Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

[Regi]

58 minutes ago, The Narcisse said:

There wasn't a lot of evidence against Peterson. I couldn't have convicted him and sentenced him to die based on the case presented. Not saying he didn't do it though.

I've never understood this type of comment. I mean, I think if you know the evidence, then surely, you should be able to form an opinion one way or the other.

Edit: This is the reason I've said that if you say you don't know, then I think you never will know. (And you can mark my words that you will never know.)

Edited September 21, 2017 by regi

[Comey2016]

1 hour ago, regi said:

Of course, you would, but you're applying too much weight to the statement of one witness, the type of evidence which has shown to be the most unreliable of all evidence.

Regi we're never going to agree on this case, so it seems like a waste to even discuss it.

I know one thing though, I would bet you money Scott Peterson is going to get a reversal. There is absolutely no way around the lies of Richelle Nice, and the law is VERY clear that when a juror lies on their questionnaire it is reversible error.

So down the road there will be a 2nd trial. It will be nothing like the first, and so maybe then there will be new things to discuss.  

[The Narcisse]

41 minutes ago, regi said:

I've never understood this type of comment. I mean, I think if you know the evidence, then surely, you should be able to form an opinion one way or the other.

Edit: This is the reason I've said that if you say you don't know, then I think you never will know. (And you can mark my words that you will never know.)

Of course I'll never know. Unless he confesses. That's the only way to ever know the full truth. My comment was just stating that there is reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is all that is needed.

[Regi]

36 minutes ago, The Narcisse said:

Of course I'll never know. Unless he confesses.

Well, you'll never get a confession; this is a man who- when presented with photographic evidence of his affair- stated, "Is that supposed to be me?" And he actually went on to comment that the girl looks like someone he went to college with, but that it wasn't him, and he didn't think it was the girl. 

Clearly, this is a person who'll never confess.

Edited September 21, 2017 by regi

[Regi]

19 minutes ago, Comey2016 said:

Regi we're never going to agree on this case, so it seems like a waste to even discuss it.

I don't think it's that we disagree is the reason you think it's a waste to discuss.

[Jackal_]

Did you say Gallo? With a "G"? Jerry Gallo is dead. I'm not Jerry Gallo, I'm Jerry Callo..C-A-L-L-O. Great movie. 

Back on topic - the reason for so much disagreement between the two "one-sided" parties involved here is because there is reasonable doubt. No matter of fact person could think otherwise. What we can all agree on is this: The true victims of this horrendous crime are Laci and Conner. It is an absolute travesty what happened to them and they deserve true justice. 

To those who look at the only evidence presented - circumstantial - and believe Scott 100% did it, why get on here and argue about it? You've won, he's in prison most likely for life as he is currently on death row and data shows re-trials and appellate courts don't typically overturn capital cases (roughly 81% of appellate courts rule in favor of the trial court's decision). The only reason to get on a message board like this is to sway other's opinions or to investigate further. You're definitely not swaying other people's opinions with your lack of factual or forensic evidence so investigating further proves there is a reasonable doubt or there would be no need to. 

To those who say he is 100% not guilty - you nor I nor regi and her beautiful dog nor Callo with a "C" can say with undeniable certainty that he didn't do it. Sure there is 0 forensic evidence supporting that he actually committed the crime. Sure someone with no criminal history can perform such a heinous crime of murdering your wife, taking your unborn baby out of her womb and tying rope around it's neck (since it's been proven beyond a doubt who ever committed this psychotic act of hatred did indeed take the baby out of the womb before dumping Laci's body) before dumping it in a different location (has been proven beyond a doubt that the bodies were dumped at different sites/areas of the bay), and sure the only scientific evidence supported in this case proves that Conner's body was still alive well after Dec. 24th (so who the hell had the fetus? It couldn't have been Scott, his every move was being watched on and after the 24th, his truck/boat being impounded, his house and warehouse being searched several times in between, Scott never returning to the Bay after Dec. 24th so he couldn't have dumped the body at a later date). 

The only thing I can say is that this case was mishandled. Grossly mishandled by the cops and investigators (you don't stop at 1 suspect, ever, period - you don't release the information of said suspect's alibi ever, period - you don't, as a lead investigator, erase or withhold important evidence and testimonies and later perjure yourself from a capital case ever, period - you always question eye-witnesses who come forward no matter how valid/invalid they may be - you never, ever allow media pressure to speed up what is supposed to be an extremely thorough investigation), grossly mishandled by the media and jury (let's be honest, these ****s were looking to get famous off this case - I don't care what other's think about this: his unfaithfulness and seemingly unnerved persona doesn't automatically make him a murderer - choosing to let circumstantial evidence and personal feelings outweigh the 0 forensic evidence this case had - applying harassment or pressure on those who think differently) and grossly mishandled by the prosecution, defense, and judge (prosecution literally ****ed up the time of death, day of death, and the overall timeline of events that is extremely important from day 1 - most of the prosecution's witnesses were proven to be foney's/debunked - they literally said they couldn't prove when it happened, where it happened, or how it happened, but because they think Scott did it others should think so to - the defense ALWAYS needs to put all eye-witnesses on the stand - had they done this I'd be willing to bet it created enough doubt - the judge allowed harassment between jurors and left the juror who harassed others with a difference of opinion on the jury - huge no no). 

What this thread has proven to me is that absolutely no one can present enough factual evidence that shows he did it. This all ultimately falls on the cops for not gathering enough evidence initially. I guess for all the "he 100% did it" folks it was a good thing I wasn't on the jury, there is no way I could have said he committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Regi]

23 minutes ago, Jackal_ said:

Back on topic - the reason for so much disagreement between the two "one-sided" parties involved here is because there is reasonable doubt.

Wrong, right out of the gate, and you state it as fact, which I find delusional.

[Jackal_]

7 minutes ago, regi said:

Wrong, right out of the gate, and you state it as fact, which I find delusional.

I look forward to your informed rebuttal. With actual and forensic evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt that Scott is the one who committed this crime. Not timelines because those are too easily de-bunked. Not eye-witnesses because there are too many contradictions to really know what actually happened and what people actually saw. Not guessing games on why was the dog leashed and out of the fenced in yard. Not why did Scott get home take a shower (because he was fishing), eat (because he was hungry), etc. before calling looking for Laci. I guess he should have immediately thought that Laci was kidnapped or murdered the second he got home and she wasn't there. Instead of maybe thinking she went for a walk without her phone and will be back shortly. 

I truly look forward to your rebuttal. I hope you or someone else can help me change my mind that the justice system actually did a good job on this case. 

[Regi]

Just now, Jackal_ said:

 I hope you or someone else can help me change my mind that the justice system actually did a good job on this case. 

You're hoping that I or someone else will change your mind?

No, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that.

 

[Regi]

1 hour ago, Jackal_ said:

To those who say he is 100% not guilty - you nor I nor regi and her beautiful dog nor Callo with a "C" can say with undeniable certainty that he didn't do it.

OMG! (I hadn't read your entire editorial). So I see there's still reference to one single comment I made way back when?!

Well, it appears I'm recognized as a force to be reckoned with. (I guess others would never guess, but I'm actually rather shy, not one who likes attention.)

Edit: Indeed, he's beautiful in every way, and if anyone's interested, he's 11.

Edited September 21, 2017 by regi

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Actually, I'm not asking the same from you. Just look at how you word your posts, there is nothing similar about how you go about your business. Y'all dismiss anything that gives an appearance of guilt, mock people with "being a sex addict doesn't prove murder" as if anyone says it does and you ignore any tough question you can't answer. I've conceded points that I thought were significant, I've researched to a nauseating degree every alternate theory that's been provided now and in the past. Nothing is believable. So, no, you haven't filled in any blanks. What you've done is the same thing a defense attorney would, try and create doubt. The problem is, the creations of doubt are NOT reasonable and when it's explained why, that is where your group bails. 

The only reason Graybill is significant is because you think he provides the best hope. So you go on some tangent about him being the Cesar Milan of mail carriers and then post all these matter of fact comments like you have expertise on the mail system that no other person has. I've posted my questions about Graybill, they were ignored. Another thing that happens is people mouth off about "you aren't open minded", "you are invested in guilt". Are any of you open minded or NOT invested? So, let's take your last paragraph...

1. Do I think Graybill is going to remember exactly what mail he has delivered to any house? No. However, when I see people who are 100% convinced he remembers one dog at one house by having to look back into a recessed area beyond Laci's car to see an open gate, when I see people clinging to a package that Laci needs two free hands to handle and that somehow exonerates Scott and proves burglars did it, when people jump all over Graybill's timeline ESTIMATE like it's gospel (what is the + - 30 minutes), then yes, I damn well expect that when he offers the only thing that matters here (trial testimony), I expect him to remember delivering a sizable package to the same address with an open gate and a dog that isn't barking.

2. I should read about Graybill? Why these comments like the only people who have studied this case is you supporters? I've read Graybill's information 100 times. You have no idea what he knew or didn't. If McKenzie didn't bark, that didn't mean she was gone, she could have been in the back bedroom of the house napping or chewing on a bone for all Graybill knew. I've walked the same four mile path through neighborhoods for years...I too know where dogs lose their minds when people pass by. I don't know each one each day, but maybe mail carriers are clairvoyant in some way...when you need them to be to help your cause.

3. What does free delivery confirmation have to do with anything? Many people don't understand the mail, people are very naive. LOL Is there anything you supporters aren't the leading authority on while everyone else who happens to disagree are unaware? Anyway, Graybill was offered the chance to discuss the open gate by both Distaso on direct and Geragos on cross...his reply, twice...

NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY THAT DAY

But the handwritten note found in discovery is your golden goose. Why, because you NEED it to be. The only question that matters here is that if Graybill thought the lack of a barking McKenzie or an open gate was significantly out of the norm, why did he not testify to such when given two chances? So, what's your excuse for that?

 

 

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.  Free will baby!

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, regi said:

Of course, you would, but you're applying too much weight to the statement of one witness, the type of evidence which has shown to be the most unreliable of all evidence.

I was in transportation, every carrier knows every dog on there route.  In fact if you ever talk to your carrier, ask them.  They know when there home, and when there not.  For you to just blatantly disregard Graybill is your prerogative, and yet you take other witness statements as fact.  This man changes the whole case, the whole timeline, the fact that Laci could have very well been alive.  Yet again when Scott returns, McKenzie is in the backyard, is that why you disregard his whole statement?

[Jerry Gallo]

4 hours ago, Jackal_ said:

Did you say Gallo? With a "G"? Jerry Gallo is dead. I'm not Jerry Gallo, I'm Jerry Callo..C-A-L-L-O. Great movie. 

Back on topic - the reason for so much disagreement between the two "one-sided" parties involved here is because there is reasonable doubt. No matter of fact person could think otherwise. What we can all agree on is this: The true victims of this horrendous crime are Laci and Conner. It is an absolute travesty what happened to them and they deserve true justice. 

To those who look at the only evidence presented - circumstantial - and believe Scott 100% did it, why get on here and argue about it? You've won, he's in prison most likely for life as he is currently on death row and data shows re-trials and appellate courts don't typically overturn capital cases (roughly 81% of appellate courts rule in favor of the trial court's decision). The only reason to get on a message board like this is to sway other's opinions or to investigate further. You're definitely not swaying other people's opinions with your lack of factual or forensic evidence so investigating further proves there is a reasonable doubt or there would be no need to. 

To those who say he is 100% not guilty - you nor I nor regi and her beautiful dog nor Callo with a "C" can say with undeniable certainty that he didn't do it. Sure there is 0 forensic evidence supporting that he actually committed the crime. Sure someone with no criminal history can perform such a heinous crime of murdering your wife, taking your unborn baby out of her womb and tying rope around it's neck (since it's been proven beyond a doubt who ever committed this psychotic act of hatred did indeed take the baby out of the womb before dumping Laci's body) before dumping it in a different location (has been proven beyond a doubt that the bodies were dumped at different sites/areas of the bay), and sure the only scientific evidence supported in this case proves that Conner's body was still alive well after Dec. 24th (so who the hell had the fetus? It couldn't have been Scott, his every move was being watched on and after the 24th, his truck/boat being impounded, his house and warehouse being searched several times in between, Scott never returning to the Bay after Dec. 24th so he couldn't have dumped the body at a later date). 

The only thing I can say is that this case was mishandled. Grossly mishandled by the cops and investigators (you don't stop at 1 suspect, ever, period - you don't release the information of said suspect's alibi ever, period - you don't, as a lead investigator, erase or withhold important evidence and testimonies and later perjure yourself from a capital case ever, period - you always question eye-witnesses who come forward no matter how valid/invalid they may be - you never, ever allow media pressure to speed up what is supposed to be an extremely thorough investigation), grossly mishandled by the media and jury (let's be honest, these ****s were looking to get famous off this case - I don't care what other's think about this: his unfaithfulness and seemingly unnerved persona doesn't automatically make him a murderer - choosing to let circumstantial evidence and personal feelings outweigh the 0 forensic evidence this case had - applying harassment or pressure on those who think differently) and grossly mishandled by the prosecution, defense, and judge (prosecution literally ****ed up the time of death, day of death, and the overall timeline of events that is extremely important from day 1 - most of the prosecution's witnesses were proven to be foney's/debunked - they literally said they couldn't prove when it happened, where it happened, or how it happened, but because they think Scott did it others should think so to - the defense ALWAYS needs to put all eye-witnesses on the stand - had they done this I'd be willing to bet it created enough doubt - the judge allowed harassment between jurors and left the juror who harassed others with a difference of opinion on the jury - huge no no). 

What this thread has proven to me is that absolutely no one can present enough factual evidence that shows he did it. This all ultimately falls on the cops for not gathering enough evidence initially. I guess for all the "he 100% did it" folks it was a good thing I wasn't on the jury, there is no way I could have said he committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the first line...glad someone finally made mention of it. Was difficult deciding to go with Gallo or Callo as my alter ego here. Great movie indeed!

Disagree that there is reasonable doubt on innocence, comprehend reasonable doubt for those in the not proven camp.

Honestly, I know I won't change an innocent to something else. But perhaps I might prevent an on the fence type from becoming an innocent based on one-sided information. Each person can choose what to believe, I just know a guilty would much sooner concede a possibility of something than an innocent would. Feel free to read back through the thread to when I first posted,my issues are that A) I've never started the "your mind is closed" or "you are invested in X" mantra, but I've received plenty of it from people who absolutely don't have an open mind or are invested in X. That's hypocrisy 101. And 2) I've never dodged a question, yet there's plenty of that going on here. When it gets difficult, questions are ignored and snark rules the day. See two posts up. Kind of cowardly.

I hear the lack of forensic and physical evidence thing a lot. Are you saying that the only way you could EVER convict is if there was physical or forensic evidence? And, is such an expectation fair when you are talking about a body submerged in sea water for three months? How many rapists are charged based on skin under nails? How many causes of death are based on condition of the body? It's like some are willing to reward a clever killer. A strangulation in the home would leave no physical evidence. Who knows what farm chemicals can do to compromise physical/forensic evidence? And you make statements as facts about "beyond a doubt" about the bodies as if you have more expertise than the pathologist and forensic anthropologist who testified. Not even the most staunch guilty does that. 

I appreciate your post and there are portions I agree with. Some I adamantly disagree with it. Seems like you form conclusions just like those you take exception with and that is where you lost me somewhat.    

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

2 hours ago, Sugarnspice said:

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.  Free will baby!

Hi Sugaranspice,

Welcome to UM. As a reminder this is a discussion forum and as such civility and courtesy is the rule, not the exception.

[Sugarnspice]

On 9/20/2017 at 2:07 PM, regi said:

Here something I hadn't previously known: I hadn't known that Peterson actually went back to the warehouse sometime before the search warrants of the 26th/27th!

Indeed, when those warrants were executed, LE found that he'd not only moved the boat cover and umbrellas to where they were later found, but other items that had also been in the truck on the eve of the 26th were found at the warehouse, either in the office or inside of the boat!

One can only wonder what all other re-arranging took place.

Didn't he already allow a search prior to this?  His house, his cars and trucks?  They would have seen the items already in the truck.  He may have been meaning to leave them at the warehouse and never did.  They were unloaded, not cleaned.  I don't see the meaning on this.

[Sugarnspice]

21 hours ago, Booth said:

But we're talking about only one anomaly; the leash on the dog. We know that Scott left at ~10:08, but you're assuming that Laci had left for her walk before 10:18, and that's an unreasonable assumption. Consider what may have happened: Shortly after Scott leaves, Laci places the leash on McKenzie, goes back inside to check her phone, take something from the freezer, change her clothes, use the restroom, whatever. While she's distracted for 5-10 minutes, the dog gets out of the gate and goes into the street. Karen Servas sees and returns him, without Laci ever knowing. Laci could've left 30 minutes later for all we know. Isn't that a reasonable scenario? 

I think that everyone here has read that Scott was a slob, Laci probably had to pick up all the time around him.  Since the dog has been seen many times by Graybill or neighbors out in front, and the neighbors had said, someone leaves the gate open. So my assumption is it's Scott who would leave the gate open.  So here is a scenario, Scott leaves and leaving the gate open, Laci puts the leash on, lets the dog out first because he's all excited jumping on her, dog wanders right outside the gate because it's already open.   I think it is important for the defense to find out who always left the gate open.  Scott or Laci.  No neighbor has ever said the "dog" opened the gate.  It was always "one of them".   Does anyone know if the dog was known to open the gate by itself?  I have never read this fact.

[Sugarnspice]

10 hours ago, The Narcisse said:

Of course I'll never know. Unless he confesses. That's the only way to ever know the full truth. My comment was just stating that there is reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is all that is needed.

I felt just as you did.  That even if Scott was guilty there was no evidence to prove this.  So by law, he should not have been convicted.

[Sugarnspice]

8 hours ago, Jackal_ said:

Did you say Gallo? With a "G"? Jerry Gallo is dead. I'm not Jerry Gallo, I'm Jerry Callo..C-A-L-L-O. Great movie. 

Back on topic - the reason for so much disagreement between the two "one-sided" parties involved here is because there is reasonable doubt. No matter of fact person could think otherwise. What we can all agree on is this: The true victims of this horrendous crime are Laci and Conner. It is an absolute travesty what happened to them and they deserve true justice. 

To those who look at the only evidence presented - circumstantial - and believe Scott 100% did it, why get on here and argue about it? You've won, he's in prison most likely for life as he is currently on death row and data shows re-trials and appellate courts don't typically overturn capital cases (roughly 81% of appellate courts rule in favor of the trial court's decision). The only reason to get on a message board like this is to sway other's opinions or to investigate further. You're definitely not swaying other people's opinions with your lack of factual or forensic evidence so investigating further proves there is a reasonable doubt or there would be no need to. 

To those who say he is 100% not guilty - you nor I nor regi and her beautiful dog nor Callo with a "C" can say with undeniable certainty that he didn't do it. Sure there is 0 forensic evidence supporting that he actually committed the crime. Sure someone with no criminal history can perform such a heinous crime of murdering your wife, taking your unborn baby out of her womb and tying rope around it's neck (since it's been proven beyond a doubt who ever committed this psychotic act of hatred did indeed take the baby out of the womb before dumping Laci's body) before dumping it in a different location (has been proven beyond a doubt that the bodies were dumped at different sites/areas of the bay), and sure the only scientific evidence supported in this case proves that Conner's body was still alive well after Dec. 24th (so who the hell had the fetus? It couldn't have been Scott, his every move was being watched on and after the 24th, his truck/boat being impounded, his house and warehouse being searched several times in between, Scott never returning to the Bay after Dec. 24th so he couldn't have dumped the body at a later date). 

The only thing I can say is that this case was mishandled. Grossly mishandled by the cops and investigators (you don't stop at 1 suspect, ever, period - you don't release the information of said suspect's alibi ever, period - you don't, as a lead investigator, erase or withhold important evidence and testimonies and later perjure yourself from a capital case ever, period - you always question eye-witnesses who come forward no matter how valid/invalid they may be - you never, ever allow media pressure to speed up what is supposed to be an extremely thorough investigation), grossly mishandled by the media and jury (let's be honest, these ****s were looking to get famous off this case - I don't care what other's think about this: his unfaithfulness and seemingly unnerved persona doesn't automatically make him a murderer - choosing to let circumstantial evidence and personal feelings outweigh the 0 forensic evidence this case had - applying harassment or pressure on those who think differently) and grossly mishandled by the prosecution, defense, and judge (prosecution literally ****ed up the time of death, day of death, and the overall timeline of events that is extremely important from day 1 - most of the prosecution's witnesses were proven to be foney's/debunked - they literally said they couldn't prove when it happened, where it happened, or how it happened, but because they think Scott did it others should think so to - the defense ALWAYS needs to put all eye-witnesses on the stand - had they done this I'd be willing to bet it created enough doubt - the judge allowed harassment between jurors and left the juror who harassed others with a difference of opinion on the jury - huge no no). 

What this thread has proven to me is that absolutely no one can present enough factual evidence that shows he did it. This all ultimately falls on the cops for not gathering enough evidence initially. I guess for all the "he 100% did it" folks it was a good thing I wasn't on the jury, there is no way I could have said he committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Very well said.  Me finding out about Graybill had a big sway on me.  I was in transportation, know many mail carriers, ups, fed ex, lots of home delivery.  Every single one of them who had a regular route, know the dogs.  Know when there home, and when there not.  The dogs would be there every single day at the door or gate, and the dog didn't sleep thru a visit.  I had one, they would spring up at any sound of a vehicle they recognized.  When Graybill came, that dog was "not" home.  Graybill has a time stamp by the Government.  Knowing carriers and dogs, i truly believe this one.

[Sugarnspice]

That is twice now.  At least i am effective.

[+DieChecker]

On 9/17/2017 at 5:59 AM, Comey2016 said:

Here is a pic of Scott's boat cover:

The previous owner of the boat testified the cover was meant for storage, not travel. The cover did not have hardware to attach it to the boat like you see with travel covers that have heavey duty snaps that attach on the boat itself all around the boat. This cover had cloth loops as you can see and there was nothing on the boat to attach them with so in storage a person would have to use rope or bungy cords if they wanted to actually wrap the cover onto the boat. This would not be suitable for driving down the freeway let alone for more than an hour. 

Here is a pic of the inside of Scott's boat:

Where is a big body bag with weights going to go in that boat? 

Also if you look the seats are attached, the fishing seat is also attached. Poles and other things that could fly out go on the floor and under that space in the metal seat. I live in a coastal area, I see boats like this on the road and on trailers on practically a daily basis. They are never covered, and you can see right in them if you pass one from a small SUV like the one I have. 

On 9/17/2017 at 8:09 AM, Comey2016 said:

Okay so I've explained why the cover couldn't and wasn't used for transport. How does the fact that he stuffed the tarp down by the tool box then become suspicious to you? Is your husband a neat freak or something? So what if Scott shoved the cover in the truck, he was out by the truck hooking up the boat, it was the quickest thing to do. You've seen pics of Scott's warehouse and how he organizes things-- a cluttered mess doesn't seem to bother him.

But since you normally reject everything I say, let me ask this-- even if you believe the cover was on all the way down the highways to the marina, eventually it had to come off, so when do you think he unveiled his body lugging boat? Before or after he parked the trailer? 

Even if you want to believe he had the body covered in the boat during transfer, that doesn't change any of the views of or in the boat when he launched and motored out of the marina. BTW those areas are no wake zones, you can not speed. It's a slow no wake speed. Plenty of time for people to see inside the boat. 

Rubbish. My bro-in-law has a similar tie down tarp and he just tosses it over the top, adds some bungie cords and away he goes. It DOES NOT tear into pieces. Not anymore then the clothes would rip off of someone driving a convertible at 65 mph.

Also usually has a giant pile of decoys, and I've never heard of anyone stopping him to inquire of the bulging tarp, and what may be under it.

There is also nothing to stop Scott from having a better cover. He'd just bought the thing, right? And the cover they found was in the garage, not on the boat. Maybe he had a better one and tossed it in with the body, into the bay? Is there any pics of this boat before the police got involved? 

Usually people take the tarp off and stow it in their vehicle, but what prevents Scott from just rolling it up, (With a body under it) when he got out into the water?

What did witnesses from the marina say? Were any witnesses found? Was there any video of the boat? Seems that a busy area like that would have a video and have dozens of witnesses. Perhaps no one saw anything because Scott didn't act like a murderer trying to hide a body. He perhaps just seemed like a guy who had just bought a boat and didn't know any better yet.

Did you look at the pic I posted? It shows the same type tie down tarp, and it is on the boat for travel.

On 9/18/2017 at 0:00 AM, Sugarnspice said:

His boat was not tarped. If you pack where things are flying out of your boat, there going to do that on the water as well.  Then someone doesn't know how to pack.  Most do not drive with a tarp on anyway, and def not with that tiny aluminum boat.  It would rip to shreds.

Ridiculous. Rip to shreds? Honestly?

Edited September 22, 2017 by DieChecker

[Booth]

23 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

No, the three available anomalies for me are 1) the leash 2) Scott's description of wrong clothes and no shoes 3) his description that she was currently mopping or going to mop before walking. 

I comprehend your opinion of what could have happened, I just disagree. Any one of these things is reasonable on it's own, two of these together make it questionable. All three occurring together makes it like every other bit of this case - the need to come up with multiple explanations to make something fit. I just don't buy that she was in a hurry to walk the dog in sub-40 temps if she was mopping the floor. It's even less plausible if she hadn't even started mopping yet. You also have to keep in mind that I am discussing an isolated situation to carry on a cordial conversation. In the context of the whole day, there are a dozen other suspicious things that have to be explained away in addition to the three items above. I mentioned them in previous posts about his return home and that was ignored. So, I salute you for your willingness to answer questions. Over the entirety of the whole day, there are a dozen or more of anomalies that need to be explained away in some way to make Scott's innocence plausible.

I see this case like this...he's stone cold guilty, he had a run of the worst luck in history that every single thing he said, did, or experienced for 3-4 months went against him looking innocent, or he was a victim of the most elaborate conspiracy frame ups ever. Only one of these is reasonable. I truly hoped the A&E would provide something that lent itself to an appearance of innocence. All it did is expose juror issues and ineffective counsel, which I acknowledged may be problematic for the prosecution. Those two items go to not proven, neither go to innocence.   

I don't think you're quite following me. I'm not asking you to accept a crazy scenario that includes a series of unlikely coincidences. I agree the leash being on the dog is somewhat unusual(to me), but there's nothing anomalous about a woman changing her clothes or mopping the floor. Again, there's no reason to assume that all of her activities had to take place within a particular time frame prior to her leaving for her walk. That is, there's no reason to believe she was in a hurry at all. You're assuming that Laci left before the dog was found, but we don't know what time she left. Couldn't she have mopped, changed clothes and left at say, 10:45A? Why not? 

I believe Scott is factually innocent based on the evidence presented at trial. If he did kill Laci, it sure didn't happen as outlined by the prosecution. That doesn't require me to believe in some grand conspiracy. And I don't think everything he did and said pointed to his guilt, that's just the way everything he did and said was reported in the media. I also think you're engaging in confirmation bias. If you take a series of innocuous facts and assign a nefarious motive to all of them, anyone would look guilty. With the exception of his relationship with Amber, Scott didn't lie to the police about anything. Everything he told them was shown to be true.

[Jerry Gallo]

17 hours ago, Jackal_ said:

I look forward to your informed rebuttal. With actual and forensic evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt that Scott is the one who committed this crime. Not timelines because those are too easily de-bunked. Not eye-witnesses because there are too many contradictions to really know what actually happened and what people actually saw. Not guessing games on why was the dog leashed and out of the fenced in yard. Not why did Scott get home take a shower (because he was fishing), eat (because he was hungry), etc. before calling looking for Laci. I guess he should have immediately thought that Laci was kidnapped or murdered the second he got home and she wasn't there. Instead of maybe thinking she went for a walk without her phone and will be back shortly. 

I truly look forward to your rebuttal. I hope you or someone else can help me change my mind that the justice system actually did a good job on this case. 

I missed this one yesterday...the bold part above makes no sense to me. Please explain. As to the snarky comment about thinking she was kidnapped or murdered, no one has said that. What we've said is, why no concern about where Laci is. There was ZERO evidence that pointed to Laci already having left for Sharon's. Some evidence I would not expect someone to notice or necessarily look for. Some evidence is obvious.

He called Laci three times with no answer.

No calls from Laci asking where he is.

Supposed to pick up basket at Vella Farms at 3:00p

Supposed to be home 4:00p

Scott gets to warehouse ~ 4:45p

Scott gets home ~ 5:00p

He comes home, her car is there

The dog is in the backyard with the leash on.

No lights on in house

Mailbox full

No smells of baking cookies

No groceries for involved prep breakfast in fridge when he got pizza and milk

Purse is there, keys are there

Now, he called her three times in a span of an hour and forty minutes to update her on his status after he got his boat on the trailer. Even though...

He knew at 1pm when he launched his boat he wasn't getting to Vella by 3p, yet he waits to call after

Takes him an hour and 40 minutes to get from bay to Livermore even though it's a 40 minute trip. What did he do with this hour? Conveniently, traffic. Inconveniently...any number of things that COULD be related to clean up of a crime.

What stands out is getting clothes in washer, taking a shower (his second of the day) before checking on Laci's whereabouts. What stands out is him thinking she hitched a ride to Sharon's leaving the dog there with the leash on, no lights on, none of her stuff with her, none of the baking or shopping having been done. Then you contrast and compare Exhibit 23 to all this and his story is a complete mess. 

See, any one thing, no big deal. A few of the things, no big deal. The entirety of it would give a normal person pause. To dismiss it entirely and even mock is ignoring or dismissing a narrative because it doesn't fit. Did it prove murder...no. Does it support innocence...not reasonably. 

 

[Jerry Gallo]

4 minutes ago, Booth said:

I don't think you're quite following me. I'm not asking you to accept a crazy scenario that includes a series of unlikely coincidences. I agree the leash being on the dog is somewhat unusual(to me), but there's nothing anomalous about a woman changing her clothes or mopping the floor. Again, there's no reason to assume that all of her activities had to take place within a particular time frame prior to her leaving for her walk. That is, there's no reason to believe she was in a hurry at all. You're assuming that Laci left before the dog was found, but we don't know what time she left. Couldn't she have mopped, changed clothes and left at say, 10:45A? Why not? 

I believe Scott is factually innocent based on the evidence presented at trial. If he did kill Laci, it sure didn't happen as outlined by the prosecution. That doesn't require me to believe in some grand conspiracy. And I don't think everything he did and said pointed to his guilt, that's just the way everything he did and said was reported in the media. I also think you're engaging in confirmation bias. If you take a series of innocuous facts and assign a nefarious motive to all of them, anyone would look guilty. With the exception of his relationship with Amber, Scott didn't lie to the police about anything. Everything he told them was shown to be true.

I've laid out why I believe what I do a number of times now, I follow your theory perfectly. You are ignoring my responses, not because I don't follow, but because I won't agree. I can't make it any more clear...if I imagine she left at 10:45 after mopping and changing clothes, there is no reasonable explanation for McKenzie to be outside with the leash on ten minutes after Scott left. No leash, more plausible. If she was dressed and ready to walk when he left, more plausible. If she wasn't mopping or gonna mop (water in bucket and that's if I believe she was unable to fill a pail with water to mop), more plausible. I do not buy her or Scott putting the leash on for a walk and then letting him outside so she could mop. It's not normal, even you agree with that. Then we have to add Scott leaving the gate open. Too many details we have to explain away as unfortunate coincidences. Regi and I keep pointing them out, they get ignored or mocked, but never responded to. I at least give you credit that you admitted something is unusual, most won't let themselves do so. 

[Comey2016]

11 hours ago, Sugarnspice said:

Very well said.  Me finding out about Graybill had a big sway on me.  I was in transportation, know many mail carriers, ups, fed ex, lots of home delivery.  Every single one of them who had a regular route, know the dogs.  Know when there home, and when there not.  The dogs would be there every single day at the door or gate, and the dog didn't sleep thru a visit.  I had one, they would spring up at any sound of a vehicle they recognized.  When Graybill came, that dog was "not" home.  Graybill has a time stamp by the Government.  Knowing carriers and dogs, i truly believe this one.

I also find Gaybill to be extremely credible. I also agree it changes the entire timeline and puts the burglary into play.

Now it's okay to consider all the evidence that the burglary was related to Laci's disappearance. 

 

[Comey2016]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Rubbish. My bro-in-law has a similar tie down tarp and he just tosses it over the top, adds some bungie cords and away he goes. It DOES NOT tear into pieces. Not anymore then the clothes would rip off of someone driving a convertible at 65 mph.

Also usually has a giant pile of decoys, and I've never heard of anyone stopping him to inquire of the bulging tarp, and what may be under it.

There is also nothing to stop Scott from having a better cover. He'd just bought the thing, right? And the cover they found was in the garage, not on the boat. Maybe he had a better one and tossed it in with the body, into the bay? Is there any pics of this boat before the police got involved? 

Usually people take the tarp off and stow it in their vehicle, but what prevents Scott from just rolling it up, (With a body under it) when he got out into the water?

What did witnesses from the marina say? Were any witnesses found? Was there any video of the boat? Seems that a busy area like that would have a video and have dozens of witnesses. Perhaps no one saw anything because Scott didn't act like a murderer trying to hide a body. He perhaps just seemed like a guy who had just bought a boat and didn't know any better yet.

Did you look at the pic I posted? It shows the same type tie down tarp, and it is on the boat for travel.

Ridiculous. Rip to shreds? Honestly?

The previous owner of the boat testified that the cover he gave to Scott Peterson was for storage not transportation. So no matter what your brother in law does, the tarp in the pic I posted that Scott had, that came with the boat, was for storage.

No bungie cords were found.

I guess we all bring our own life experiences when we analyze cases, which is normal. I live in a coastal area, with a huge Bay and lots of boats. We have a boat. We've owned boats for 20 years. 

Never in a million years will I believe Scott Peterson dumped a wrapped, weighted, dead 150 lb body from his small fishing boat. No way.