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 -
Booth

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

3,359 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Regi
23 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

As for the call records not correlating with testimony, I think this is normal.

Well, as to the order in which calls were received, I think Amy's testimony does correlate w/the recs., since her estimate is the earliest (5:15-5:30).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Jerry Gallo
7 hours ago, Regi said:

Well, as to the order in which calls were received, I think Amy's testimony does correlate w/the recs., since her estimate is the earliest (5:15-5:30).

 I struggle with this...which is why I wish that Scott's second cell phone records, along with his land line records, were available. As well as Amy's home and cell and Laci's cell. To be honest, I have issues with Amy's testimony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Booth
On 7/8/2018 at 7:10 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

I hear ya on all fronts. Next step is supposed to be tomorrow when the defense is likely to file their last request for extension, then their reply is supposed to be filed by August 10. I don't expect that to produce any fireworks, more legal hair pulling. The end game on this is likely still well down the road. So, I may stick here and argue the minutia you've avoided, I may not. Depends on how things go in here. Some say Scott's odds are 3%, State of California statistics indicate a little better at 10%. I don't see ineffective counsel getting it done, not like this was a public defender assigned to the case. Scott and his family chose and paid MG to try what he could and it didn't work. I mean let's be honest, walk witnesses, whose times were all over the place, who MG himself said he couldn't put on the stand because they wouldn't hold up to cross-examination likely won't get it done. I don't see Todd or Aponte getting it done. I don't see Jeanty getting it done. And the twine isn't even in the damn thing. So, separate from my opinion of Scott's guilt, I've seen no one give this thing much of a chance in legal circles. I can say Gibbs seemed to be the brains of the operation and his retiring can't help. Unsure if him doing so tells us anything or if the guy just had a date on the calendar and he honored it. I could see Scott filing a future appeal of the appeal with Gardner as the ineffective one. The snake oil guys, just don't see them swaying anyone.    

I agree that the walk witnesses were not very reliable. But should they have been called anyway? Probably. Put them all on the stand, and force the jury to conclude that all of them were mistaken. That being said, despite my personal opinion of Geragos's work here, I agree that ineffective counsel is not gonna fly. Scott was not entitled to a perfect defense. If this case comes back, I still think it'll be on one(or more) of the jury issues.

Let me ask you this though. If the bodies had never turned up, would you still feel comfortable finding Scott guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
12 hours ago, Booth said:

I agree that the walk witnesses were not very reliable. But should they have been called anyway? Probably. Put them all on the stand, and force the jury to conclude that all of them were mistaken. That being said, despite my personal opinion of Geragos's work here, I agree that ineffective counsel is not gonna fly. Scott was not entitled to a perfect defense. If this case comes back, I still think it'll be on one(or more) of the jury issues.

Let me ask you this though. If the bodies had never turned up, would you still feel comfortable finding Scott guilty?

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay. And I could comprehend their inability to do so. 

The renting/borrowing of cars for a day to visit the bay (exhibit P-208), along with surveillance and phone records placing him at the Concord switches that corroborate the trips on 12/24 and in early January are too suspect for me to conclude anything other than Scott needing to know if it was time to jet or not. Add to this what we know about 12/6-12/8. Shawn finds out and confronts Scott about being married. On 12/8, he wakes up and does a search for boats and boat ramps on the Pacific Ocean. Looking at Watsonville on the map, he considered that as a potential spot to go fishing in Monterrey Bay in a 14ft boat? A boat that was supposed to be a surprise for Ron. Fishing was a morning decision, just happened to have bought a boat two weeks prior and went to the spot he finally decided on to launch, his wife just happened to disappear that day. I know it's not concrete evidence, but I can't conceive anything whatsoever that explains this as innocent, normal behavior where he was just unlucky all this unraveled the way it did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sly Humour
On 2018-07-11 at 10:19 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay. And I could comprehend their inability to do so. 

The renting/borrowing of cars for a day to visit the bay (exhibit P-208), along with surveillance and phone records placing him at the Concord switches that corroborate the trips on 12/24 and in early January are too suspect for me to conclude anything other than Scott needing to know if it was time to jet or not. Add to this what we know about 12/6-12/8. Shawn finds out and confronts Scott about being married. On 12/8, he wakes up and does a search for boats and boat ramps on the Pacific Ocean. Looking at Watsonville on the map, he considered that as a potential spot to go fishing in Monterrey Bay in a 14ft boat? A boat that was supposed to be a surprise for Ron. Fishing was a morning decision, just happened to have bought a boat two weeks prior and went to the spot he finally decided on to launch, his wife just happened to disappear that day. I know it's not concrete evidence, but I can't conceive anything whatsoever that explains this as innocent, normal behavior where he was just unlucky all this unraveled the way it did.  

 

Imagine for a moment that Laci’s skull and limbs were to turn up in the backyard of some rural home in Tracy, California and Scott Peterson was exonerated shortly thereafter. Isn’t it interesting how everything that you currently find suspicious and inconceivable would suddenly turn on a dime with alternate explanations that make perfect sense after all.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Booth
On 7/11/2018 at 9:19 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

I probably could have, but I don't think any panel of 12 jurors could convict without the bodies washing up in the bay. And I could comprehend their inability to do so. 

The renting/borrowing of cars for a day to visit the bay (exhibit P-208), along with surveillance and phone records placing him at the Concord switches that corroborate the trips on 12/24 and in early January are too suspect for me to conclude anything other than Scott needing to know if it was time to jet or not. Add to this what we know about 12/6-12/8. Shawn finds out and confronts Scott about being married. On 12/8, he wakes up and does a search for boats and boat ramps on the Pacific Ocean. Looking at Watsonville on the map, he considered that as a potential spot to go fishing in Monterrey Bay in a 14ft boat? A boat that was supposed to be a surprise for Ron. Fishing was a morning decision, just happened to have bought a boat two weeks prior and went to the spot he finally decided on to launch, his wife just happened to disappear that day. I know it's not concrete evidence, but I can't conceive anything whatsoever that explains this as innocent, normal behavior where he was just unlucky all this unraveled the way it did.  

"I probably could have"??? Man, you're hedging pretty hard here...

Bear in mind, everything that you're citing is meaningless if the bodies aren't found. The boat, the searches, the trips, everything. All of these facts being "suspicious" are predicated strictly on the fact that the bodies were found in the bay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Booth
On 7/12/2018 at 11:42 PM, Sly Humour said:

 

Imagine for a moment that Laci’s skull and limbs were to turn up in the backyard of some rural home in Tracy, California and Scott Peterson was exonerated shortly thereafter. Isn’t it interesting how everything that you currently find suspicious and inconceivable would suddenly turn on a dime with alternate explanations that make perfect sense after all.

 

You understood my point perfectly. Once the bodies were found in/near the bay, confirmation bias ruled the day. "There was no possible way for that to happen if Scott didn't do it. Despite all of the indications otherwise, Scott must've done it, somehow". The state created an imaginary theory and ran with it. One that was not only unsupported, but actually contradicted by the bulk of the evidence that they themselves presented. It's absurd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
17 hours ago, Booth said:

"I probably could have"??? Man, you're hedging pretty hard here...

Bear in mind, everything that you're citing is meaningless if the bodies aren't found. The boat, the searches, the trips, everything. All of these facts being "suspicious" are predicated strictly on the fact that the bodies were found in the bay. 

LOL, you're beating me up for hedging on a hypothetical? There goes the kinship!!! :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sly Humour
15 hours ago, Booth said:

You understood my point perfectly. Once the bodies were found in/near the bay, confirmation bias ruled the day. "There was no possible way for that to happen if Scott didn't do it. Despite all of the indications otherwise, Scott must've done it, somehow". The state created an imaginary theory and ran with it. One that was not only unsupported, but actually contradicted by the bulk of the evidence that they themselves presented. It's absurd.


Agreed. 

To me, one of the most profound examples in this case of confirmation bias is contained in a paragraph on page 160 of the book that was written by Susan Rocha in 2006 entitled For Laci. In this paragraph she describes a conversation that she had with her daughter Amy four days after Laci went missing. In that conversation both her and Amy express incredulity that Scott would claim to have observed Laci sitting on a bench in the bathroom curling her hair when, to the best of their recollection, there had never, ever been a bench in the bathroom. However, the very night that Laci is reported missing, a Modesto Police officer snapped a photograph of the bathroom that not only shows the curling iron laying on the counter beside the sink, but also one of the kitchen stools directly in front of the mirror. 

But because she and Amy had never seen a bench in the bathroom before, she determined through confirmation bias that there never was one and therefore Scott must have been lying about watching Laci curl her hair in the bathroom that morning. And what solidifies the confirmation bias is that nearly four years later while writing her book, she makes reference to this event to substantiate her conclusion that Scott must have been lying despite the fact that this photrographic evidence cleary demonstrates that he was telling the truth the whole time. The bench was quite obviously the stool, and it was there all aong.

He simply called it a bench.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.