Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

[Sly Humour]

On 5/18/2018 at 8:55 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

And as Regi has repeatedly pointed out, if he saw an open gate and no dog, that combo would be out of the ordinary or unusual. His testimony was "nothing unusual". 

Edit: Also, if Graybill could see an open gate from driveway or street, Krigbaum and Venable would have easily seen the same. They noticed the car, the blinds, the Christmas lights, but said nothing about an open gate, so it was very likely closed after Servas put the dog back until Peterson got home. 
 

 

Graybill’s original statement confirms that he observed an open gate and no dog barking at him from the property when he arrived to deliver the mail. There is no ambiguity there whatsoever. Furthermore, no person on earth other than Graybill himself can conclude with certainty what he would or would not have considered out of the ordinary or unusual. So until he specifically states otherwise, his original observation stands. Period.

Meanwhile, the side gate was open between 09:50 and 10:19. It was closed between 10:19 and 10:43. It was open again between 10:43 and 10:56, and then closed once more from 10:56 until 16:45 when Scott arrived home from Berkeley. The reason why Krigbaum did not see an open gate at the Peterson home is because she awoke at 10:38, she opened her front door at 10:39, she let the dog out for two minutes to do his thing, and then she closed her front door at 10:41 after the dog returned to the house. Therefore, she was asleep the first time it was open and back inside the house the second time it was open. And what a shame the dog didn’t take his time with that dump... an extra sixty seconds would have changed the course of history for Scott Peterson.

And don’t think for a moment that I’m kidding.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

[Sly Humour]

"Graybill could see that open gate quite clearly beyond the low hood of the Land Rover as he walked past 529 Covena Ave and approached the end of the Peterson driveway.

And rememeber... he was consiously looking to see if it was open."
 

On 5/18/2018 at 8:56 AM, Regi said:

Are you saying that that's what he's stated in his declaration?

It`s what he stated on the stand.

HARRIS:  As you, since you're talking to us about it, being aware of dogs and stuff, as a postman do you try to pay attention to what's going on in the street for your safety?

GRAYBILL:  You're constantly on guard for what might come out at you at any given moment, yes.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

Two things...

1. What's up with the Diane Campos balloon on page 56 of the habeas, where it indicates her sighting at the corner of Edgerook/Wilson and Las Palmas? A goof like that doesn't bode well for Scott.

2. Why weren't Graybill's notes from 12/27 shown in full by the A&E group? Why won't Gardner make all these habeas exhibits available to the public? Y'all have access to the people controlling the goods, let's get it all out there. Shouldn't be any reason to keep these hidden, other than lack of integrity. 

These are obviously rhetorical, the only interest I have is seeing what excuses will be offered.   

[Regi]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:46 PM, JaneH said:

In Dr. Peterson's autopsy report and in his prelim testimony, he clearly stated there was only a 2 cm gap between the neck and the tape.  

The issue wasn't (nor ever has been) w/Dr. Peterson's report or testimony, it's the continual misrepresentation of both.

On 5/19/2018 at 9:15 PM, Sly Humour said:

Furthermore, no person on earth other than Graybill himself can conclude with certainty what he would or would not have considered out of the ordinary or unusual.

I'd expect that anyone who read his testimony could interpret what was or wasn't usual.

[lsmith510]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 12:55 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

Only one line of sight was sold, where does Graybill say he cut through yard? Selling "could have" only works for doe-eyed followers, not people interested in the truth.

BTW, what part of "NOT TO SCALE" do you folks need explained?

Jerry - you have one picture from one vantage point that wasn't even taken on the day in question and from that one picture you have come to the conclusion that Graybill could not have seen the open gate.  That one picture does not and can not prove that Graybill could not have seen the gate from other vantage points nor does that picture taken on the 26th prove that that is the exact position of Laci's car on the 24th.  That picture can not and does not discredit Graybill.   

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the A&E series to show every possible vantage point.  And it's a bit difficult to do an exact reenactment when there have been changes made to the home.   It's just a reenactment....it's just giving the audience a possible visual (after all what would a tv show be without visuals?)...it doesn't mean it's the only possibility....nor does what the A&E series portrays in any way discredit Graybill. 

And what does it matter if Graybill crossed the grass or walked in the street?  You can also see, from the gate vantage point, the area of the street where Graybill would have walked, had he walked in the street - so there is nothing suspicious or nefarious in their decision to have Graybill walking across the lawn.  He could have seen the gate from either. 

I think we've established that what you consider ordinary is not necessarily what I would consider ordinary.  If Laci regularly walked McKenzie at that time of day could the gate being open then be defined as an ordinary occurrence by Graybill? 

Let me ask you this....if you had been investigating Laci's disappearance and you were trying to get a timeline of what occurred that morning - and you saw the Callahan report that said that Graybill said the gate was open when he delivered the mail between 10:35-10:50 - and you're the guy that's asked to interview Graybill.  Wouldn't that be something you'd ask Graybill about?  I certainly would.  What is your explanation for there being no mention of this in subsequent police reports?

 

[lsmith510]

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Two things...

1. What's up with the Diane Campos balloon on page 56 of the habeas, where it indicates her sighting at the corner of Edgerook/Wilson and Las Palmas? A goof like that doesn't bode well for Scott.

2. Why weren't Graybill's notes from 12/27 shown in full by the A&E group? Why won't Gardner make all these habeas exhibits available to the public? Y'all have access to the people controlling the goods, let's get it all out there. Shouldn't be any reason to keep these hidden, other than lack of integrity. 

These are obviously rhetorical, the only interest I have is seeing what excuses will be offered.   

1.  There are goofs in the appeals from both sides.   

2.  There are reasons that those documents have not been released to the public.  The reasons don't have anything to do with lack of integrity.  There is nothing in those documents that the Petersons or the appellate lawyers don't want you to see.  They'll be released eventually, possibly in the near future. 

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, lsmith510 said:

1.  There are goofs in the appeals from both sides.   

2.  There are reasons that those documents have not been released to the public.  The reasons don't have anything to do with lack of integrity.  There is nothing in those documents that the Petersons or the appellate lawyers don't want you to see.  They'll be released eventually, possibly in the near future. 

1. Well, if you think any are worthy of discussing, feel free. I'd think Diana Campos is a pretty important piece according to some, especially Dalton, probably wanna get that right.

2. When they are released, I'll relent on my conclusion of lack of integrity.

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, lsmith510 said:

Jerry - you have one picture from one vantage point that wasn't even taken on the day in question and from that one picture you have come to the conclusion that Graybill could not have seen the open gate.  That one picture does not and can not prove that Graybill could not have seen the gate from other vantage points nor does that picture taken on the 26th prove that that is the exact position of Laci's car on the 24th.  That picture can not and does not discredit Graybill.   

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the A&E series to show every possible vantage point.  And it's a bit difficult to do an exact reenactment when there have been changes made to the home.   It's just a reenactment....it's just giving the audience a possible visual (after all what would a tv show be without visuals?)...it doesn't mean it's the only possibility....nor does what the A&E series portrays in any way discredit Graybill. 

And what does it matter if Graybill crossed the grass or walked in the street?  You can also see, from the gate vantage point, the area of the street where Graybill would have walked, had he walked in the street - so there is nothing suspicious or nefarious in their decision to have Graybill walking across the lawn.  He could have seen the gate from either. 

I think we've established that what you consider ordinary is not necessarily what I would consider ordinary.  If Laci regularly walked McKenzie at that time of day could the gate being open then be defined as an ordinary occurrence by Graybill? 

Let me ask you this....if you had been investigating Laci's disappearance and you were trying to get a timeline of what occurred that morning - and you saw the Callahan report that said that Graybill said the gate was open when he delivered the mail between 10:35-10:50 - and you're the guy that's asked to interview Graybill.  Wouldn't that be something you'd ask Graybill about? I certainly would.  What is your explanation for there being no mention of this in subsequent police reports?

 

Linda, there are two separate discussions. The picture I posted was to highlight where the A&E folks fraudulently portrayed their re-enactment of Graybill. Not my fault the gate it was filmed from was 10 feet further away from the Peterson house, 6-8 feet closer to the street, and not having a vehicle in the driveway. If they had permission to film on the property, they could have and should have portrayed this more accurately as to where the gate was, where the Land Rover was, where Graybill was - from his perspective. You see, you protest my use of marketing Scott's innocence, but when folks hide or hold back info like exhibits from the appeal, when they sell a narrative that isn't supported by what we know, then it's not about truth, it's about a need for Scott to be innocent in spite of the truth. The credibility and objectivity of the docu-series is an issue.

I've documented why I felt Graybill could not and would not have seen an open gate organically and shown three instances where he did NOT indicate an open gate (direct, cross, interview with Bertalotto), compared to a partial statement (partial since only a partial was shown on the infomercial) that he did. If you choose to believe the car was moved and that he cut across the yard and looked back and that his omission of open gate three times is less valuable, that's your prerogative. To provide maybes and could haves is not correcting misinformation, it's marketing your version.

It's obvious the version of reasonable in the pro-Scott camp is 180 out from the guilty camp. I've never heard such rubbish being sold as reasonable until I started discussing this case online. Laci wasn't walking regularly, not one person who knew her testified to any such thing. So, how to combat that. Point to a bunch of witnesses who didn't testify and then blame MG for ineffectiveness and LE for malfeasance. Accusations and hearsay, we're supposed to accept this as fact. And even when someone did testify, he didn't back up the open gate narrative. Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing unusual. In no way does a reasonable person thinks that means the gate was open based on those two statements. I don't think Graybill intentionally lied, I think he was trying to be helpful and recalled another time and day. His confusion backed up by not remembering if he delivered a package that day or not.

I'd have asked Graybill for a house by house account of his route and walked it myself. I'd have asked him if he cut through the yard or driveway or walked the street and used the Peterson sidewalk as I would expect. Probably would have had him meet me on Covena. I'd have then walked it myself, looked at his vantage point to see if he could see the gate. When I concluded he likely could not have seen the gate, I'd have moved on to the next item that might help figure out what happened to Laci. Because as I have said previously, I doubt MPD got too bogged down in details on paperwork worrying about a trial and discussion on message boards with a missing pregnant woman. Resources were likely thin, time was as well, I simply don't have the distrust of legions of law enforcement agencies conspiring against a nobody from day one.

[Regi]

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Jerry - you have one picture from one vantage point that wasn't even taken on the day in question and from that one picture you have come to the conclusion that Graybill could not have seen the open gate.  

The only vantage point of interest is that of Graybill, but what that frame shows is the vantage point of the camera operator, not Graybill. 

2 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Let me ask you this....if you had been investigating Laci's disappearance and you were trying to get a timeline of what occurred that morning - and you saw the Callahan report that said that Graybill said the gate was open when he delivered the mail between 10:35-10:50 - and you're the guy that's asked to interview Graybill.

Surely, the reason Graybill was contacted in the first place was to help establish a timeline (as narrowly as possible), that is, to determine whether the circumstance surrounding the dog occurred before or after he came by.

Edit: Was there only one report re: the Dec. 27th contact with Graybill?

Edited May 21, 2018 by Regi

[lsmith510]

2 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Linda, there are two separate discussions. The picture I posted was to highlight where the A&E folks fraudulently portrayed their re-enactment of Graybill. Not my fault the gate it was filmed from was 10 feet further away from the Peterson house, 6-8 feet closer to the street, and not having a vehicle in the driveway. If they had permission to film on the property, they could have and should have portrayed this more accurately as to where the gate was, where the Land Rover was, where Graybill was - from his perspective. You see, you protest my use of marketing Scott's innocence, but when folks hide or hold back info like exhibits from the appeal, when they sell a narrative that isn't supported by what we know, then it's not about truth, it's about a need for Scott to be innocent in spite of the truth. The credibility and objectivity of the docu-series is an issue.

I've documented why I felt Graybill could not and would not have seen an open gate organically and shown three instances where he did NOT indicate an open gate (direct, cross, interview with Bertalotto), compared to a partial statement (partial since only a partial was shown on the infomercial) that he did. If you choose to believe the car was moved and that he cut across the yard and looked back and that his omission of open gate three times is less valuable, that's your prerogative. To provide maybes and could haves is not correcting misinformation, it's marketing your version.

It's obvious the version of reasonable in the pro-Scott camp is 180 out from the guilty camp. I've never heard such rubbish being sold as reasonable until I started discussing this case online. Laci wasn't walking regularly, not one person who knew her testified to any such thing. So, how to combat that. Point to a bunch of witnesses who didn't testify and then blame MG for ineffectiveness and LE for malfeasance. Accusations and hearsay, we're supposed to accept this as fact. And even when someone did testify, he didn't back up the open gate narrative. Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing unusual. In no way does a reasonable person thinks that means the gate was open based on those two statements. I don't think Graybill intentionally lied, I think he was trying to be helpful and recalled another time and day. His confusion backed up by not remembering if he delivered a package that day or not.

I'd have asked Graybill for a house by house account of his route and walked it myself. I'd have asked him if he cut through the yard or driveway or walked the street and used the Peterson sidewalk as I would expect. Probably would have had him meet me on Covena. I'd have then walked it myself, looked at his vantage point to see if he could see the gate. When I concluded he likely could not have seen the gate, I'd have moved on to the next item that might help figure out what happened to Laci. Because as I have said previously, I doubt MPD got too bogged down in details on paperwork worrying about a trial and discussion on message boards with a missing pregnant woman. Resources were likely thin, time was as well, I simply don't have the distrust of legions of law enforcement agencies conspiring against a nobody from day one.

It's not about a need for Scott to be innocent in spite of the truth.  There is no untruth regarding Graybill in the A&E series.  Graybill said he saw the open gate.  There is nothing in the Callahan report that they are hiding.   I don't expect you to take my word for it - but when the exhibits are released to the public you'll be able to see for yourself. 

Yes you've documented why you think Graybill could not have seen the gate.....with, like I said before, a picture from one vantage point that wasn't taken on the 26th.  No....I don't believe Graybill cut across the grass and looked back...because, again, the reenactment for the A&E series is just that....a reenactment.  I think depending on where Laci's vehicle was he was able to see the gate from either the right or the left side of the vehicle.  Graybill says he could see the gate.  He has said it twice.  He was never asked about the gate at trial.   He has said in his declaration for the habeas that if he had been asked about the gate at trial he would have told them it was open.  So by using the lack of him testifying to it as proof that he didn't actually see it - you are calling Graybill a liar.

You can use the "lack of manpower" excuse to defend the MPD....but it seems to me that in a missing person's case - getting a timeline down of that morning probably should be a top priority.  If you are suggesting that Bertalotto did all of that investigating into Graybill's account but was too busy to put into a police report - well that's a maybe or a could have without using those actual words.  You're speculating.  And you jump all over us for that.   There is nothing to indicate he did any of that.  Using your logic - surely Bertalotto would have testified to that if he had done it - right? 

I don't know why you are discrediting the Callahan report based on only being shown a partial report - you haven't seen any of Bertalotto's report - yet you're using that as evidence.  I know you know this - but I feel the need to point out that a police report is not a transcript of an interview with a witness.  Just because it's not in Bertalotto's report - doesn't mean Bertalotto didn't ask him about the open gate.  It just means he chose not to include it in his report.

Graybill also says he's very clear on the day.  The circumstances support that it's HIGHLY unlikely Graybill is remembering a different day.   So you can choose to believe that Graybill is remembering the wrong day - but not only is there no evidence to support it - it's highly unlikely.  And by arguing that he's remembering a different day - then you're admitting that Graybill can see the gate when delivering the mail.  Graybill wasn't asked until two years later about whether he remembered delivering a package to the Petersons that day.  To use the fact that he could not recall what packages he delivered to what houses two years after the fact as proof that he was confused on 12/27 is disingenuous.

 

 

 

[lsmith510]

2 hours ago, Regi said:

The only vantage point of interest is that of Graybill, but what that frame shows is the vantage point of the camera operator, not Graybill. 

Surely, the reason Graybill was contacted in the first place was to help establish a timeline (as narrowly as possible), that is, to determine whether the circumstance surrounding the dog occurred before or after he came by.

Edit: Was there only one report re: the Dec. 27th contact with Graybill?

If the camera can see "Graybill" then "Graybill" can see the camera.

Yes - you would think so.  Therefore you would think Bertalotto would have asked him about the open gate.  The Dec. 27th contact with Graybill was by Callahan.  The Bertalotto interview with Graybill is a subsequent report - in which there is nothing about the gate....no questions, therefore no answers.

[Jerry Gallo]

8 minutes ago, lsmith510 said:

It's not about a need for Scott to be innocent in spite of the truth.  There is no untruth regarding Graybill in the A&E series.  Graybill said he saw the open gate.  There is nothing in the Callahan report that they are hiding.   I don't expect you to take my word for it - but when the exhibits are released to the public you'll be able to see for yourself. 

Yes you've documented why you think Graybill could not have seen the gate.....with, like I said before, a picture from one vantage point that wasn't taken on the 26th.  No....I don't believe Graybill cut across the grass and looked back...because, again, the reenactment for the A&E series is just that....a reenactment.  I think depending on where Laci's vehicle was he was able to see the gate from either the right or the left side of the vehicle.  Graybill says he could see the gate.  He has said it twice.  He was never asked about the gate at trial.   He has said in his declaration for the habeas that if he had been asked about the gate at trial he would have told them it was open.  So by using the lack of him testifying to it as proof that he didn't actually see it - you are calling Graybill a liar.

You can use the "lack of manpower" excuse to defend the MPD....but it seems to me that in a missing person's case - getting a timeline down of that morning probably should be a top priority.  If you are suggesting that Bertalotto did all of that investigating into Graybill's account but was too busy to put into a police report - well that's a maybe or a could have without using those actual words.  You're speculating.  And you jump all over us for that.   There is nothing to indicate he did any of that.  Using your logic - surely Bertalotto would have testified to that if he had done it - right? 

I don't know why you are discrediting the Callahan report based on only being shown a partial report - you haven't seen any of Bertalotto's report - yet you're using that as evidence.  I know you know this - but I feel the need to point out that a police report is not a transcript of an interview with a witness.  Just because it's not in Bertalotto's report - doesn't mean Bertalotto didn't ask him about the open gate.  It just means he chose not to include it in his report.

Graybill also says he's very clear on the day.  The circumstances support that it's HIGHLY unlikely Graybill is remembering a different day.   So you can choose to believe that Graybill is remembering the wrong day - but not only is there no evidence to support it - it's highly unlikely.  And by arguing that he's remembering a different day - then you're admitting that Graybill can see the gate when delivering the mail.  Graybill wasn't asked until two years later about whether he remembered delivering a package to the Petersons that day.  To use the fact that he could not recall what packages he delivered to what houses two years after the fact as proof that he was confused on 12/27 is disingenuous.

 

 

 

But there is untruth, the portrayal indicates Graybill is looking at a gate that is on the far side of the driveway and closer to the street than the original gate and is filmed with an empty driveway from the gate's perspective, not Graybill's.  

Okay, fair enough. Graybill is a liar. He either lied to LE and perjured himself on the stand or he lied to police and in the declaration. I was trying to be polite. 

They did have a timeline down that morning, 10:18 when Karen put the dog back. Not one person testified to anything you allege afterwards. Not one. So, you conveniently blame Geragos for who didn't testify, won't give a moment's thought that anyone who could have testified otherwise would have been destroyed on cross. Bertalotto is a DA investigator, so no, I wouldn't expect his info to be in a police report. No maybe or could have there. The witness told him nothing unusual, nothing out of the ordinary. What is Bertalotto supposed to do with a witness who says he saw nothing unusual in a casual interview, waterboard him? What's Russell's excuse for that? MPD was pretty busy, only anti-police folks scrutinize them in hindsight and give them no credit for the overtime, their effort or hard work. No one recalls the amount of effort they put into other things than just Scott. It's just blame them based on what we know today. Never understood how anyone can blanket multiple agencies with shade like it happens on this case daily.  

Again, Bertalotto isn't a cop. And now we go with the tin foil hat stuff that Bertalotto left it out. Also, my problem is, if takes more effort to portray a portion of a document than it does the whole document. We'll never get the truth on the reason for that. The exhibits are filed with the habeas, so there was a pro-active choice to not include them. We'll never get a reason on that. Just innuendo, teasers. It's dirty pool. But it's okay, it's really all the defense team has.

LOL...how about we cut to the chase on who is disingenuous. Graybill was the mailman on 12/26, correct? Delivered mail around 10:45, most likely. So, Graybill, between the news and the media on Covena, both things that your side trumpets from every rooftop on a daily basis, the mailman for the home of the missing pregnant woman that he knew - who saw an open gate and no dog, said nothing until police came to him and then he had to print out a route and ballpark it to 10:35-10:50 + or - 15 minutes? Just another person who "didn't think anything of it" until your side needs them to. 

[Booth]

On 5/19/2018 at 10:10 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

Of course not. I do though, which now tallies Delucchi's instructions, California state law, and SCOTUS' ruling in one column, your opinion in another. Not only do I accept your right to your opinion, I accept your right to hold that opinion as a juror that could set a killer free when I would not. The only rub here since day one is your refusal to allow others the right to agree with the three sanctioned precedents in the other column. So, in my view, we are done with this issue.

None of this addresses the totality of what I find unreasonable about his behavior and the boat cover in 1/2 and the lettered bullets. What he could, would or should have also done does not explain what he did or why. This isn't your cross to bear, it's his. What I see on this portion is you attempting to excuse something, not explain it logically.

Disagree it total here. Scott's behavior, actions and words are the evidence, the questions are to discern whether this is evidence of innocence or evidence of guilt. Put all his behavior, actions and words together and if the sum of it is reasonable, organic, and logical, neither of us have any questions, then it's evidence of innocence. If the sum is unreasonable or we still have a bunch of questions, that would indicate evidence of guilt.

Perhaps if the boat cover was wadded up, thrown in a trash can, with no gas on it, I might totally agree. Or even wadded up, thrown in the shed with the tarp or umbrellas where they were found, without gas. 

So, here a question IS evidence...of duplicity. And Geragos is both smart and incompetent. A lot of this occurs here. But no worries, we can agree to disagree. I'd just go with the 20th if I were you, there is much less information to support the 23rd.

Fair enough. I've always conceded your standard was higher than mine. So, I guess we're proactively doing our voir dire here. I'm a prosecutor's best friend and you are the defense's. Doubt either of us would make a jury if this thread is reviewed in full. LOL

No, I remember the media coverage quite well. I just think if the media is following him around, they'd follow him to the rental car place and then follow the car he got into. And I think if he is going to the bay, he'd talk to someone about how the search was going. And I don't think the media in 2002 has the resources to follow him 24/7. Or even 8/5. It was a huge story, but Scott was just a guy.

 Big exception. You think if he admitted to the affair that night, they would have hooked him up? No need to reply...rhetorical.

My position is actually pretty clear. Distaso showed the autopsy photos and described the twine on Conner as loose. No prosecutor does that if the photo shows conclusive exculpatory evidence. No prosecutor proactively brings up the twine if they are afraid of it. Peterson said debris. No damage to the neck. The twine was the same material as other debris found later. Means the alternate killers had to use trash found on the shore. No evidence of how the baby was removed. The list goes on and on. There was no testimony about head/neck size, that was Wecht on TV. He should have testified to that. Just doesn't move me like it does you. At least finally you want to see the photos though...progress!!! :-D  

Could be. I think proving Nice intentionally lied will be too difficult a hurdle to overcome. Just don't think they can prove she understood the legal nuance. But, it certainly is a possibility.

Taylor v. Kentucky addresses whether or not a judge should be required to specifically instruct the jury on the fact that an indictment holds no evidentiary value. I'm still not seeing the relevance here. You're free to explain.

But again, your totality of assumptions is based on questions you have, not on evidence that links Scott to a murder. It's perfectly logical to believe that Scott simply forgot the umbrellas. To you, he was obviously lying, despite the fact that he had nothing to gain by bringing them home. Perhaps you like the smell of gasoline, but would you put a gasoline-soaked boat cover closer to your patio or further away? Which would be more logical? You assume he put it in the "wrong" shed deliberately, for some nefarious reason that you can't explain. And no, it isn't Scott's cross to bear. It isn't his responsibility to explain every single thing he did and why. It is the the state's obligation to show, beyond reasonable doubt, how Scott's actions and words link him to the crime. LINK HIM TO THE CRIME, not merely raise questions about his actions and words.

This is simply not true. If a juror has questions, he is not free to speculate on what the answers might be. That is, he can not presume guilt because a question appears inexplicable to him.

OK, so it's the gasoline you find so incriminating. Yet, we don't even know when or how the boat cover got soaked in gasoline. You're only speculating that Scott put it in the shed, that the gas came from the blower, and that it was soaked deliberately. Virtually everything you believe about the boat cover is pure speculation.

No, no, no, Jerry. Let's understand the distinction. The question itself is not evidence. Brocchini took the stand and gave the jury his answer to the question. That's evidence! The jury was free to assess his credibility and the reasonableness of his answer. "Does Brocchini usually excise duplicate information included in his reports"? "Did he offer a reasonable explanation for only excising this duplicate information on this particular occasion"? These are fair questions that a jury can and should consider to evaluate his answer. 

Geragos was incompetent overall, IMO, but that doesn't mean he didn't do some things well. He did. Just as Marcia Clark was incompetent, but she did a couple of things right. Your presumption is that Geragos only did the things he did because he knew Scott was guilty. It's ultimately a moot point; I'm not arguing that Geragos was legally ineffective. Frankly, anyone foolish enough to hire that guy probably deserves to be in San Quentin anyway...

LOL. You're certainly right about that. Neither of us would ever make it on a jury again.

Well, I think the media had plenty of resources in 2002 to keep tabs on their hottest story. Or even their number 2 or 3 story. C'mon man, they were camped out in front of his house. You know that. Even if they weren't actually following him, Scott could safely assume they were. Do we know who rented the cars Scott was seen driving?

You can make your position crystal clear by just answering my questions. Again, is it your position that the twine drifted over Conner's deformed head? That is, Conner's head was at autopsy no more than an inch larger in circumference than his neck? You're right in that there was no testimony to the measurements, but how else do you explain the twine getting over the head? How did that happen? You've yet to offer any reasonable explanation for this.

What you think prosecutors may do or not do is not evidence, or even relevant. Dr. Peterson speculated that the twine was debris, while at the same time acknowledging that it was outside his area of expertise. Regardless of what Distaso tried to spin, Dr. Peterson(well within his area of expertise) clearly described the twine as being tightly knotted within an inch of Conner's neck; not loose. This is an indisputable fact. And yes, the list of unanswered questions does indeed go on and on. And it ultimately comes back to: whose obligation is it to answer those questions?

I've always wanted to see the autopsy photos. I'm very curious to see if they depict a length of twine, not tied, but loosely wrapped around Conner's body. Something which would totally contradict the testimony of Dr. Peterson and Criminalist Kyo, the state's key witnesses.

You may be right, but if Nice didn't understand the nuance, then it becomes a legitimate question of competence. Should this woman have even been serving on a jury to begin with? Couple that with her post-trial comments, her letters to Scott, her mental health problems, etc. and I think it raises a real issue.

[Regi]

17 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

If the camera can see "Graybill" then "Graybill" can see the camera.

(I see...and whether the portrayal is accurate in the first place is beside the point.)

17 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

Yes - you would think so.  Therefore you would think Bertalotto would have asked him about the open gate.

No, I would think further contact w/Graybill on the 30th would have been in reference to the Medina burglary.

17 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

The Dec. 27th contact with Graybill was by Callahan. 

Just so it's clear, you're saying that there's no record whatsoever from Skultety re: the Dec. 27th contact w/Graybill?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Regi

[Regi]

10 hours ago, Booth said:

But again, your totality of assumptions is based on questions you have, not on evidence that links Scott to a murder.

Your position is that you don't know who, what, how, or why, yet it's your observation that it's Jerry Gallo who has questions?

[JaneH]

1 hour ago, Regi said:

Just so it's clear, you're saying that there's no record whatsoever from Skultety re: the Dec. 27th contact w/Graybill?

From the habeas petition:  "On December 27, 2002, Officer M. Callahan and Detective Skultety of the Modesto Police Department interviewed Mr. Graybill."

Callahan wrote the report.  Skultety did not write a report.

There was no followup by MPD on the information contained in the Dec 27 Callahan report.  Detective Grogan received a copy of the report and ignored it.  

The entire investigation was based on the lie that Laci was dead at the time Servas found the dog at 10:18 or earlier.  

 

[JaneH]

The lies Detective Brocchini told were fairly obvious.  The ones told by lead detective Craig Grogan were much more sinister.

By the time of the trial Grogan felt it was necessary to explain the failure of the Modesto police to investigate the Laci sightings in the neighborhood.  These were his explanations:

They didn’t follow up on tips that were before 10:08 or after 10:18 (based on an amateur analysis of cell phone tower information and Servas estimated time for finding the dog)

They didn’t follow up on tips that claimed Laci was wearing something other than the tan pants found on her body in mid-April.

They didn’t follow up on tips that reported Laci walking outside of the park.

[Regi]

21 minutes ago, JaneH said:

From the habeas petition:  "On December 27, 2002, Officer M. Callahan and Detective Skultety of the Modesto Police Department interviewed Mr. Graybill.

The info that there were two present at the interview was the reason I asked about the documentation.

23 minutes ago, JaneH said:

Callahan wrote the report.  Skultety did not write a report.

I was referring to whether there exists any documentation of any kind from Skultety. (Mind you, I wouldn't accept your answer- or that from any other supporter- as a fact of the matter, I'm merely curious as to how it's answered, that's all.)

25 minutes ago, JaneH said:

There was no followup by MPD on the information contained in the Dec 27 Callahan report.

I think follow up with any witness is dependent upon info ascertained as an investigation unfolds.

49 minutes ago, JaneH said:

The entire investigation was based on the lie that Laci was dead at the time Servas found the dog at 10:18 or earlier. 

Servas put forth what I consider to be an extraordinary effort in order to be as precise with her timeline as possible, but what about Peterson?

How about the lie Peterson continued to tell over a month later about having left the home at 9:30?

[JaneH]

28 minutes ago, Regi said:

Servas put forth what I consider to be an extraordinary effort in order to be as precise with her timeline as possible, but what about Peterson?

Servas initially gave her time as 10:30.  She then gave police estimates as early as 10:10.  Scott should be allowed the same leeway.  He left home around 9:50 shortly after the Martha Stewart segment at 10:48.  

What about Grogan basing his entire case on a false timeline?

[Regi]

1 minute ago, JaneH said:

Servas initially gave her time as 10:30. 

Which showed to be close to accurate, much closer to accurate than Peterson's.

Tell me, how is it figured he arrived at 9:30 and that he was still perpetuating the same notion over a month later?

[JaneH]

7 minutes ago, Regi said:

Which showed to be close to accurate, much closer to accurate than Peterson's.

Tell me, how is it figured he arrived at 9:30 and that he was still perpetuating the same notion over a month later?

You have no way of knowing that Servas' timeline is accurate.  MPD never checked the accuracy of the time source she gave as the basis for it.

Scott's initial estimate was 9:30. If the police bothered to give him the time of the Martha Stewart segment or Kristen Reed's sighting, he could have been more exact.  The media continued to give this timeline for at least 6 months.  The police didn't give their contrived timeline until the trial.  And yet you imply that Scott was lying while others were just mistaken.

You still have not answered my question:

What about Grogan basing his entire case on a false timeline?

[Sly Humour]

On 5/21/2018 at 10:36 AM, Regi said:

I'd expect that anyone who read his testimony could interpret what was or wasn't usual.
 

Let's test your theory then...

I've read all of your posts related to this topic since the first one you pinned up at 11:40 on March 29, 2016, and despite the fact that you have never stated your least favorite color, based on my interpretation of everything you've written so far, I've concluded that you hate the color pink because you find that it looks strange.

I'm right, am I not?
 

[Regi]

1 hour ago, JaneH said:

Scott's initial estimate was 9:30. 

The media continued to give this timeline for at least 6 months.

For however long it was repeated, Peterson was the source.

1 hour ago, JaneH said:

You still have not answered my question:

Well, I'm sure it's not your first unrealistic expectation.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Regi

[Regi]

5 minutes ago, Sly Humour said:

I'm right, am I not?

I'd say my least favorite color is red.