Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

[Regi]

55 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

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.

You remembered to answer and I appreciate it.

Despite Jerry Gallo providing a link to watch that program, I haven't been able to watch it because I've got to subscribe to something or another and I guess I just wasn't that interested.

Anyway, I'd have to know more about that part of the investigation before I could comment about it, although I did learn from Grogan's testimony that it wasn't him, but a Community Services Officer- Pawn Detail, who'd investigated the pawn shops.

Bottomline, though, about that pawned watch, like I've said, based on description alone, it's blatantly obvious to me that it wasn't the Croton Laci inherited.

[lsmith510]

18 minutes ago, regi said:

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.

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

Post #1558 isn't even mine so I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Todd confusing the 27th with the 26th doesn't have anything to do with the 25th and the 24th.  Todd said he rode past the Medina home - once - from that you have come up with the theory that he rode twice - once on the 24th and once on the 25th - using his confusion about the 26th and 27th as support for this theory.  It simply doesn't hold water.  Yes - you are making assumptions that are simply not true.

So Todd saw Rowlands but Rowlands didn't see Todd - even though Rowlands says he was watching for people on the street to interview and you're going to take Todd's word for that?  It wasn't even dark when Todd claims that he and Pearce moved the safe to the car parked at the curb.  Have you been to that street?  I have.  It's not a large street.  I don't know why those who think Scott is guilty have come up with some fantasy that Rowlands was parked down the street.  It's another made up fact. 

So when Karen Servas says she communicated with Scott AND Laci at the sopete1 (should be slpete1) email address you don't interpret that as Laci used that account.  I don't know what to say to that.  Please post the testimony where Wall said that he saw no evidence of Laci using the slpete1 account since she set up her own account.  Maybe I've forgotten - but I'm not familiar with that testimony.

You can doubt it all you like but it is what it is.  Servas said she communicated with both Scott and Laci via that account. 

I know exactly what email you were referring to.   

 

[Regi]

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Post #1558 isn't even mine so I have no idea what you are talking about. 

 I don't know what the post # was, but I quoted at least most of it in my post # 1572 and what I'm talking about is that rather than state the facts and then offer your opinion, you editorialize.

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Todd confusing the 27th with the 26th doesn't have anything to do with the 25th and the 24th.  Todd said he rode past the Medina home - once - from that you have come up with the theory that he rode twice - once on the 24th and once on the 25th - using his confusion about the 26th and 27th as support for this theory.  It simply doesn't hold water.  Yes - you are making assumptions that are simply not true.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just telling you how the info- as I understand it to be- comes across to me.

Yes, it doesn't sound like he'd ridden past the Medina's twice on the same day, yet we know he had to get to his mother's sometime before then and from somewhere.

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

So Todd saw Rowlands but Rowlands didn't see Todd - even though Rowlands says he was watching for people on the street to interview and you're going to take Todd's word for that?

That's the info. as I know it; Rowlands said he was there the morn. of the 26th, and Todd said he'd seen a van parked down the street.

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

So when Karen Servas says she communicated with Scott AND Laci at the sopete1 (should be slpete1) email address you don't interpret that as Laci used that account.  I don't know what to say to that.  Please post the testimony where Wall said that he saw no evidence of Laci using the slpete1 account since she set up her own account.  Maybe I've forgotten - but I'm not familiar with that testimony.

You can doubt it all you like but it is what it is.  Servas said she communicated with both Scott and Laci via that account.

I went over Buehler's testimony and didn't come across that particular dialogue, but no, info that Peterson's e-mail is what a neighborhood internet group would use wouldn't convince me that Laci used Peterson's e-mail account.

Now on that day in particular, the reason I posted about the e-mail correspondence and also posted the e-mail was to show that it was Peterson who'd been back and forth with that guy, not Laci.

Anyway...

In 2nd redirect, Walls testified that he thought Laci's use of Peterson's e-mail account occurred when he was overseas and didn't recall any recent usage.

I'm sure I'm correctly recalling his testimony that he didn't see any indication of her having used his e-mail account since she'd had her own, although I didn't come across it.

I'll keep looking when I have the time.

 

[Sly Humour]

6 hours ago, regi said:

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.

Wrong again. Once the organized and thorough search of the neighborhood has been accomplished and no trace of the missing person has been established, I expand the effort by contacting hospitals and clinics to determine if a pregnant woman without ID has been admitted matching the description of the missing person. Once I determine that no one matching that description has been admitted to any health facilities in the city, I establish a hotline and then reach out to the media to broadcast information regarding the missing person (rather than the precise whereabouts of the husband on the day she went missing) Thereafter, I begin canvassing the neighborhood door to door, handing out missing person flyers, and then contacting and comprehensively interviewing every single person who reaches out to the police department with information that meets a minimum threshold of plausibility (at no time do I reject or ignore any report because it appears to contradict the time stamp on a store receipt produced by another witness)  I pay particularly close attention to reports that I receive from witnesses claiming to have observed the missing person after the last confirmed sighting and immediately contact every single one of those people to document, evaluate, and preserve their statements. And if in that process I discover that there are numerous credible sightings of the missing person and her dog that establishes in sequential fashion a circular route around the neighborhood that perfectly mirrors the one she usually takes while walking her dog, then I definitely do not assume at that point that the husband's statements are not credible.

 

[lsmith510]

46 minutes ago, regi said:

 I don't know what the post # was, but I quoted at least most of it in my post # 1572 and what I'm talking about is that rather than state the facts and then offer your opinion, you editorialize.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just telling you how the info- as I understand it to be- comes across to me.

Yes, it doesn't sound like he'd ridden past the Medina's twice on the same day, yet we know he had to get to his mother's sometime before then and from somewhere.

That's the info. as I know it; Rowlands said he was there the morn. of the 26th, and Todd said he'd seen a van parked down the street.

I went over Buehler's testimony and didn't come across that particular dialogue, but no, info that Peterson's e-mail is what a neighborhood internet group would use wouldn't convince me that Laci used Peterson's e-mail account.

Now on that day in particular, the reason I posted about the e-mail correspondence and also posted the e-mail was to show that it was Peterson who'd been back and forth with that guy, not Laci.

Anyway...

In 2nd redirect, Walls testified that he thought Laci's use of Peterson's e-mail account occurred when he was overseas and didn't recall any recent usage.

I'm sure I'm correctly recalling his testimony that he didn't see any indication of her having used his e-mail account since she'd had her own, although I didn't come across it.

I'll keep looking when I have the time.

 

So you jumping all over me and telling me that I should be more careful about what I am doing is all about me saying that Scott identified the missing watch as the Croton?  I'm curious - why was that such a big issue for you anyway?  Next time ask me before you go reading the entire testimony.  I'm certainly not here to waste your time - or mine.

Trial question and answer is a tricky thing.  I think I found the testimony you are talking about.  First from Geragos:

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, and Laci Peterson's e-mail is also MSN, correct, laci@MSN?

WALL: I believe at Hot Mail. It has a different designation, I believe.

GERAGOS: And I think your report somewhere had indicated that the two of them share their e-mail as well?

WALL: There was some indication that is slpete1@msn was potentially theirs.

GERAGOS: Okay. Slpete1, we saw an e-mail at 8:45 or 8:44 that looked like it was Scott's, slpete1, but there are indications that she used that e-mail as well, correct?

WALL: From, and that was from a previous or previous dates --

GERAGOS: Okay.

WALL: as I recall.

GERAGOS: That was the only way you would be able to tell. You have to look in the past, see what she used, and it was apparent to you at least that she, on a number of occasions, more that two or three, had used that e-mail, correct?

WALL: Yes, correspond to Scott.

Then Harris:
 

HARRIS: Now you were asked about Laci using the slpete address, when you were going through, and counsel was asking you if you had to have a history, what's happening in the present, the information about Laci using that particular account, was that several years old?

WALL: I believe so. It was when she was communicating with Scott while he was overseas, I believe in Spain.

HARRIS: And did you see any recent usage around December of 2002 that she was using that?

WALL: Not that I recall, no.

 

Tricky question - "any recent usage around December of 2002"?   How about October?  Scott had just been to Spain in October.  

What's really interesting about Wall's testimony is that he testified that he could have determined who was on the computer that morning by going through past computer habits and history.  But he claims he didn't do that because no one asked him to.  Do you believe that the prosecution would not have wanted to know who it was on the computer that morning.  Because I don't.    

 

[Jerry Gallo]

7 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

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?

As I know you don't like me pointing you to read elsewhere for answers already given or that you may have overlooked in the information available to us, here is the second half of what I said that is the contradiction in my mind. No biggie though, just explaining why mail doesn't move me either direction.

Pat Harris: And I think we've heard a description of the mailbox. If it's my understanding, when you were pulling out of the driveway the day you were leaving to go to Los Angeles, your husband got out of the car and took some outgoing mail and placed it in the mailbox; is that correct?

Susan Medina: Correct. 

That second paragraph has four questions in it. Here are my answers to each.

1. Christmas eve likely has a different pace to it than regular days. Also, fifteen minutes as a window seems a bit large for such a small street. Since I have restated a second time that mail doesn't move me, just for conversation, if Graybill hit the Medina home while Rudy and Sue were taking their last leak before a road trip, say 10:30, would you find that five minute variance insulting to your sensibilities? I still don't know that you could see outgoing mail from the street in a security mailbox, so the point may be moot, but just based on timeline, could there have been outgoing mail in the box from 10:32am on the 24th until Russ picked in up the afternoon of the 26th if he was five minutes earlier?

2. I pondered over the open gate for days wondering if he would have seen it open. As I understand it, looking at the Peterson house from the street, Graybill would have walked from right to left and the house to the right was vacant. So, if you consult street view of Google maps of Covena, he'd have likely had to see the open gate from the street before he got to Peterson's driveway where Scott's truck would have been parked to the right of Laci's car. Which means he would have had to be looking for the gate being open or closed and I don't think he would have been that focused. Once he got even with the back of Laci's rig, up the sidewalk and delivering mail, I do not think he'd have been able to see the gate at all due to the bush and the angle needed. I'd think Laci's car would block that angle. And I think if he would have been looking at the gate, it would have been while walking up their sidewalk to the mailbox. 

3-4. Pros 1A from the 26th search warrant. Based on phone records and testimony, I don't see how or why Laci's car would have been driven or moved from it's spot on the morning of 12/24.

In the least, even if you diametrically oppose my opinions, I hope I am able to prove to you that some research and critical thinking went into my conclusions. If not, that's cool too.  

[Jerry Gallo]

7 hours 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.

I think what is comes down to is whether you believe Todd could have scoped out the Medina's as they were packing the car without being noticed by anyone and then returning to thieve without fear of the Medina's returning in the next hour and a half or whether you believe that burglars notice trends non-burglars don't and that he noticed the lack of a second car riding by once or twice on Christmas day and confirmed when he arrived at 3am on the 26th when it was still gone. I think all would agree that the lack of a second car, if he did know two were usually in the driveway, at 3am would say someone is out of town. And if mail was involved in any capacity as it related to Todd, I would think he'd check the box as part of the burglar manual right before he tried making entry. On the casing at 10am on the 24th side, he'd almost have to have been on foot and hiding, as there would have been too many people on that block in that time frame that would have noticed a meth-head gang banging thief casing a home for burglary, especially with his bike in tow. Not many hidey holes for that. 

[Jerry Gallo]

5 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Post #1558 isn't even mine so I have no idea what you are talking about. 

Todd confusing the 27th with the 26th doesn't have anything to do with the 25th and the 24th.  Todd said he rode past the Medina home - once - from that you have come up with the theory that he rode twice - once on the 24th and once on the 25th - using his confusion about the 26th and 27th as support for this theory.  It simply doesn't hold water.  Yes - you are making assumptions that are simply not true.

So Todd saw Rowlands but Rowlands didn't see Todd - even though Rowlands says he was watching for people on the street to interview and you're going to take Todd's word for that?  It wasn't even dark when Todd claims that he and Pearce moved the safe to the car parked at the curb.  Have you been to that street?  I have.  It's not a large street.  I don't know why those who think Scott is guilty have come up with some fantasy that Rowlands was parked down the street.  It's another made up fact. 

So when Karen Servas says she communicated with Scott AND Laci at the sopete1 (should be slpete1) email address you don't interpret that as Laci used that account.  I don't know what to say to that.  Please post the testimony where Wall said that he saw no evidence of Laci using the slpete1 account since she set up her own account.  Maybe I've forgotten - but I'm not familiar with that testimony.

You can doubt it all you like but it is what it is.  Servas said she communicated with both Scott and Laci via that account. 

I know exactly what email you were referring to.   

 

SOPETE1 was an MSN Messenger account...instant messaging, not e-mail. 

As for Laci using that account...

Do you honestly believe she was using that account in late November with Scott corresponding with Shawn as HB and ordering Amber's stargazing gift? 

 

 

[Regi]

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

So you jumping all over me and telling me that I should be more careful about what I am doing is all about me saying that Scott identified the missing watch as the Croton?  I'm curious - why was that such a big issue for you anyway?

That and like I said, I don't like editorials.

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Trial question and answer is a tricky thing.  I think I found the testimony you are talking about. 

Bless your heart- I mean it, I'm almost cross-eyed from reading testimonies, and yeah, it's tricky and extremely frustrating when read it reads one way in direct and another during cross.

Btw, I did find that dialogue that in Buehler's testimony.

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Tricky question - "any recent usage around December of 2002"?   How about October?  Scott had just been to Spain in October.  

What's really interesting about Wall's testimony is that he testified that he could have determined who was on the computer that morning by going through past computer habits and history.  But he claims he didn't do that because no one asked him to.  Do you believe that the prosecution would not have wanted to know who it was on the computer that morning.  Because I don't.   

No, I think they would have, so that sure doesn't make any sense to me.

[Sly Humour]

On 3/21/2018 at 8:20 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

 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.

I can only imagine how exhausted you must be by now, Jerry... having to pound away on that keyboard virtually day and night just to keep pace with the massive onslaught of reasonable doubt.

You can thank Regi for that though, she appears to have opened up Pandora's Box back on 60 when she posted that ostensibly fateful question...

"Jerry Gallo, what happened to the other Peterson supporters?"

oops!

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

I can only imagine how exhausted you must be by now, Jerry... having to pound away on that keyboard virtually day and night just to keep pace with the massive onslaught of reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt... The jury didn't find any. I'd put forward the opinion that another wouldn't either. Reasonable doubt is just each person's opinion. And if it is just opinion, then despite whatever evidence, or lack there of, or whatever minor inconsistencies are found... ultimately it will be up to the Defense Lawyer to make the Jury believe there is doubt. Most people are going to hear what the Procesuctor says, and then what the Defense says and try to decide who makes the better case. And the fact is that these things are almost always the spouse. Rarely do the burglars across the street form a murderous conspiracy against a lady walking a dog. If a jury is instructed to look for the Horse, rather then the Zebra, then in this case the choice they are going to make is Guilty.

That is not to say that the Defense can't win, just that it will be a tremendous uphill slog. 

[Regi]

13 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 And if in that process I discover that there are numerous credible sightings of the missing person and her dog that establishes in sequential fashion a circular route around the neighborhood that perfectly mirrors the one she usually takes while walking her dog, then I definitely do not assume at that point that the husband's statements are not credible.

The objective is to find Laci and the info is that she'd walked the dog in the park, never venturing far from home.

Re: that last part, I didn't say that I'd assume that the husband's statements are not credible; I said I wouldn't assume that they were.

[Regi]

13 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

I think I found the testimony you are talking about. 

I want to clarify that that testimony from Wall that you posted wasn't actually the testimony I was referring to (again, I appreciate the time and effort it took locate that testimony), but like I said, I'll go back and if/when I'm able to find it or whether I don't, I'll let you know.

13 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Tricky question - "any recent usage around December of 2002"?   How about October?  Scott had just been to Spain in October.  

What's really interesting about Wall's testimony is that he testified that he could have determined who was on the computer that morning by going through past computer habits and history.  But he claims he didn't do that because no one asked him to.  Do you believe that the prosecution would not have wanted to know who it was on the computer that morning.  Because I don't.   

I want to point out something here- and it seems that this is also part of Wall's testimony, or it's from what I recall from it - but regardless, it's also what I've learned from other cases where this is an issue, is that although it can be strongly indicated who used a computer, it actually can't be determined conclusively who used a computer on a particular day.

[Regi]

12 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

SOPETE1 was an MSN Messenger account...instant messaging, not e-mail.

Is that right?! Good grief!

Observation: despite Servas having testified, the info re: the issue was elicited from Buehler's testimony.

[Sly Humour]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Reasonable doubt... The jury didn't find any. I'd put forward the opinion that another wouldn't either. Reasonable doubt is just each person's opinion. And if it is just opinion, then despite whatever evidence, or lack there of, or whatever minor inconsistencies are found... ultimately it will be up to the Defense Lawyer to make the Jury believe there is doubt. Most people are going to hear what the Procesuctor says, and then what the Defense says and try to decide who makes the better case. And the fact is that these things are almost always the spouse. Rarely do the burglars across the street form a murderous conspiracy against a lady walking a dog. If a jury is instructed to look for the Horse, rather then the Zebra, then in this case the choice they are going to make is Guilty.

That is not to say that the Defense can't win, just that it will be a tremendous uphill slog. 

 

Your reply to my post serves as the quintessential example of someone who examines a statement, misinterprets the information in that statement, and then formulates a conclusion based on the misinterpretation.

Once you re-examine the post it should become evident that the onslaught of reasonable doubt that I make reference to is the totality of exculpatory information being presented to Jerry Gallo in this forum, not what was presented to the Peterson jury during the trial in 2004 or potentially be to another jury if a new trial is granted in the future.

Moreover, as this is 2018 and not 2004, there is substantially more information and evidence available to us (as we discuss the case in this forum) than was disseminated to or withheld from the jury in the Peterson trial fourteen years ago. Therefore, if Scott Peterson is granted a new trial (as he should be) and the jury is presented with all the credible circumstantial evidence that exists today (including the Medina burglary, the Laci sightings, the Aponte tip, the Harshman observation, the Croton watch. Connor’s gestational age, Connor’s body position on discovery, and so on) I have tremendous confidence that a thoughtful, impartial jury would have no difficulty recognizing two equally plausible narratives that can explain the disappearance of Laci Peterson and return a verdict of not guilty based on the legal definition of reasonable doubt. In fact, the trial would probably represent a tremendous uphill slog for the prosecution this time, rather than the defense.

 

 

[Jerry Gallo]

16 minutes ago, regi said:

Is that right?! Good grief!

Observation: despite Servas having testified, the info re: the issue was elicited from Buehler's testimony.

Yep, nearly four months after Servas testified. Who better to clarify on redirect that it was an IM platform and not e-mail, the person actually doing the communicating or a law enforcement officer months later during an innocuous exchange? The trickery the defense gets to use is madness! 

[Jerry Gallo]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Reasonable doubt... The jury didn't find any. I'd put forward the opinion that another wouldn't either. Reasonable doubt is just each person's opinion. And if it is just opinion, then despite whatever evidence, or lack there of, or whatever minor inconsistencies are found... ultimately it will be up to the Defense Lawyer to make the Jury believe there is doubt. Most people are going to hear what the Procesuctor says, and then what the Defense says and try to decide who makes the better case. And the fact is that these things are almost always the spouse. Rarely do the burglars across the street form a murderous conspiracy against a lady walking a dog. If a jury is instructed to look for the Horse, rather then the Zebra, then in this case the choice they are going to make is Guilty.

That is not to say that the Defense can't win, just that it will be a tremendous uphill slog. 

More succinctly, the jury didn't find any because there wasn't any. All attempts have been proven to be unreasonable. 

[Regi]

19 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Yep, nearly four months after Servas testified. Who better to clarify on redirect that it was an IM platform and not e-mail, the person actually doing the communicating or a law enforcement officer months later during an innocuous exchange? The trickery the defense gets to use is madness! 

I wondered about the sequence of the testimonies- I didn't think long about it- but yeah, I see now that that figures from the defense side and makes sense from the prosecution.

Thanks. ,

Yeah, it's a very tricky tactic, although, I think the downside of that type of strategy (I would think) would actually very rarely escape the jury's attention.

Edited March 23, 2018 by regi

[lsmith510]

14 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

SOPETE1 was an MSN Messenger account...instant messaging, not e-mail. 

As for Laci using that account...

Do you honestly believe she was using that account in late November with Scott corresponding with Shawn as HB and ordering Amber's stargazing gift? 

 

 

There was NO testimony that the SOPETE1 account was an instant messaging account.  If you are going to stick to your story that there was - please post the testimony.  They were clearly referring to an email account - THE email account.

Yes I do believe that Laci was using that account in late November, despite the HB comments by Shawn and the ordering of the stargazing gift - NOT for Amber - but for Amber's daughter.  Maybe Scott and Laci had an agreement that Laci wouldn't read Scott's business emails?  Sibley's emails as well as the Star Theater email were all pulled from the unallocated space on the computers - meaning Scott had deleted them.  Maybe he deleted them so Laci wouldn't see them.

[lsmith510]

16 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

 On the casing at 10am on the 24th side, he'd almost have to have been on foot and hiding, as there would have been too many people on that block in that time frame that would have noticed a meth-head gang banging thief casing a home for burglary, especially with his bike in tow. Not many hidey holes for that. 

Do you honestly think that people that are home spend their time peering out their front windows?  This is nonsense.  As if a van couldn't go unnoticed parked on the side of the street.  Oh wait - 3 people DID notice a van that morning.

[lsmith510]

16 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

As I know you don't like me pointing you to read elsewhere for answers already given or that you may have overlooked in the information available to us, here is the second half of what I said that is the contradiction in my mind. No biggie though, just explaining why mail doesn't move me either direction.

Pat Harris: And I think we've heard a description of the mailbox. If it's my understanding, when you were pulling out of the driveway the day you were leaving to go to Los Angeles, your husband got out of the car and took some outgoing mail and placed it in the mailbox; is that correct?

Susan Medina: Correct. 

That second paragraph has four questions in it. Here are my answers to each.

1. Christmas eve likely has a different pace to it than regular days. Also, fifteen minutes as a window seems a bit large for such a small street. Since I have restated a second time that mail doesn't move me, just for conversation, if Graybill hit the Medina home while Rudy and Sue were taking their last leak before a road trip, say 10:30, would you find that five minute variance insulting to your sensibilities? I still don't know that you could see outgoing mail from the street in a security mailbox, so the point may be moot, but just based on timeline, could there have been outgoing mail in the box from 10:32am on the 24th until Russ picked in up the afternoon of the 26th if he was five minutes earlier?

2. I pondered over the open gate for days wondering if he would have seen it open. As I understand it, looking at the Peterson house from the street, Graybill would have walked from right to left and the house to the right was vacant. So, if you consult street view of Google maps of Covena, he'd have likely had to see the open gate from the street before he got to Peterson's driveway where Scott's truck would have been parked to the right of Laci's car. Which means he would have had to be looking for the gate being open or closed and I don't think he would have been that focused. Once he got even with the back of Laci's rig, up the sidewalk and delivering mail, I do not think he'd have been able to see the gate at all due to the bush and the angle needed. I'd think Laci's car would block that angle. And I think if he would have been looking at the gate, it would have been while walking up their sidewalk to the mailbox. 

3-4. Pros 1A from the 26th search warrant. Based on phone records and testimony, I don't see how or why Laci's car would have been driven or moved from it's spot on the morning of 12/24.

In the least, even if you diametrically oppose my opinions, I hope I am able to prove to you that some research and critical thinking went into my conclusions. If not, that's cool too.  

You've thought about this a lot - research and critical thinking I'll give you - but I do feel you are looking at everything with a guilty bias and are trying to spin things to support your belief in Scott's guilt.  For example: 

Nope - I think a very nervous Susan Medina whose first language was not English just let that misspeak on the part of Pat Harris slip by her.  She was clear earlier in her testimony.  She put the mail out and she had Rudy check it as they were leaving.      

1.  I think you've put a lot of thought and effort into trying to discredit Graybill.   I had this long post explaining all that Graybill had to do between 10:19 and reaching Covena.  But it's not worth it to bore everyone with the details of the half a mile Graybill had to walk and the 27 houses he had to deliver mail to before reaching Covena.  It's just a bit silly to consider that Graybill didn't know his own route and how long it typically took him to deliver the mail.  The 15 minute window is totally reasonable - given he did not remember if he delivered mail to half the people that day - or all of them to those 27 houses.  He also took into consideration that it was Christmas Eve - he said so in his statement for the habeas.  To suggest that he could have gotten there earlier than 10:35 and that it was actually Rudy who put the mail in the mailbox at 10:32 is grasping at straws to give credibility to Steve Todd and try to prove he wasn't on Covena on the 24th. 

2.  First of all - Scott's truck would not have been there.  Only Laci's.  Unless you have a picture of exactly where Laci's car was positioned on the 24th there is no reason to assume that her vehicle would have been blocking the view of the gate.  A picture taken during a search warrant on the 26th - two days later - when Scott had family from out of town staying with him is absolutely not indicative of where Laci's car was parked on the 24th.   On the 25th, Brent testified he had to park at the end of the driveway blocking Scott in.  Is it not possible that Scott had moved Laci's car up farther and/or over to make room for additional vehicles in the driveway?  Is it not possible that he allowed a family member to drive it?  Graybill testified that a mailman's top priority is to know where the dogs live and to be aware of possible loose dogs.  Of course he would look at the Petersons' gate - especially when he had delivered the mail before and McKenzie had been out.  So you don't just think that Graybill is mistaken about the day....now you're essentially calling him a liar - saying that the open gate is something out of his wild imagination?  Even though he says he's clear about that day - and tells the police officer that the gate was open with no prompting from the officer.  And it's not JUST the open gate.  McK was a mailman hater.  Graybill said he ALWAYS barked at him - whether he was in the house or out - when McK was there - he barked at Graybill.  McK did not bark that day.  And Graybill testified to that because he was actually asked that question.  He also testified that on Covena - when he delivered the mail - it was a chorus of barking.  The first dog would bark and trigger the next and the next.  McK would have heard that chorus from wherever he was on the Peterson property.  McK wasn't there on the 24th. 
 

 

[Regi]

10 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

 Unless you have a picture of exactly where Laci's car was positioned on the 24th there is no reason to assume that her vehicle would have been blocking the view of the gate. 

Here's a diagram. (As I was going through Servas' testimony I came across where she was asked to point it out on a diagram where Laci's car was parked.)

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-12.pdf

 

[lsmith510]

5 hours ago, regi said:

I want to clarify that that testimony from Wall that you posted wasn't actually the testimony I was referring to (again, I appreciate the time and effort it took locate that testimony), but like I said, I'll go back and if/when I'm able to find it or whether I don't, I'll let you know.

I want to point out something here- and it seems that this is also part of Wall's testimony, or it's from what I recall from it - but regardless, it's also what I've learned from other cases where this is an issue, is that although it can be strongly indicated who used a computer, it actually can't be determined conclusively who used a computer on a particular day.

I think it can.  Sure someone can fake being someone else on the computer - shop for things that the other person would like.  But there are little habits that we do that other people wouldn't know.  Like was it typical for Laci to get on the computer briefly in the mornings - and can this be proven by looking at days when Scott was out of town?  Did she typically click the icon on the desktop to enter an app or website - or hit the shortcut in the toolbar?  Wall testified that it could have been done.

But also does the whole - "Scott was pretending to be Laci on the computer" REALLY make sense?  To hear people tell it - Scott pretended to be Laci on the computer by shopping for items Laci would have liked - but then checked only HIS email that only HE had access to.  They claim he checked San Jose weather - and somehow that was indicative of Scott checking the weather and not Laci....when neither of them had plans to go to San Jose that day....and why would Scott check the weather?  Was he not going to dump Laci's body that day in Berkeley if the weather was going to be bad in San Jose?  And clearly the motive of him doing this would be that he knew the police would check the computer activity...yet this was the same computer that he researched "secret" boat purchases and the Berkeley Marina on.....and never told anyone that Laci had gotten on the computer that day when telling the police all that they did that morning. 

[lsmith510]

6 minutes ago, regi said:

Here's a diagram. (As I was going through Servas' testimony I came across where she was asked to point it out on a diagram where Laci's car was parked.)

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-12.pdf

 

Thanks for that.  I don't think Ruskamp was on the scene until the 26th.  Servas testified she couldn't say that was the exact place - but it was accurate as to how far up Laci's car was parked:

DISTASO: And look at People's 12 behind you, the diagram there. And where you see not the pickup truck, but the one that's labeled 4M where you see that, is that the approximate place Laci's car was?

SERVAS: I don't know if that's the exact place, but that's how far up to the gate that the car was parked.

 - but even so - I think with Scott's truck not being there - and walking from the right to the left - Graybill would have had no trouble seeing that the gate was open. 

[Sly Humour]

7 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

There was NO testimony that the SOPETE1 account was an instant messaging account.  If you are going to stick to your story that there was - please post the testimony.  They were clearly referring to an email account - THE email account.

Yes I do believe that Laci was using that account in late November, despite the HB comments by Shawn and the ordering of the stargazing gift - NOT for Amber - but for Amber's daughter.  Maybe Scott and Laci had an agreement that Laci wouldn't read Scott's business emails?  Sibley's emails as well as the Star Theater email were all pulled from the unallocated space on the computers - meaning Scott had deleted them.  Maybe he deleted them so Laci wouldn't see them.

 

... or maybe Scott wasn't lying when he stated in the interviews that Laci was aware of his affair with the Fraulein from Fresno and therefore made no attempt to hide any email exchanges or messages regarding Amber from his wife. Personally I don't believe that myself but I have observed a lot of very unusual relationships over the course of a long and storied career and nothing at this stage surprises me anymore.

The point is that we can all debate that argument until the Herefords come home for hay but at the end of the day the only two people on earth that would have known the absolute truth of that matter is Scott and Laci Peterson. 

So until someone can demonstrate otherwise (and good luck with that) there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that categorically proves Laci Peterson did not have password access on the home computer to the same emails and/or messages that Scott did.