it's possible for him to estimate what time he arrived on Covena within a 15 minute timeframe based on that time stamp?  And you don't believe that he could see the Peterson's gate based on where Laci's car was parked?  How do you know exactly where Laci's car was parked that day?  What photo are you basing this observation on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

But he doesn't say anything to Hicks about noticing the Medina home twice that day.   Even if he did - I still strongly disagree that one car in the driveway - even over the course of 4, 6 or even 8 hours means people are out of town.  And if he did ride by twice that day - the strong police/people presence would have been there both times.  Do you really think he would think that would be a good house to rob on the 25th?  And there was no mail in the mailbox that could be seen on the 25th.

No, it doesn't come across as though he rode by twice that day, and so it sounds to me like he must have ridden by on both of those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, regi said:

Grogan needed to account for all the jewelry to know what was missing and why, that's all.

As for the e-mail accessed that morn., the fact is, it was Peterson's account.

If I'm not mistaken, the person hadn't received the bag and it had been over a month.

It was Laci and Scott's account - both of them corresponded with people using that email account.  I'm not sure what your point is about it having been a month.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, regi said:

No, it doesn't come across as though he rode by twice that day, and so it sounds to me like he must have ridden by on both of those days.

Todd didn't say he rode by on the 24th either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lsmith510 said:

It was Laci and Scott's account - both of them corresponded with people using that email account.  I'm not sure what your point is about it having been a month.

My point was that it wasn't Laci who'd been communicating with that guy.

As for Peterson's e-mail account, I'm not aware that Laci used his account since having her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, regi said:

My point was that it wasn't Laci who'd been communicating with that guy.

As for Peterson's e-mail account, I'm not aware that Laci used his account since having her own.

Like I said - Karen Servas testified that she communicated with both Scott and Laci via that email account. 

There were no outgoing emails sent from the home computer that morning.  Someone simply read an email. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

Todd didn't say he rode by on the 24th either.

He was also confused as to the date.

3 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

Like I said - Karen Servas testified that she communicated with both Scott and Laci via that email account. 

There were no outgoing emails sent from the home computer that morning.  Someone simply read an email. 

I'll have to go back and to see what Servas testified about her communication with Laci through Peterson's email account before I could comment.

7 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

There were no outgoing emails sent from the home computer that morning.  Someone simply read an email. 

It doesn't matter, the point is that a pw protected site was accessed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

He was also confused as to the date.

 

 

 

Please point me to the testimony that says Todd confused the 24th and the 25th.   You're making assumptions that are simply not true.

 

1 hour ago, regi said:

I'll have to go back and to see what Servas testified about her communication with Laci through Peterson's email account before I could comment.

It doesn't matter, the point is that a pw protected site was accessed.

 

 

Of course it matters.  Even if the email account was password protected - if Laci communicated with people via that email it means she knew that password. 

So you think Scott, pretending to be Laci - accessed an email account that only he used and only he knew the password to? 

ETA:

Sorry - it was Buehler's testimony:

GERAGOS: Now, she also told you that she would communicate with Laci and Scott via an e-mail site called SOPETE1, correct?

BUEHLER: That's correct.

GERAGOS: That's what she knew Laci and Scott's MSN Messenger e-mail site to be?

BUEHLER: That's correct.

GERAGOS: She knew that because she was involved in an internet group with other neighbors in the area; is that what she told you?

BUEHLER: Yes.

Edited by lsmith510
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, regi said:

Where is it in his testimony that he said Peterson identified the missing watch as the Croton?

Re: a hold on the watch, did the pawnshop owner testify to that. (I didn't come across that either.)

And sorry - I forgot to answer your second question.  Sam Newnam, the pawn shop owner did not testify.  He made that statement in the A&E series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

Please point me to the testimony that says Todd confused the 24th and the 25th.   You're making assumptions that are simply not true.

No, I'm not making assumptions that are simply not true. You've offered information that wasn't true (see post #1558) and I wouldn't have known the difference if I hadn't gone back to read through the entire damned testimony and so it appears to me that you need to pay more attention to what you're doing than to what you think I'm doing.

What I was referring to was that Todd first said the 27th rather than the 26th.

Also in Hicks testimony was that Todd told him that he'd seen one van parked down the street and so that sounds to me like he could have been referring to Rowland's van.

1 hour ago, lsmith510 said:

Of course it matters.  Even if the email account was password protected - if Laci communicated with people via that email it means she knew that password. 

GERAGOS: Now, she also told you that she would communicate with Laci and Scott via an e-mail site called SOPETE1, correct?

 

BUEHLER: That's correct.

GERAGOS: That's what she knew Laci and Scott's MSN Messenger e-mail site to be?

BUEHLER: That's correct.

GERAGOS: She knew that because she was involved in an internet group with other neighbors in the area; is that what she told you?

BUEHLER: Yes.

Oh, hells bells! When I said "it doesn't matter", I meant that it didn't matter whether an e-mail was actually sent or merely read!

As for that testimony, no, I don't interpret that to mean that Laci used Peterson's e-mail account, and contrary to that notion, Wall testified that there was no indication that Laci used Peterson's e-mail account since the time she'd set up her own e-mail account.

As for Laci knowing the pw, I highly doubt it since Peterson had corresponded w/Frey's friend using that same account.

***

Re: the e-mail I was referring to about it having been over a month and the guy was still waiting.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-186.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Was Scott Peterson innocent ?
  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.