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

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?


Booth

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

LOL...too gutless to answer questions regarding your fairy tale, Brooks Island AND you stepped in dog mess regarding the twine/frame. Wake us when you are more than a parlor show.



Now that's priceless coming from the master magician who used liquid paper on the Medina's insurance claim list to white out any item that didn't fit into a backpack.

What gas trimmer, Sly?

What rolling tool box, Ismith?

What recon edger, Booth?

What hedge trimmer, Harry?

What 24" toolbox, David?

What second safe, Criss?

 

And I presume there were training wheels on that bicycle to prevent Todd from pitching over sideways after stuffing the the rest of the items on that list into his Giant Jansport Backpack.

https://odditymall.com/giant-jansport-backpack

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator Note:

Reminder. 

  • 5a. Personal attacks: Attack the point being presented, not the person who is making it.

Rules

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sly Humour said:



Now that's priceless coming from the master magician who used liquid paper on the Medina's insurance claim list to white out any item that didn't fit into a backpack.

What gas trimmer, Sly?

What rolling tool box, Ismith?

What recon edger, Booth?

What hedge trimmer, Harry?

What 24" toolbox, David?

What second safe, Criss?

 

And I presume there were training wheels on that bicycle to prevent Todd from pitching over sideways after stuffing the the rest of the items on that list into his Giant Jansport Backpack.

https://odditymall.com/giant-jansport-backpack

 

 

Are you stipulating to the entire insurance claim being 100% accurate? 

Why didn't Susan mention a second safe in the trial?

Where are the two tool boxes (9lbs, 2x2x2), the edger, the trimmer, and the second safe?

Where's the gun in the safe on the claim? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

So asking a question is “calling you out”?   I ask a question about something you posted 22 PAGES ago, you tell me to go find it and I’M the arrogant one? 

Diane Jackson didn’t report a “burglary” on the 24th because she didn’t realize at the time that she was witnessing a burglary.   You really can’t understand that?   You’ve never put 2 and 2 together at a later time?  I guess just because she didn’t pass by while they were actually hauling things out of the house that means she didn’t witness a burglary in progress – right?

“Petty thief”.  That’s an interesting way of describing Steve Todd.  Try meth addicted, violent, gang affiliated criminal.  That’s more accurate. 

I’m not playing games.  You’re the one playing games.  Are you kidding me?  If you can’t even agree that Covena was crawling with cops, volunteers, family and friends searching the neighborhood and the park for Laci on the 25th – you are in absolute denial.  Are you really that ignorant to the facts of the case – or are you just trying to get me to spend my time quoting trial testimony of what was going on on the 25th?

Maybe you should read my post again.  Many of your comments indicate you didn’t understand what I was trying to say.  TODD said he saw the Medina home on the 25th while riding his bike and determined it was empty.  He then said later that night he remembered that home and decided to go back and rob it.  So obviously - base on what he saw on the 25th - he decided that would be a good house to rob.  And he was able to determine no one was home because there was only one care in the driveway.  I’m asking you if you believe that.   It’s a simply question.  But instead of answering it – you attack me with questions and demands for proof that there were people all over Covena on the 25th. 

Ted Rowlands wasn’t called to the stand to debunk the burglars’ version of events because none of the burglary testimony was allowed in as “truth”.  The jury was admonished and basically told not to believe anything Todd actually said – it was only allowed in “with respect to information that this police officer received and the reasonableness of his conduct about what did he do about it.”  That’s all the jury was allowed to consider.  Not to mention Geragos failed to call a lot of witnesses he could have called.  I’m sure you’ve concluded it’s because they weren’t credible or couldn’t help Scott – when the truth is -  bad or good – it was simply a strategic judgement call on Geragos’ part. 

So let me get this straight.  You’ve called Ted Rowlands liar…..Aponte a liar……Diane Jackson a liar….the Medinas liars.  Wow – to hear you tell it – the only people telling the truth were the meth addicted burglars.  Unreal.   You really need a reality check.  I’m not saying that to be ugly.  But in case you haven’t noticed – saying anything in defense of Scott Peterson is not a popular thing.  It doesn’t make you famous.  It for the most part gets you ridiculed and laughed at.  People in Modesto were actually afraid to speak in defense of Scott Peterson. 

You certainly are a hypocrite.  You want to discredit me because I’m some “anonymous” internet poster?  As a matter of fact – I’ve always posted with the same username – all these 15 years – and it happens to be my real name.  And Jerry Gallo is your real name – right?  RIIIGHT.   When you explain to me your connection to the case – I’ll explain mine.   I’ve never murdered anyone either – but yes – I can understand Scott wanting to sell the house.  If the whole world hated me and DJ’s were standing outside my home along with dozens of other members of the press blocking my driveway and the street – harassing my neighbors - screaming at me that I murdered my wife with a bullhorn – I might not want to live there anymore either.

Oh come on – the porn?  Really?  Upgraded to the porn channel.   Here’s some perspective for you.  There’s NO secret Scott like porn.  As MANY men (and women) do.  It was all over his computers.  And the police had confiscated his computers.  So he didn’t order cable porn because he knew Laci wasn’t coming home….he ordered cable porn because the police took his porn "vehicles" and it was the only way for him to watch porn.  Every guy I know with a healthy sex drive doesn’t have an issue with Scott doing the deed 3-4 weeks after his wife went missing.

If you want to know what Covena was like on the 25th - it's in the testimony.    I know there is testimony that all the cops searching the park had parked on Covena.  One of Laci's friends testified the house was being used as a makeshift volunteer center.  Cops were going door to door asking questions.  Brent talks about "volunteers" at the house on the 25th.  The media was there.  The Kemples were there.   Laci's family and friends.  Here's just a small sample from Brent Rocha's testimony.  Let me know if you need more
:

 
ROCHA: Well, he actually doesn't. We get separated at some point and me and Ron end up heading down into the park. And I believe he's, Scott's with my mom, so he kind of, I think he helps my mom over to the neighbor's house and so he actually didn't walk down into the park with me.

HARRIS: All right. Did you go down in the park?

ROCHA: Yes.

HARRIS: At some point in time when you're walking down into the park does Ron come to get your keys so that Scott can get his truck to go to the shop?

ROCHA: Scott, yes.

HARRIS: And about what was that?

ROCHA: I would say it had to be right around 8:00 because I know I started heading down into the park and all the patrol officers were starting to line up and start talking, figure out what they were going to do, and they were all showing up right around 8:00 o'clock.

>>>>>

HARRIS: When you were done putting up these posters with the duct tape with the defendant, did you have some kind of appointment or time that you and the defendant had to be back at the house that morning, the 25th?

ROCHA: Well, it wasn't really an appointment, but I knew the media was coming out and they were going to be out for the 12:00 o'clock shoot, so we were trying to -- well, it wasn't that we were trying to get back in time, we just happened to be hanging fliers and we ran out of fliers so we headed back to the house.
>>>>>>
HARRIS: All right. So when you arrive back at the house at 11:30 time period, you're with the defendant?

ROCHA: Yes.

HARRIS: Do you see any media presence at that point in time?

ROCHA: Yes.
>>>>
HARRIS:
What did he do after he made this statement about not wanting to talk to the media?

ROCHA: He stayed in the house. I went out in front and -, with Laci, two of Laci's friends because my mom couldn't do it, she didn't want to talk. And we brought the dog, dog out of the backyard so everyone could see what the dog looked like and try to get the word out that Laci was missing.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Are you stipulating to the entire insurance claim being 100% accurate? 

Why didn't Susan mention a second safe in the trial?

Where are the two tool boxes (9lbs, 2x2x2), the edger, the trimmer, and the second safe?

Where's the gun in the safe on the claim? 

 

Are you stipulating that parts of it were not? Then show us which items on the list are bogus claims and back that up with solid facts instead of trying to erase a few with liquid paper.

Have you ever been present during a live trial? The attorneys ask the questions and the witnesses answer them. She was never asked any questions regarding the second safe. 

Peruse the list again... you”ll find them there.

You”ll have to ask Rudolfo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Sly Humour said:

 

Are you stipulating that parts of it were not? Then show us which items on the list are bogus claims and back that up with solid facts instead of trying to erase a few with liquid paper.

Have you ever been present during a live trial? The attorneys ask the questions and the witnesses answer them. She was never asked any questions regarding the second safe. 

Peruse the list again... you”ll find them there.

You”ll have to ask Rudolfo.

 

Answering a question with a question. The sign of someone parading style but lacking substance. It's odd to me, how easily you peddle pure fantasy and change testimony on a whim and yet then lecture on how trials work. All the rules favor you when you get to make them up as you go.

Anyway, let's go with the insurance claim as a factual piece of trial evidence. Dec 26th robbery, of every item on the list, including two safes and all that heavy equipment. Todd had three generations of cycling family members helping him, including early rising grandpa and grandma on the tandem to balance the weight of the weed eater. Can't disprove it since no one asked any questions about who else helped him, but it's now irrelevant. Good news, your original shoe is clean of the twine/frame conundrum, but the other one is equally soiled without Todd, Pearce and the three amigos. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2018 at 8:24 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

1. We shall see.

2. Zzzzzzz. 

5. Yes, when a photo shows the placement of twine on the body when it was found, that will always trump testimony about the twine on the table in a lab. It's telling that you demand direct evidence and then when it's available, you wish to ignore it over a tale you spin where you can't even explain the circumstances of the story you are making up. You can't even produce CE on this nonsense. Inescapable conclusion...tied loop??? Rubbish. One and one half loops, NO TISSUE DAMAGE. Not even you can explain why without making something up. And Dr. Peterson said his conclusion was it was debris. You say we can't accept that because he's not an expert. But you are? 

Let's talk about support of our position. You say someone tied a piece of twine around Conner's neck. You can't even offer a reasonable guess as to who did this. You can't explain why someone would take the risk to take Laci to the bay. You can't explain how they got both bodies to wash up in proximity to where Scott was in his boat. You can't offer a reasonable guess why they tied this on Conner. You can't offer a reasonable guess on why they chose this material. You can't explain why they would not want damage to the neck. You can't explain why there is no tissue damage without manufacturing some BS about a blanket. Why a blanket...did these killers have a heart and go to Baby's R Us and buy a blue blankie with teddy bears on it so Conner would have a special woobie in the bay? You can't explain how Conner came out of Laci. You can't explain the difference in decomp. You can't explain the bow in the twine. Hell, you can't even explain the tight knot in the twine. And let's not forget you ignore plenty of testimony that doesn't support your position. 

In fact, I doubt you could even point out which picture best describes what tied loop was around Conner's neck in the 253 photos. Show me the span of material that was around the neck. Should be easy enough to show the exact tied loop you are referring to. 

6. There is a second theory to describe MG's performance - MG knew what you refuse to acknowledge. That every single thing he could have hammered home with witness testimony would break down on cross from the prosecution because there was no merit in the smoke and mirrors. We should assign greater legal stature to an anonymous, arrogant message board poster than two lawyers with 100% access to Scott and the evidence. Is there no limit to your ego?

LOL...that is your question and the state answered it, you didn't like the answer. I provided the sketch you didn't think I'd look at or I had seen...the question I have is how anyone with a functional brain could look at the rendering and conclude this is evidence of someone tying a loop of twine around his neck. 

2. Are you imitating the jurors? While DeLucchi was giving his instructions on what was required to convict in this case, it appears most of the jury must've been asleep as well.

5. Where's the other piece of twine? Show us this direct evidence you speak of, Jerry. Otherwise, it's not a part of this discussion. Again, we have the clear testimony/exhibits from the state's experts. You want us to discard all of this and assume that the sealed evidence is going to contradict that. Nonsense. And again with this "no tissue damage", as if it means anything. Whether the neck was damaged or not means nothing. What we're talking about is whether or not there was a tied loop in the twine. I'm not spinning a tale or making anything up; this is from the testimony/exhibits offered by your own witnesses.
No, I'm not an expert. I'm a layman in such matters, just like Dr. Peterson. The state should've presented a witness or an expert to explain how the twine came to be tied around Connor's body. That's a question for them to answer.

Once again, Jerry, I'm not accusing anyone of murder, so I have nothing to explain. These are answers you should be demanding from the state of California. Are you getting this yet?

Follow the twine from both sides of the tight knot to where it was supposedly "cut" by Dr. Peterson. There is your loop.

6. That's funny, because after several pages, you still can't explain the twine. I don't think the prosecution could either, if pressed to do so.

Describe what you see in the artist's rendering. Where do you see the twine merely wrapped around the neck? So tight that it had to be cut. I see a single loop of twine that leads to a knot behind Connor's neck. A loop far too small to plausibly drift over his head. This is supported by the the testimony/exhibits offered by the criminalist and the ME. What evidence do you have that this was a single strand? Where are the two pieces of twine?

My conclusion is based on the testimony and the exhibits, not just the rendering. And perhaps you don't think Dr. Peterson has a functional brain, but he tacitly acknowledged that the tied loop existed and tried to explain it:

DELUCCHI:  Let me ask a question before the prosecution has another one. I want to understand this tape that you said, when you pull it, it's only two centimeters?
PETERSON:  There was a gap, Your Honor.  If you pulled the tape snug against the neck, from the direction you were pulling it, measuring from the neck to there, there was a two-centimeter gap. 
DELUCCHI:  How could that be an item that floated onto the baby if -- I assume two centimeters doesn't get it over the head?
PETERSON:  Simply because the head's deforming and the skull plates were overriding, and that's dynamic process.  Depending upon what the baby is brushing up against or washing onto, I see no problem with that happening. 

And later:

GERAGOS:  Let me show you EE again.  You answered the judge's question.  You said it could have just got on there.  So this tape that's on there that's knotted behind the back, this baby would have to -- what? -- be swimming like this, have the tape go over the head and then underneath the arm and be knotted right here?  Wouldn't you admit that that is extremely unlikely that this tape would have been wrapped around to be only two centimeters around the neck, to also be wrapped around the arm and just so happen have a bow tie knot right at the shoulder area? 
PETERSON:  Well, I would agree it's unlikely that a dead baby would swim but -- 
GERAGOS:  Would you also agree that it's unlikely that the dead baby would have that tape around it in such a fashion that you had to cut it off as opposed to just pulling it off? 
PETERSON:  You know, all I can do is describe the findings there at autopsy.  I know how deformable the head is as the brain is liquefying. In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that.  All I know is this tape was there, and there was no injury to the neck, and I believe it would be quite easy to deform the head enough to fit that tape circle.
GERAGOS:  At the same time the arm just so happened to have a tight fit?  Wasn't the tape around the arm and the shoulder as well and knotted on the back?
PETERSON:  Well, the knot is the knot that I described about the left shoulder.  As I recall, there was only that one knot.  This is picture EE.  There was another picture that showed the baby at the scene in the grass, where to my eye anyway, that tape was in a different position.  So I don't particularly think it was wrapped around the arm or the chest.  I know it was wrapped around the neck, though. 
GERAGOS:  We had that discussion earlier. 
PETERSON:  We did. 
GERAGOS:  You don't see the tape.  I do see the tape. Here, clearly, when you see the baby, you hadn't -- when you made your findings, you hadn't seen the picture I showed you; isn't that correct? 
PETERSON:  Correct. 
GERAGOS:  Now I'm showing you the picture that was shown to you at the autopsy, and clearly it's not just looped around the neck; is that correct? 
PETERSON:  In this picture, it isn't. 
GERAGOS:  In this picture, it's not only looped around the neck; it's looped around the left arm and shoulder? Correct? 
PETERSON:  In this picture, it is. 
GERAGOS:  It appears to be done so tightly; isn't that correct? 
PETERSON:  Well, in this picture, it does. 
GERAGOS:  In that picture, that's the way you saw the baby? 
PETERSON:  It is. 

So, apparently we're supposed to believe that Connor's head deformed/liquefied to such a degree as to allow the twine to drift over it, but this same head later reformed to a circumference far greater than the twine loop, as measured at autopsy. That's precisely what Dr. Peterson is suggesting. Judge DeLucchi's interjection into the testimony alone reveals that he was quite skeptical of this, as anyone with a functional brain would be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Booth said:

2. Are you imitating the jurors? While DeLucchi was giving his instructions on what was required to convict in this case, it appears most of the jury must've been asleep as well.

5. Where's the other piece of twine? Show us this direct evidence you speak of, Jerry. Otherwise, it's not a part of this discussion. Again, we have the clear testimony/exhibits from the state's experts. You want us to discard all of this and assume that the sealed evidence is going to contradict that. Nonsense. And again with this "no tissue damage", as if it means anything. Whether the neck was damaged or not means nothing. What we're talking about is whether or not there was a tied loop in the twine. I'm not spinning a tale or making anything up; this is from the testimony/exhibits offered by your own witnesses.
No, I'm not an expert. I'm a layman in such matters, just like Dr. Peterson. The state should've presented a witness or an expert to explain how the twine came to be tied around Connor's body. That's a question for them to answer.

Once again, Jerry, I'm not accusing anyone of murder, so I have nothing to explain. These are answers you should be demanding from the state of California. Are you getting this yet?

Follow the twine from both sides of the tight knot to where it was supposedly "cut" by Dr. Peterson. There is your loop.

6. That's funny, because after several pages, you still can't explain the twine. I don't think the prosecution could either, if pressed to do so.

Describe what you see in the artist's rendering. Where do you see the twine merely wrapped around the neck? So tight that it had to be cut. I see a single loop of twine that leads to a knot behind Connor's neck. A loop far too small to plausibly drift over his head. This is supported by the the testimony/exhibits offered by the criminalist and the ME. What evidence do you have that this was a single strand? Where are the two pieces of twine?

My conclusion is based on the testimony and the exhibits, not just the rendering. And perhaps you don't think Dr. Peterson has a functional brain, but he tacitly acknowledged that the tied loop existed and tried to explain it:

DELUCCHI:  Let me ask a question before the prosecution has another one. I want to understand this tape that you said, when you pull it, it's only two centimeters?
PETERSON:  There was a gap, Your Honor.  If you pulled the tape snug against the neck, from the direction you were pulling it, measuring from the neck to there, there was a two-centimeter gap. 
DELUCCHI:  How could that be an item that floated onto the baby if -- I assume two centimeters doesn't get it over the head?
PETERSON:  Simply because the head's deforming and the skull plates were overriding, and that's dynamic process.  Depending upon what the baby is brushing up against or washing onto, I see no problem with that happening. 

And later:

GERAGOS:  Let me show you EE again.  You answered the judge's question.  You said it could have just got on there.  So this tape that's on there that's knotted behind the back, this baby would have to -- what? -- be swimming like this, have the tape go over the head and then underneath the arm and be knotted right here?  Wouldn't you admit that that is extremely unlikely that this tape would have been wrapped around to be only two centimeters around the neck, to also be wrapped around the arm and just so happen have a bow tie knot right at the shoulder area? 
PETERSON:  Well, I would agree it's unlikely that a dead baby would swim but -- 
GERAGOS:  Would you also agree that it's unlikely that the dead baby would have that tape around it in such a fashion that you had to cut it off as opposed to just pulling it off? 
PETERSON:  You know, all I can do is describe the findings there at autopsy.  I know how deformable the head is as the brain is liquefying. In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that.  All I know is this tape was there, and there was no injury to the neck, and I believe it would be quite easy to deform the head enough to fit that tape circle.
GERAGOS:  At the same time the arm just so happened to have a tight fit?  Wasn't the tape around the arm and the shoulder as well and knotted on the back?
PETERSON:  Well, the knot is the knot that I described about the left shoulder.  As I recall, there was only that one knot.  This is picture EE.  There was another picture that showed the baby at the scene in the grass, where to my eye anyway, that tape was in a different position.  So I don't particularly think it was wrapped around the arm or the chest.  I know it was wrapped around the neck, though. 
GERAGOS:  We had that discussion earlier. 
PETERSON:  We did. 
GERAGOS:  You don't see the tape.  I do see the tape. Here, clearly, when you see the baby, you hadn't -- when you made your findings, you hadn't seen the picture I showed you; isn't that correct? 
PETERSON:  Correct. 
GERAGOS:  Now I'm showing you the picture that was shown to you at the autopsy, and clearly it's not just looped around the neck; is that correct? 
PETERSON:  In this picture, it isn't. 
GERAGOS:  In this picture, it's not only looped around the neck; it's looped around the left arm and shoulder? Correct? 
PETERSON:  In this picture, it is. 
GERAGOS:  It appears to be done so tightly; isn't that correct? 
PETERSON:  Well, in this picture, it does. 
GERAGOS:  In that picture, that's the way you saw the baby? 
PETERSON:  It is. 

So, apparently we're supposed to believe that Connor's head deformed/liquefied to such a degree as to allow the twine to drift over it, but this same head later reformed to a circumference far greater than the twine loop, as measured at autopsy. That's precisely what Dr. Peterson is suggesting. Judge DeLucchi's interjection into the testimony alone reveals that he was quite skeptical of this, as anyone with a functional brain would be.

 

The excerpts you posted here are from the preliminary hearing, that the jury didn't see, yet you didn't cite this. And you credit Delucchi for asking questions of Dr. Peterson when it was Judge Girolami who asked them. Delucchi was assigned the case 10 weeks after the above cited testimony. No jury, different judge. Intellectual dishonesty to win an argument here and keep your twine theory relevant or two huge, but innocent mistakes? I'll assume the latter, but how do you think you and others would have responded if I had posted something similar? 

You seem to have trouble with consistency regarding Dr. Peterson. His credibility and his answers are pick and choose to what suits you. He's spot on when his answers support you. Yet when they don't, he's a dolt that should be mocked.

Bottom line...I've indulged this twine business as a courtesy and out of respect. We disagree, adamantly. It's not in the appeal. And you can't explain why anyone would go to the trouble to frame Scott, then place twine on Conner to demolish the frame. You can't produce anything from police that let the killers know Brooks Island was the drop spot within the 1600 sq. mi. bay. You can't explain one item regarding the logic of the twine. You say no tissue damage has no relevance and after all the constant badgering about evidence, you say I should ignore it when it exists.

You are right, I didn't perform the autopsy, I didn't photograph the twine, and I didn't arrange the evidence to present at trial. I've admitted I can't answer your questions. You obviously refuse to answer mine or admit you can't answer mine. So what are you looking for here? A concession on my part? Not going to happen until someone can answer the questions I ask.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2018 at 5:47 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

You are right! We don't even know if these men exist. Could be that Diane Jackson lied about seeing them. Could have been local kids walking home from sports practice and put a newspaper on a porch for someone. Any number of possibilities. We just know they weren't Todd and Pearce and we know Jackson didn't report seeing them rob anyone on the 24th. 

Right, look at what we know, which is that Todd and Pearce committed the burglary, and per her description, didn't see either one. 

We also know that no one reported having seen either Todd or Pearce, which (obviously) supports that the burglary occurred at night.

And to my knowledge, no one reported having seen the dolly out in the front yard of the Medina home, which (obviously) supports that it hadn't been there since about before noon on the 24th.

Re: the Aponte tip/Tenbrinks info., Todd and Pearce had already been arrested about three weeks prior and to my knowledge, there was no info pertaining to the involvement of anyone else in the burglary and so I would think that alone is another circumstance which supports that no one other than Todd and Pearce committed the burglary and also serves to undermine the notion that Jackson witnessed the burglars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Answering a question with a question. The sign of someone parading style but lacking substance. It's odd to me, how easily you peddle pure fantasy and change testimony on a whim and yet then lecture on how trials work. All the rules favor you when you get to make them up as you go.

Anyway, let's go with the insurance claim as a factual piece of trial evidence. Dec 26th robbery, of every item on the list, including two safes and all that heavy equipment. Todd had three generations of cycling family members helping him, including early rising grandpa and grandma on the tandem to balance the weight of the weed eater. Can't disprove it since no one asked any questions about who else helped him, but it's now irrelevant. Good news, your original shoe is clean of the twine/frame conundrum, but the other one is equally soiled without Todd, Pearce and the three amigos. 

 

 

The are four answers there. Look again.

And if I was handed a dime for every time you answered a question with a question in this forum I'd have enough coins to fill my own Giant Jansport Backpack to the brim.
Only I would take a Lear and a limousine to Caesar's Palace rather than coach and a Canondale with training wheels. In fact, let' coordinate, I'll make a pit stop at the Elvis Chapel with Tulips for you and Regi and a bone for the ring bearer.

And don't waste your money on the organ, I'm sure Aunt Yolanda and I can hum Johann's Canon in D major as you walk up the aisle.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Nor can anyone reasonably explain why he unwrapped them, placed them with the stands that weren't relevant enough to pair with the umbrellas for the trip to the warehouse for storage, and neatly folded the tarp within 48 hours of Laci going missing. 

That's a great point that he didn't keep them covered. :tsu: 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

You mean when Scott got home?  All of your logic comes with a presumption of guilt.  Just because the dog was in the backyard with his leash attached when Scott got home does not mean that Graybill is mistaken.  Laci very well could have taken McKenzie for a walk (thus the MANY people who saw her) and then put McK back in the yard before walking across the street to tell the loitering people in the van across the street to move along.

Look, I believe Peterson murdered Laci, there''s no question about it, but you're apparently just as convinced that he didn't. What's the difference? Please stop telling me that I'm this or that!

Let me ask you this: if you were a police officer responding to a missing person report and you were informed that the missing person had planned to walk her dog and that her dog was found that morning by the neighbor in the street and dragging his leash, what would be your impression?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, regi said:

Right, look at what we know, which is that Todd and Pearce committed the burglary, and per her description, didn't see either one. 

We also know that no one reported having seen either Todd or Pearce, which (obviously) supports that the burglary occurred at night.

And to my knowledge, no one reported having seen the dolly out in the front yard of the Medina home, which (obviously) supports that it hadn't been there since about before noon on the 24th.

Re: the Aponte tip/Tenbrinks info., Todd and Pearce had already been arrested about three weeks prior and to my knowledge, there was no info pertaining to the involvement of anyone else in the burglary and so I would think that alone is another circumstance which supports that no one other than Todd and Pearce committed the burglary and also serves to undermine the notion that Jackson witnessed the burglars.

There is nothing to refute that Todd was there in the wee hours of the 26th, in fact, the Rowlands early morning media spot I discussed in post 1053 pretty much corroborates Todd's account. Everything covered about this burglary ruse had to be brought in through the back door with innuendo because if anyone relied on facts, it would impeach the entire narrative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, regi said:

Look, I believe Peterson murdered Laci, there''s no question about it, but you're apparently just as convinced that he didn't. What's the difference? Please stop telling me that I'm this or that!

Let me ask you this: if you were a police officer responding to a missing person report and you were informed that the missing person had planned to walk her dog and that her dog was found that morning by the neighbor in the street and dragging his leash, what would be your impression?

Exactly...Scott leashes the dog then leaves, Laci leaves the dog on the leash to go confront burglars. Always explaining away oddities to make the facts fit, as opposed to them naturally occurring. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, lsmith510 said:

If you want to know what Covena was like on the 25th - it's in the testimony.    I know there is testimony that all the cops searching the park had parked on Covena.  One of Laci's friends testified the house was being used as a makeshift volunteer center.  Cops were going door to door asking questions.  Brent talks about "volunteers" at the house on the 25th.  The media was there.  The Kemples were there.   Laci's family and friends.  Here's just a small sample from Brent Rocha's testimony. 

HARRIS: When you were done putting up these posters with the duct tape with the defendant, did you have some kind of appointment or time that you and the defendant had to be back at the house that morning, the 25th?

ROCHA: Well, it wasn't really an appointment, but I knew the media was coming out and they were going to be out for the 12:00 o'clock shoot, so we were trying to -- well, it wasn't that we were trying to get back in time, we just happened to be hanging fliers and we ran out of fliers so we headed back to the house.

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

What time of day did Todd say he rode by?

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

1 hour ago, Sly Humour said:

 

The are four answers there. Look again.

And if I was handed a dime for every time you answered a question with a question in this forum I'd have enough coins to fill my own Giant Jansport Backpack to the brim.
Only I would take a Lear and a limousine to Caesar's Palace rather than coach and a Canondale with training wheels. In fact, let' coordinate, I'll make a pit stop at the Elvis Chapel with Tulips for you and Regi and a bone for the ring bearer.

And don't waste your money on the organ, I'm sure Aunt Yolanda and I can hum Johann's Canon in D major as you walk up the aisle.

 

 You lost all credibility when you walked into your own trap...twice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Exactly...Scott leashes the dog then leaves, Laci leaves the dog on the leash to go confront burglars. Always explaining away oddities to make the facts fit, as opposed to them naturally occurring. 

Right, and fact is, we're talking a matter of mere minutes between the time he left and when Servas found the dog, which explains the reason why- even over a month later- he was trying to sell it as a fact that he'd left the house at 9:30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

 You lost all credibility when you walked into your own trap...twice.  


At no time did I orchestrated a trap. So does that mean that my credibility has been reinstated?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2018 at 10:44 AM, lsmith510 said:

It's also curious that Amy said that it wasn't Laci's style - when there are pictures of Laci wearing a watch very similar to the Croton watch.

Det. Grogan's testimony was that Laci had two "diamond encrusted", gold watches and that Peterson said she was wearing one of them.

Per Grogan, the other watch- a Genevieve, recovered during the police search- is the watch I think Laci would have been wearing at the Christmas party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, regi said:

Let me ask you this: if you were a police officer responding to a missing person report and you were informed that the missing person had planned to walk her dog and that her dog was found that morning by the neighbor in the street and dragging his leash, what would be your impression?


My first impression would be that she became separated from the dog while out for a walk with him. And if she failed to turn up during an organised, thorough search of the neighbourhood then the next step would be a comprehensive effort to locate and interview any persons who can confirm having encountered or observed her that day, and where.
Unless of course I immediately assume that her husband is responsible for her disappearance and subsequently rubber stamp anything that suggests otherwise.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎18‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 10:18 AM, regi said:

The pawn ticket is proof that a Croton watch was pawned, but the description is proof, or it's proof enough for me, that it wasn't Laci's.

"Describe specifically which details in the description of the pawned Croton watch differ enough from the description of Laci Peterson’s Croton watch that would lead you to conclude that the one pawned by Deanna Renfro is most definitely not the same one that belonged to Laci Peterson". 


Any word on those details yet?

I hate to push, but I've had the answer for your answer waiting in the wings for quite some time.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2018 at 9:12 AM, lsmith510 said:

Detective Grogan claims that when he realized that Scott was telling the truth about the Croton watch being missing (he spent weeks interviewing family about what jewelry Laci had inherited) he proceeded to check pawn shops and ebay sales to again see if Scott was lying and had sold the watch.  When he found no evidence of Scott selling the watch - in early MARCH he decided to check pawn shops for Croton watches pawned by other people.  He got one hit.  But instead of taking a few hours to go talk to the woman who pawned the watch, Grogan decided that because the pawn slip did not indicate diamonds, that it was not Laci's watch.  He further concluded that because the battery appeared to be dead in the above mentioned video that was taken WEEKS before her disappearance, that Laci would not have been wearing the watch. 

Of course if you want to take what people said in the A&E series for the absolute truth, the pawn shop owner said that the police contacted him about the watch and had him put a hold on the watch.  Yet there is no police report about any call to the pawn shop owner.  Yet another missing police report.    

Where does this info come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sly Humour said:

My first impression would be that she became separated from the dog while out for a walk with him.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sly Humour said:

I hate to push, but I've had the answer for your answer waiting in the wings for quite some time.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.