Scott Peterson

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Should we reconsider everything we've been told, when a man's life is on the line

Yes
84
79%
No
22
21%
 
Total votes : 106

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:11 am

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:Desert Fox, your post leaves me scratching my head. After all this time, you don't seem to be aware of the numerous grounds upon which Scott Peterson is basing his appeals.


The higher court has to decide that any such evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury and that can be a very high bar to pass.


I don't think the CASC will be able to ignore the numerous violations of Scott Peterson's constitutional rights to due process. He did not receive a fair trial.

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:01 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy doesn't understand the U.S. Appellate Process. That's one reason why his arguments don't make sense.


Nothing personal Jane, but you lack the basic understanding of evidence and foundation and I dare say general reasoning and logic.

I noticed it is only me you jump on, here you have another person denying the Connor was born and yet you say nothing even though that is one of your pillars of Scott's innocence, you don't have any objectivity in this matter and that is just one of many examples.

the idea that a burglary across the street automatically means that it had something to do with Laci's murder, is fundamentally flawed. And as I have previous stated, unless there is fundamentally sound evidence that supports an abduction / murder theory - it will remain nothing more than speculation.

The notion that the Peterson's have through their own investigation, come up with exculpatory evidence that they are intentionally keeping from the press and omitting from the Appeal and Habeas seems very far fetched.

Anon


There's a basic flaw in your reasoning, Anonshy. You imply that the only way Scott can have a successful appeal is by identifying the people who actually murdered his wife, by proving exactly how they abducted her, by proving how they kept her captive, by proving how they committed the murder, and by proving how they got the body to the bay.

This is not correct. Any one of the errors listed in the direct appeal or the claims in the habeas, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient for them to reverse the verdict.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:12 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Little inconsistencies? There are a lot more than "little inconsistencies" in this case. In fact - much of what the state claimed happened, simply could not have happened. They were for the most part largely INconsistent. Those puzzle pieces didn't fit together.

I know when it comes to the numerous searches of the bay by numerous agencies not turning up a body or any anchors everyone who believes Scott is guilty wants to use the "the San Francisco Bay is a huge area" excuse. But it's not. Not the area we are talking about. The prosecution was very clear. Scott went fishing along this route - he dumped her weighted body along this route - this giant storm came along and loosened her from the anchors and she and Conner floated ashore. They had their expert plot out the trajectory from where he dumped Laci's body on December 24th along his fishing route to where Conner was found. They were clear. They didn't say her body had been floating around the bay - Laci's body was anchored until that storm hit and within 45 hours, Conner washed ashore. The problem was the evidence says no - absolutely not. And much of this contradicting evidence was testified to by the prosecution's own witnesses. Berkeley to Brooks Island - a mile and a half. 1.5 square miles - shallow water - searched for 3 months. Did they take days off? - sure - but they were out there for at least 27 solid days before the bodies washed ashore, 25 days after the bodies were found. Dogs, boats, sonar. Oh but she was under water right? Murky, muddy water - that's why they couldn't find her. Wrong. The medical examiner, the prosecution's witness testified that there was mineralization in Laci pants indicating that she had gone through some repeated drying and rewetting process. Which means over an extended period of time, Laci’s body was exposed to the air repeatedly, long enough for the crotch portion of her pants to completely dry out (again REPEATEDLY and COMPLETELY). The only thing that can possibly explain this is that at every low tide - Laci's body was exposed. Yet her body was never spotted during the numerous bay searches of Scott’s undisputed fishing route.

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Cheng, was able to track a trajectory for Conner, from Scott’s fishing route to the location of where his body was found, but was unable to give an explanation for Laci's body turning up where it did. But the medical examiner says they were together. He testified that Conner must not have been expelled from Laci’s body and in the water more than 48 hours prior to being found on the shoreline, due to the lack of animal feeding on his body....Dr. Cheng could not explain how the bodies, supposedly propelled by the wind, could have originated from the same place but moved in different directions.

Conner was 33 weeks old on December 24th, 2002 when Laci disappeared, and all indications, based on 33 weeks of pre-natal care indicate he would have been a smaller than average to average sized baby. Yet his measurements at his time of death were of an averaged sized 35 week old baby or a VERY large 33 week old baby. Habeas expert and renowned fetal biometrist, Dr. Philippe Jeanty, the man who wrote the equation that the prosecution’s expert misused to come up with his date of death for Conner of December 24th, says that based on Conner’s measurements and using the proper equations – Conner’s date of death was in early January.

And more inconsistencies:

Prosecution claims Scott left the house at 10:08 and was at the warehouse on the computer at 10:30. Prosecution also claims that Karen Servas found the dog with his leash on and the gate wide open and returned the dog to the yard no later than 10:18. Prosecution does not dispute the mailman’s timeline of delivering the mail to the Peterson home no earlier than 10:35. However the mailman claims the gate was open and the dog was nowhere on the Peterson property when he delivered the mail that day. Yet the dog was in the yard with the gate closed when Scott returned home at 4:45:

10:08 - Scott leaves for the warehouse
10:18 - Karen Servas finds the dog and the gate open - she puts him back in the yard and closes the gate
10:35-10:50 - The mailman delivers the mail - the gate is open - the dog is gone
4:45 - Scott returns home - the dog is in the yard and the gate is closed

More inconsistencies:
Prosecution wants you to believe that it was Scott Peterson on the home computer that morning, pretending to be Laci, visiting shopping sights and viewing Gap scarves, garden weather vanes and sunflower motif umbrella stands, knowing the police would check his computer activity - hoping to make them think she was still alive at 8:45 AM. Yet this is the same computer that Scott researched boats for sale (a boat they claim he wanted to keep secret), the bay area and the Berkeley Marina on AND Scott never mentioned to the police that Laci had been on the computer that morning when he told them the events of that morning.

The prosecution claimed that Scott murdered his wife and unborn child because he did not want to be a father and wanted to be free from marriage. Yet Scott and Laci had tried for a year and half to get pregnant and Scott attended every OB-Gyn appointment with Laci during her pregnancy. Multiple people – friends as well as Laci’s family testified that Scott was excited about being a father...that Scott was goal oriented and that one of his goals was to have a child and a family (testimony of Brent Rocha).

The prosecution says the burglary across the street did not occur on the 24th, but on the 26th, when Covena was in the midst of searching for Laci. They say that Steve Todd rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th – when the Peterson home was being used as a makeshift volunteer center – police cars were lined up on Covena as the park was searched - and decided on that day that the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. Yet Diane Jackson saw a van with 3 men in front of the Medina home on the 24th around 11:30 am, and the Tenbrink brothers say Laci confronted Todd during the burglary.

Fictitious multiple anchors. Not a spec of evidence of multiple anchors being made.

Those are just some inconsistencies I could think of off the top of my head.

In addition to the inconsistencies - you have a pathetic investigation done by the MPD. When witnesses called to say they saw Laci walking that morning, instead of calling and talking to them, the police interview every pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood in an attempt to discredit people they never even bothered to interview. When given a description of Laci's jewelry that's missing - they do a search at the local pawn shops (expecting to find that Laci or Scott had pawned these items). When a pawn for a Croton watch turns up - instead of finding the woman who pawned the watch (who turns out actually had a connection to the burglars), Det. Grogan seeks to prove that Laci would not have worn that watch. Burglary across the street? Nah....that van and the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the house on the 24th didn't have anything to do with the burglary....the MPD says the one burglar burglarized that home all by himself - on the 26th - and moved all those items on his bicycle - making multiple trips (again - on his bicycle) in the middle of the night. And got a friend to help him move a safe out of the house and into a waiting vehicle on the street - amongst media trucks the morning of the 26th.

They improperly hypnotized Diane Jackson and Kristin Dempewolf - because of this they were not allowed to testify.
They either ignored or buried the Aponte tip.
They buried the mailman's info.
They excised information from a police report that Laci had been to the warehouse the week she disappeared.
Det. Brocchini stopped the dog trailing after it lead to the airport district (where the burglars lived) - and instead had them drive the dog's to Scott's warehouse.
Det. Brocchini kept the scent articles, including Laci's hair brush, in his desk drawer. Oh and miraculously one hair found in the pliers in the boat turned into two separate hairs in the evidence envelope - when Det. Brocchini opened it.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:30 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy doesn't understand the U.S. Appellate Process. That's one reason why his arguments don't make sense.


Nothing personal Jane, but you lack the basic understanding of evidence and foundation and I dare say general reasoning and logic.

I noticed it is only me you jump on, here you have another person denying the Connor was born and yet you say nothing even though that is one of your pillars of Scott's innocence, you don't have any objectivity in this matter and that is just one of many examples.

the idea that a burglary across the street automatically means that it had something to do with Laci's murder, is fundamentally flawed. And as I have previous stated, unless there is fundamentally sound evidence that supports an abduction / murder theory - it will remain nothing more than speculation.

The notion that the Peterson's have through their own investigation, come up with exculpatory evidence that they are intentionally keeping from the press and omitting from the Appeal and Habeas seems very far fetched.

Anon


There's a basic flaw in your reasoning, Anonshy. You imply that the only way Scott can have a successful appeal is by identifying the people who actually murdered his wife, by proving exactly how they abducted her, by proving how they kept her captive, by proving how they committed the murder, and by proving how they got the body to the bay.

This is not correct. Any one of the errors listed in the direct appeal or the claims in the habeas, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient for them to reverse the verdict.


OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:34 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:Desert Fox, your post leaves me scratching my head. After all this time, you don't seem to be aware of the numerous grounds upon which Scott Peterson is basing his appeals.


The higher court has to decide that any such evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury and that can be a very high bar to pass.


Jane is under the belief that, if the Defense states it or belives it, it must be true!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:40 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Agree, going after the innocence stance is fool-hearty. If the Defense went to the Judge with the so-called evidence that is thrown around in this thread, it will be a very short process. Can you please explain to Jane what the concept of Evidentiary foundation means!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:49 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy doesn't understand the U.S. Appellate Process. That's one reason why his arguments don't make sense.


Nothing personal Jane, but you lack the basic understanding of evidence and foundation and I dare say general reasoning and logic.

I noticed it is only me you jump on, here you have another person denying the Connor was born and yet you say nothing even though that is one of your pillars of Scott's innocence, you don't have any objectivity in this matter and that is just one of many examples.

the idea that a burglary across the street automatically means that it had something to do with Laci's murder, is fundamentally flawed. And as I have previous stated, unless there is fundamentally sound evidence that supports an abduction / murder theory - it will remain nothing more than speculation.

The notion that the Peterson's have through their own investigation, come up with exculpatory evidence that they are intentionally keeping from the press and omitting from the Appeal and Habeas seems very far fetched.

Anon


There's a basic flaw in your reasoning, Anonshy. You imply that the only way Scott can have a successful appeal is by identifying the people who actually murdered his wife, by proving exactly how they abducted her, by proving how they kept her captive, by proving how they committed the murder, and by proving how they got the body to the bay.

This is not correct. Any one of the errors listed in the direct appeal or the claims in the habeas, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient for them to reverse the verdict.


OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:32 am

lsmith510 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Little inconsistencies? There are a lot more than "little inconsistencies" in this case. In fact - much of what the state claimed happened, simply could not have happened. They were for the most part largely INconsistent. Those puzzle pieces didn't fit together.

I know when it comes to the numerous searches of the bay by numerous agencies not turning up a body or any anchors everyone who believes Scott is guilty wants to use the "the San Francisco Bay is a huge area" excuse. But it's not. Not the area we are talking about. The prosecution was very clear. Scott went fishing along this route - he dumped her weighted body along this route - this giant storm came along and loosened her from the anchors and she and Conner floated ashore. They had their expert plot out the trajectory from where he dumped Laci's body on December 24th along his fishing route to where Conner was found. They were clear. They didn't say her body had been floating around the bay - Laci's body was anchored until that storm hit and within 45 hours, Conner washed ashore. The problem was the evidence says no - absolutely not. And much of this contradicting evidence was testified to by the prosecution's own witnesses. Berkeley to Brooks Island - a mile and a half. 1.5 square miles - shallow water - searched for 3 months. Did they take days off? - sure - but they were out there for at least 27 solid days before the bodies washed ashore, 25 days after the bodies were found. Dogs, boats, sonar. Oh but she was under water right? Murky, muddy water - that's why they couldn't find her. Wrong. The medical examiner, the prosecution's witness testified that there was mineralization in Laci pants indicating that she had gone through some repeated drying and rewetting process. Which means over an extended period of time, Laci’s body was exposed to the air repeatedly, long enough for the crotch portion of her pants to completely dry out (again REPEATEDLY and COMPLETELY). The only thing that can possibly explain this is that at every low tide - Laci's body was exposed. Yet her body was never spotted during the numerous bay searches of Scott’s undisputed fishing route.

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Cheng, was able to track a trajectory for Conner, from Scott’s fishing route to the location of where his body was found, but was unable to give an explanation for Laci's body turning up where it did. But the medical examiner says they were together. He testified that Conner must not have been expelled from Laci’s body and in the water more than 48 hours prior to being found on the shoreline, due to the lack of animal feeding on his body....Dr. Cheng could not explain how the bodies, supposedly propelled by the wind, could have originated from the same place but moved in different directions.

Conner was 33 weeks old on December 24th, 2002 when Laci disappeared, and all indications, based on 33 weeks of pre-natal care indicate he would have been a smaller than average to average sized baby. Yet his measurements at his time of death were of an averaged sized 35 week old baby or a VERY large 33 week old baby. Habeas expert and renowned fetal biometrist, Dr. Philippe Jeanty, the man who wrote the equation that the prosecution’s expert misused to come up with his date of death for Conner of December 24th, says that based on Conner’s measurements and using the proper equations – Conner’s date of death was in early January.

And more inconsistencies:

Prosecution claims Scott left the house at 10:08 and was at the warehouse on the computer at 10:30. Prosecution also claims that Karen Servas found the dog with his leash on and the gate wide open and returned the dog to the yard no later than 10:18. Prosecution does not dispute the mailman’s timeline of delivering the mail to the Peterson home no earlier than 10:35. However the mailman claims the gate was open and the dog was nowhere on the Peterson property when he delivered the mail that day. Yet the dog was in the yard with the gate closed when Scott returned home at 4:45:

10:08 - Scott leaves for the warehouse
10:18 - Karen Servas finds the dog and the gate open - she puts him back in the yard and closes the gate
10:35-10:50 - The mailman delivers the mail - the gate is open - the dog is gone
4:45 - Scott returns home - the dog is in the yard and the gate is closed

More inconsistencies:
Prosecution wants you to believe that it was Scott Peterson on the home computer that morning, pretending to be Laci, visiting shopping sights and viewing Gap scarves, garden weather vanes and sunflower motif umbrella stands, knowing the police would check his computer activity - hoping to make them think she was still alive at 8:45 AM. Yet this is the same computer that Scott researched boats for sale (a boat they claim he wanted to keep secret), the bay area and the Berkeley Marina on AND Scott never mentioned to the police that Laci had been on the computer that morning when he told them the events of that morning.

The prosecution claimed that Scott murdered his wife and unborn child because he did not want to be a father and wanted to be free from marriage. Yet Scott and Laci had tried for a year and half to get pregnant and Scott attended every OB-Gyn appointment with Laci during her pregnancy. Multiple people – friends as well as Laci’s family testified that Scott was excited about being a father...that Scott was goal oriented and that one of his goals was to have a child and a family (testimony of Brent Rocha).

The prosecution says the burglary across the street did not occur on the 24th, but on the 26th, when Covena was in the midst of searching for Laci. They say that Steve Todd rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th – when the Peterson home was being used as a makeshift volunteer center – police cars were lined up on Covena as the park was searched - and decided on that day that the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. Yet Diane Jackson saw a van with 3 men in front of the Medina home on the 24th around 11:30 am, and the Tenbrink brothers say Laci confronted Todd during the burglary.

Fictitious multiple anchors. Not a spec of evidence of multiple anchors being made.

Those are just some inconsistencies I could think of off the top of my head.

In addition to the inconsistencies - you have a pathetic investigation done by the MPD. When witnesses called to say they saw Laci walking that morning, instead of calling and talking to them, the police interview every pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood in an attempt to discredit people they never even bothered to interview. When given a description of Laci's jewelry that's missing - they do a search at the local pawn shops (expecting to find that Laci or Scott had pawned these items). When a pawn for a Croton watch turns up - instead of finding the woman who pawned the watch (who turns out actually had a connection to the burglars), Det. Grogan seeks to prove that Laci would not have worn that watch. Burglary across the street? Nah....that van and the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the house on the 24th didn't have anything to do with the burglary....the MPD says the one burglar burglarized that home all by himself - on the 26th - and moved all those items on his bicycle - making multiple trips (again - on his bicycle) in the middle of the night. And got a friend to help him move a safe out of the house and into a waiting vehicle on the street - amongst media trucks the morning of the 26th.

They improperly hypnotized Diane Jackson and Kristin Dempewolf - because of this they were not allowed to testify.
They either ignored or buried the Aponte tip.
They buried the mailman's info.
They excised information from a police report that Laci had been to the warehouse the week she disappeared.
Det. Brocchini stopped the dog trailing after it lead to the airport district (where the burglars lived) - and instead had them drive the dog's to Scott's warehouse.
Det. Brocchini kept the scent articles, including Laci's hair brush, in his desk drawer. Oh and miraculously one hair found in the pliers in the boat turned into two separate hairs in the evidence envelope - when Det. Brocchini opened it.


There are huge inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. In fact, there was no physical evidence, direct or circumstantial, that tied Scott Peterson to the act of murder. It is not sufficient to provide circumstantial evidence of motive and opportunity. There must be evidence that ties the defendant directly to the crime. That evidence does not exist in this case.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:34 pm

jane wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Little inconsistencies? There are a lot more than "little inconsistencies" in this case. In fact - much of what the state claimed happened, simply could not have happened. They were for the most part largely INconsistent. Those puzzle pieces didn't fit together.

I know when it comes to the numerous searches of the bay by numerous agencies not turning up a body or any anchors everyone who believes Scott is guilty wants to use the "the San Francisco Bay is a huge area" excuse. But it's not. Not the area we are talking about. The prosecution was very clear. Scott went fishing along this route - he dumped her weighted body along this route - this giant storm came along and loosened her from the anchors and she and Conner floated ashore. They had their expert plot out the trajectory from where he dumped Laci's body on December 24th along his fishing route to where Conner was found. They were clear. They didn't say her body had been floating around the bay - Laci's body was anchored until that storm hit and within 45 hours, Conner washed ashore. The problem was the evidence says no - absolutely not. And much of this contradicting evidence was testified to by the prosecution's own witnesses. Berkeley to Brooks Island - a mile and a half. 1.5 square miles - shallow water - searched for 3 months. Did they take days off? - sure - but they were out there for at least 27 solid days before the bodies washed ashore, 25 days after the bodies were found. Dogs, boats, sonar. Oh but she was under water right? Murky, muddy water - that's why they couldn't find her. Wrong. The medical examiner, the prosecution's witness testified that there was mineralization in Laci pants indicating that she had gone through some repeated drying and rewetting process. Which means over an extended period of time, Laci’s body was exposed to the air repeatedly, long enough for the crotch portion of her pants to completely dry out (again REPEATEDLY and COMPLETELY). The only thing that can possibly explain this is that at every low tide - Laci's body was exposed. Yet her body was never spotted during the numerous bay searches of Scott’s undisputed fishing route.

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Cheng, was able to track a trajectory for Conner, from Scott’s fishing route to the location of where his body was found, but was unable to give an explanation for Laci's body turning up where it did. But the medical examiner says they were together. He testified that Conner must not have been expelled from Laci’s body and in the water more than 48 hours prior to being found on the shoreline, due to the lack of animal feeding on his body....Dr. Cheng could not explain how the bodies, supposedly propelled by the wind, could have originated from the same place but moved in different directions.

Conner was 33 weeks old on December 24th, 2002 when Laci disappeared, and all indications, based on 33 weeks of pre-natal care indicate he would have been a smaller than average to average sized baby. Yet his measurements at his time of death were of an averaged sized 35 week old baby or a VERY large 33 week old baby. Habeas expert and renowned fetal biometrist, Dr. Philippe Jeanty, the man who wrote the equation that the prosecution’s expert misused to come up with his date of death for Conner of December 24th, says that based on Conner’s measurements and using the proper equations – Conner’s date of death was in early January.

And more inconsistencies:

Prosecution claims Scott left the house at 10:08 and was at the warehouse on the computer at 10:30. Prosecution also claims that Karen Servas found the dog with his leash on and the gate wide open and returned the dog to the yard no later than 10:18. Prosecution does not dispute the mailman’s timeline of delivering the mail to the Peterson home no earlier than 10:35. However the mailman claims the gate was open and the dog was nowhere on the Peterson property when he delivered the mail that day. Yet the dog was in the yard with the gate closed when Scott returned home at 4:45:

10:08 - Scott leaves for the warehouse
10:18 - Karen Servas finds the dog and the gate open - she puts him back in the yard and closes the gate
10:35-10:50 - The mailman delivers the mail - the gate is open - the dog is gone
4:45 - Scott returns home - the dog is in the yard and the gate is closed

More inconsistencies:
Prosecution wants you to believe that it was Scott Peterson on the home computer that morning, pretending to be Laci, visiting shopping sights and viewing Gap scarves, garden weather vanes and sunflower motif umbrella stands, knowing the police would check his computer activity - hoping to make them think she was still alive at 8:45 AM. Yet this is the same computer that Scott researched boats for sale (a boat they claim he wanted to keep secret), the bay area and the Berkeley Marina on AND Scott never mentioned to the police that Laci had been on the computer that morning when he told them the events of that morning.

The prosecution claimed that Scott murdered his wife and unborn child because he did not want to be a father and wanted to be free from marriage. Yet Scott and Laci had tried for a year and half to get pregnant and Scott attended every OB-Gyn appointment with Laci during her pregnancy. Multiple people – friends as well as Laci’s family testified that Scott was excited about being a father...that Scott was goal oriented and that one of his goals was to have a child and a family (testimony of Brent Rocha).

The prosecution says the burglary across the street did not occur on the 24th, but on the 26th, when Covena was in the midst of searching for Laci. They say that Steve Todd rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th – when the Peterson home was being used as a makeshift volunteer center – police cars were lined up on Covena as the park was searched - and decided on that day that the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. Yet Diane Jackson saw a van with 3 men in front of the Medina home on the 24th around 11:30 am, and the Tenbrink brothers say Laci confronted Todd during the burglary.

Fictitious multiple anchors. Not a spec of evidence of multiple anchors being made.

Those are just some inconsistencies I could think of off the top of my head.

In addition to the inconsistencies - you have a pathetic investigation done by the MPD. When witnesses called to say they saw Laci walking that morning, instead of calling and talking to them, the police interview every pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood in an attempt to discredit people they never even bothered to interview. When given a description of Laci's jewelry that's missing - they do a search at the local pawn shops (expecting to find that Laci or Scott had pawned these items). When a pawn for a Croton watch turns up - instead of finding the woman who pawned the watch (who turns out actually had a connection to the burglars), Det. Grogan seeks to prove that Laci would not have worn that watch. Burglary across the street? Nah....that van and the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the house on the 24th didn't have anything to do with the burglary....the MPD says the one burglar burglarized that home all by himself - on the 26th - and moved all those items on his bicycle - making multiple trips (again - on his bicycle) in the middle of the night. And got a friend to help him move a safe out of the house and into a waiting vehicle on the street - amongst media trucks the morning of the 26th.

They improperly hypnotized Diane Jackson and Kristin Dempewolf - because of this they were not allowed to testify.
They either ignored or buried the Aponte tip.
They buried the mailman's info.
They excised information from a police report that Laci had been to the warehouse the week she disappeared.
Det. Brocchini stopped the dog trailing after it lead to the airport district (where the burglars lived) - and instead had them drive the dog's to Scott's warehouse.
Det. Brocchini kept the scent articles, including Laci's hair brush, in his desk drawer. Oh and miraculously one hair found in the pliers in the boat turned into two separate hairs in the evidence envelope - when Det. Brocchini opened it.


There are huge inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. In fact, there was no physical evidence, direct or circumstantial, that tied Scott Peterson to the act of murder. It is not sufficient to provide circumstantial evidence of motive and opportunity. There must be evidence that ties the defendant directly to the crime. That evidence does not exist in this case.


The part you don't seem to get is the weight the legal system give to jury verdicts!

I could go through each and every one of your slanted to innocent post but it's really not worth it, your the only one in here paying attention, and trying to talk reason to you is an exercise in frustration. Needless to say there are easy counter points to each of your contentions. You also have to understand the importance of "harm" which is the reference point the referring judges will work to.

Just a quickly, unless Todd was carrying the safe on his back and walked home, there would be very little chance any dog could track someone inside a vehicle over large distances. but this is just one example where you call something Junk Science when it points to guilt but embrace it when it works towards innocence.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:20 pm

I still feel that this is a reasonably strong circumstantial case (scores of defendants have been convicted on less convincing evidence) but that the defense has raised two very strong defenses - the fact that the victim may have been alive and in the vicinity of their home after the defendant left to go to the Bay and the argument that the victim was alive and actually died only at a time substantially after the time the defendant is alleged to have killed her. Either of these - if established with sufficient evidence - should lead to an acquittal. However, in the absence of either of these, I think the conviction is likely to be affirmed and even if reversed that the defendant is likely to be convicted upon retrial.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:13 am

erasmus44 wrote:I still feel that this is a reasonably strong circumstantial case (scores of defendants have been convicted on less convincing evidence) but that the defense has raised two very strong defenses - the fact that the victim may have been alive and in the vicinity of their home after the defendant left to go to the Bay and the argument that the victim was alive and actually died only at a time substantially after the time the defendant is alleged to have killed her. Either of these - if established with sufficient evidence - should lead to an acquittal. However, in the absence of either of these, I think the conviction is likely to be affirmed and even if reversed that the defendant is likely to be convicted upon retrial.


Claim #11 in the habeas is for Cumulative Error. This means that the judges do not have to select just one error to overturn the verdict and ignore all the others.

Excerpt:
5. In this petition and in the briefing on direct appeal, petitioner has set forth separate post-conviction claims and arguments regarding the numerous guilt phase and penalty phase errors, and he submits that each one of these errors independently compels reversal of the judgment or alternative post-conviction relief. However, even in cases in which no single error compels reversal, a defendant may be deprived of due process if the cumulative effect of all errors in the case denied him fundamental fairness.....

6. Petitioner submits that the errors in this case, asserted in both the direct appeal and in this petition, require reversal both individually and because of their cumulative impact. As explained in detail in the separate claims and arguments on these issues, the errors in this case individually and collectively violated federal constitutional guarantees under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as they individually and collectively had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict, judgment and sentence and are moreover prejudicial under any standard of review.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:34 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.


I have been summoning the strength to answer Anon's post over the last two days. I have been going back and forth in my mind whether it is even worth it.

Anon - you either aren't reading slow enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I did not say it wasn't Todd. I said I often considered that maybe it wasn't Todd that the Tenbrinks were talking about - and that through the grapevine something got misconstrued. That's because I am not going to do what the Modesto Police Department did. I will not form a theory and then seek to prove my theory. My mind is open to the truth and where it leads me. However the possibility that it wasn't actually Todd that Laci confronted does NOT nullify the Aponte tip. The Tenbrinks and Aponte were clear.....Laci confronted the burglars. It doesn't matter if it was Todd or someone else - if that happened - Scott Peterson is innocent. And you can hide behind your arguments of "proper foundation" and "evidentiary rules" ......but an unbiased look at the facts of this case say that Laci Peterson was alive after Scott left that day.

Jane isn't all over my position because she and I discuss this case other places besides here. And we both know that we agree on the fundamental aspects of this case. Lace was alive after Scott left the house that day. We don't know all the details of what happened to her. Just like you don't know all the details in the Amanda Knox case. But you have a crime scene in the Knox case - we don't. You have the perpetrator behind bars. And yet you still don't know exactly what happened that day. You don't know if Rudy Guede broke into the home and entered through the window. You don't know if Meredith walked in on him burglarizing their home or if Meredith let him in and he broke the window to stage a burglary. You don't know why Rudy didn't bother to flush the toilet. You don't know if they had some type of consensual interaction prior to the attack. You don't know what made Rudy Guede go from being just a petty thief, to a rapist and a murderer. You can't prove that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. In fact the prosecution says there is forensic evidence that says Raffaele was there. Amanda confessed to being there. But sloppy police work called that evidence into question - so it must be dismissed. And there are still people who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I know you don't think there are similarities between the Knox case and the Peterson case - but there are. Your guilty bias in the Peterson case prevents you from seeing it.

Sure - the Petersons have had decades to find out what really happened to Laci. But they are up against witnesses who have spent a lifetime addicted to methamphetamine.....which compromises their memory and their credibility. These people and their families still live in that neighborhood - and likely with Laci's killer - and the police are not on the side of the truth. The police now have a vested interest in Scott Peterson being guilty. Det. Brocchini has a history of intimidating witnesses and threatening witnesses' families. You think they are going to jeopardize their own safety and their childrens' safety to help Scott Peterson? And without a crime scene, without police assistance/pressure, without a proper investigation...that's what the Petersons are left with. Hoping someone will come forward. And you dare to use this as proof that Scott must be guilty. It leaves me shaking my head.

And as far as the dog tracking......my point in bringing it up - was to show the impropriety on the part of Brocchini when he stopped the trailing and decided to DRIVE the dogs to the warehouse. And then you either confused Jane with having said it and basically called her a hypocrite because she had previously stated that dog tracking was junk science.....or.....you are continuing to imply that Jane and I are the same person. One last time.....we are not. And please either read more carefully or stop twisting my words.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:12 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.


I have been summoning the strength to answer Anon's post over the last two days. I have been going back and forth in my mind whether it is even worth it.

Anon - you either aren't reading slow enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I did not say it wasn't Todd. I said I often considered that maybe it wasn't Todd that the Tenbrinks were talking about - and that through the grapevine something got misconstrued. That's because I am not going to do what the Modesto Police Department did. I will not form a theory and then seek to prove my theory. My mind is open to the truth and where it leads me. However the possibility that it wasn't actually Todd that Laci confronted does NOT nullify the Aponte tip. The Tenbrinks and Aponte were clear.....Laci confronted the burglars. It doesn't matter if it was Todd or someone else - if that happened - Scott Peterson is innocent. And you can hide behind your arguments of "proper foundation" and "evidentiary rules" ......but an unbiased look at the facts of this case say that Laci Peterson was alive after Scott left that day.

Jane isn't all over my position because she and I discuss this case other places besides here. And we both know that we agree on the fundamental aspects of this case. Lace was alive after Scott left the house that day. We don't know all the details of what happened to her. Just like you don't know all the details in the Amanda Knox case. But you have a crime scene in the Knox case - we don't. You have the perpetrator behind bars. And yet you still don't know exactly what happened that day. You don't know if Rudy Guede broke into the home and entered through the window. You don't know if Meredith walked in on him burglarizing their home or if Meredith let him in and he broke the window to stage a burglary. You don't know why Rudy didn't bother to flush the toilet. You don't know if they had some type of consensual interaction prior to the attack. You don't know what made Rudy Guede go from being just a petty thief, to a rapist and a murderer. You can't prove that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. In fact the prosecution says there is forensic evidence that says Raffaele was there. Amanda confessed to being there. But sloppy police work called that evidence into question - so it must be dismissed. And there are still people who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I know you don't think there are similarities between the Knox case and the Peterson case - but there are. Your guilty bias in the Peterson case prevents you from seeing it.

Sure - the Petersons have had decades to find out what really happened to Laci. But they are up against witnesses who have spent a lifetime addicted to methamphetamine.....which compromises their memory and their credibility. These people and their families still live in that neighborhood - and likely with Laci's killer - and the police are not on the side of the truth. The police now have a vested interest in Scott Peterson being guilty. Det. Brocchini has a history of intimidating witnesses and threatening witnesses' families. You think they are going to jeopardize their own safety and their childrens' safety to help Scott Peterson? And without a crime scene, without police assistance/pressure, without a proper investigation...that's what the Petersons are left with. Hoping someone will come forward. And you dare to use this as proof that Scott must be guilty. It leaves me shaking my head.

And as far as the dog tracking......my point in bringing it up - was to show the impropriety on the part of Brocchini when he stopped the trailing and decided to DRIVE the dogs to the warehouse. And then you either confused Jane with having said it and basically called her a hypocrite because she had previously stated that dog tracking was junk science.....or.....you are continuing to imply that Jane and I are the same person. One last time.....we are not. And please either read more carefully or stop twisting my words.


My remarks about foundation are 100% true and as I stated, this is an issue that will haunt the Habeas and the Appeal, You see, courts of Law have rules, and the idea that you don't agree with the judges rulings or the verdict rendered by the Jury is certainly a valid topic for this forum, but it does not remove evidence rules.

I get that you feel a great injustice has been committed, But I also think you go to far in directly relating this case to the Knox Case. The most important fact, is the final decision in the 2 cases, Knox was found not guilty and Peterson was found guilty, This fact changes the entire dynamic of fighting for innocence. There is no comparison to Knox at this point. An if I'm being as straight forward as possible, I thought Knox to be Guilty when I first got involved with the case.

It's good to know that you and Jane have discussion about this case in other places, It adds some transparency to the linkage, and the only reason I mentioned you were the same person was due to the Date you both registered and the fact that you are always running to each others aid.

Aponte's tip was in the hands of the Defense, they chose not to use it or explore it further, This evidence is without foundation, we don't know if it is a true representation of what was said, who actually said it to be overheard or the context in which it was spoken, to base a whole theory on this foundation deprived so called evidence is useless, Does the Tip add to the grandeur of the your shared fantasy, well sure it does, but there is no linkage between the burglary and Laci's murder. A Theory is like a building, when the foundation is weak, the building will fall, Sure you can stack a whole bunch of half-truths and speculation to add lipstick to the pig, but in the end what you are left with is nothing. The burglary theory is laughable in terms of evidence. And as a continuing theme, remember I'm not comparing the strength of the evidence in the primary trial, Because I know how you work, your response will be "They convicted him on less", That is certainly open for debated, but that is not where reality puts this case.

I have yet to hear of a reasonable alternative murderer with a reasonable motive. I have yet to hear how, in a burglary scenario one can account for the condition of the bodies and the obsticles associated with keeping Laci Alive only to kill her to try and Frame Scott. What it amounts to is wishful thinking!

As for the Peterson's, I find it hard to give them any credibility in anything they say, After all they basically gave their son a bag of money, Credit Cards and helped arrange his escape, why would they do that if they really felt he was innocent? a decade later and they are still very uncompelling, Other than the Publicity they pay for from PWC, I dont see them pushing their sons story in the press, actively putting themselves out there in the media.

I'm from Missouri as the edict goes

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:13 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.


I have been summoning the strength to answer Anon's post over the last two days. I have been going back and forth in my mind whether it is even worth it.

Anon - you either aren't reading slow enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I did not say it wasn't Todd. I said I often considered that maybe it wasn't Todd that the Tenbrinks were talking about - and that through the grapevine something got misconstrued. That's because I am not going to do what the Modesto Police Department did. I will not form a theory and then seek to prove my theory. My mind is open to the truth and where it leads me. However the possibility that it wasn't actually Todd that Laci confronted does NOT nullify the Aponte tip. The Tenbrinks and Aponte were clear.....Laci confronted the burglars. It doesn't matter if it was Todd or someone else - if that happened - Scott Peterson is innocent. And you can hide behind your arguments of "proper foundation" and "evidentiary rules" ......but an unbiased look at the facts of this case say that Laci Peterson was alive after Scott left that day.

Jane isn't all over my position because she and I discuss this case other places besides here. And we both know that we agree on the fundamental aspects of this case. Lace was alive after Scott left the house that day. We don't know all the details of what happened to her. Just like you don't know all the details in the Amanda Knox case. But you have a crime scene in the Knox case - we don't. You have the perpetrator behind bars. And yet you still don't know exactly what happened that day. You don't know if Rudy Guede broke into the home and entered through the window. You don't know if Meredith walked in on him burglarizing their home or if Meredith let him in and he broke the window to stage a burglary. You don't know why Rudy didn't bother to flush the toilet. You don't know if they had some type of consensual interaction prior to the attack. You don't know what made Rudy Guede go from being just a petty thief, to a rapist and a murderer. You can't prove that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. In fact the prosecution says there is forensic evidence that says Raffaele was there. Amanda confessed to being there. But sloppy police work called that evidence into question - so it must be dismissed. And there are still people who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I know you don't think there are similarities between the Knox case and the Peterson case - but there are. Your guilty bias in the Peterson case prevents you from seeing it.

Sure - the Petersons have had decades to find out what really happened to Laci. But they are up against witnesses who have spent a lifetime addicted to methamphetamine.....which compromises their memory and their credibility. These people and their families still live in that neighborhood - and likely with Laci's killer - and the police are not on the side of the truth. The police now have a vested interest in Scott Peterson being guilty. Det. Brocchini has a history of intimidating witnesses and threatening witnesses' families. You think they are going to jeopardize their own safety and their childrens' safety to help Scott Peterson? And without a crime scene, without police assistance/pressure, without a proper investigation...that's what the Petersons are left with. Hoping someone will come forward. And you dare to use this as proof that Scott must be guilty. It leaves me shaking my head.

And as far as the dog tracking......my point in bringing it up - was to show the impropriety on the part of Brocchini when he stopped the trailing and decided to DRIVE the dogs to the warehouse. And then you either confused Jane with having said it and basically called her a hypocrite because she had previously stated that dog tracking was junk science.....or.....you are continuing to imply that Jane and I are the same person. One last time.....we are not. And please either read more carefully or stop twisting my words.


My remarks about foundation are 100% true and as I stated, this is an issue that will haunt the Habeas and the Appeal, You see, courts of Law have rules, and the idea that you don't agree with the judges rulings or the verdict rendered by the Jury is certainly a valid topic for this forum, but it does not remove evidence rules.

I get that you feel a great injustice has been committed, But I also think you go to far in directly relating this case to the Knox Case. The most important fact, is the final decision in the 2 cases, Knox was found not guilty and Peterson was found guilty, This fact changes the entire dynamic of fighting for innocence. There is no comparison to Knox at this point. An if I'm being as straight forward as possible, I thought Knox to be Guilty when I first got involved with the case.

It's good to know that you and Jane have discussion about this case in other places, It adds some transparency to the linkage, and the only reason I mentioned you were the same person was due to the Date you both registered and the fact that you are always running to each others aid.

Aponte's tip was in the hands of the Defense, they chose not to use it or explore it further, This evidence is without foundation, we don't know if it is a true representation of what was said, who actually said it to be overheard or the context in which it was spoken, to base a whole theory on this foundation deprived so called evidence is useless, Does the Tip add to the grandeur of the your shared fantasy, well sure it does, but there is no linkage between the burglary and Laci's murder. A Theory is like a building, when the foundation is weak, the building will fall, Sure you can stack a whole bunch of half-truths and speculation to add lipstick to the pig, but in the end what you are left with is nothing. The burglary theory is laughable in terms of evidence. And as a continuing theme, remember I'm not comparing the strength of the evidence in the primary trial, Because I know how you work, your response will be "They convicted him on less", That is certainly open for debated, but that is not where reality puts this case.

I have yet to hear of a reasonable alternative murderer with a reasonable motive. I have yet to hear how, in a burglary scenario one can account for the condition of the bodies and the obsticles associated with keeping Laci Alive only to kill her to try and Frame Scott. What it amounts to is wishful thinking!

As for the Peterson's, I find it hard to give them any credibility in anything they say, After all they basically gave their son a bag of money, Credit Cards and helped arrange his escape, why would they do that if they really felt he was innocent? a decade later and they are still very uncompelling, Other than the Publicity they pay for from PWC, I dont see them pushing their sons story in the press, actively putting themselves out there in the media.

I'm from Missouri as the edict goes

Anon


It's curious that you only find the "final" verdicts relevant in the two cases. Wasn't Knox initially found guilty? And Scott's guilty verdict is not the final verdict. The possibility for a second trial will not be gone until his appeals are exhausted.

Just for clarification....the defense did not choose not to explore or use Aponte tip. The judge ruled they could not use the Aponte tip because the neighbor finding the dog at 10:18 made it impossible for Laci to have confronted the burglars. Which was a faulty reasoning....faulty beyond belief.

No one has ever said they killed Laci Peterson to frame Scott Peterson. That statement makes it clear that you are not "listening" to or considering what we are saying.

Scott was not fleeing. It really astounds me that people keep saying that. It goes to show you that if a lie is repeated over and over again people will believe it.

You could not be more wrong about the Petersons. You really don't see why they wouldn't trust the media? Really? Why do you think there hasn't been ONE report in the media about the info in the habeas appeal? Because the media has a vested interest in the public continuing to believe that Scott Peterson is guilty. The media does not have the "you know whats" to stand up against the mob mentality....besides - giving the mob what they want is what makes them money. You really think the Petersons can go to the media and trust that they won't edit their interview to further their own agenda? Are you that naïve?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:23 pm

Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:57 pm

anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Not that you’ll bother to read anything that doesn’t support your point of view, but here’s a link: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

The defense was unaware of the significance of the Aponte tip until the end of the prosecution case on October 5, 2004 shortly before Geragos was to begin his CIC. At that time they attempted to contact Aponte and it took some time to reach him. Then Aponte began a search for the taped conversations of the Tenbrink brothers and was unable to find them. The defense did not interview Aponte until after Scott had been convicted. The judge refused to consider the Aponte info because of the Servas 10:18 timeline for finding the dog.

One level of hearsay has been removed by the signed declaration for the habeas from Sean Tenbrink confirming the conversation and its content. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the CASC, Adam Tenbrink could be subpoenaed to confirm that Steve Todd was the one who told him that Laci walked up as they were doing the burglary. At that point, the information would be admissible as a hearsay exception—as the witness (Laci) was killed to prevent her from testifying against Todd.


Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Amanda Knox was convicted twice.


Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

Todd’s original intention was to remove Laci from the scene of the burglary so she couldn’t report it. Putting the body where Scott went fishing was intended to keep the focus on Scott and away from the people who murdered her.

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon

You don’t know anything about what the Peterson’s have done and are still doing to exonerate Scott. Stay tuned.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:10 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Not that you’ll bother to read anything that doesn’t support your point of view, but here’s a link: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

The defense was unaware of the significance of the Aponte tip until the end of the prosecution case on October 5, 2004 shortly before Geragos was to begin his CIC. At that time they attempted to contact Aponte and it took some time to reach him. Then Aponte began a search for the taped conversations of the Tenbrink brothers and was unable to find them. The defense did not interview Aponte until after Scott had been convicted. The judge refused to consider the Aponte info because of the Servas 10:18 timeline for finding the dog.

One level of hearsay has been removed by the signed declaration for the habeas from Sean Tenbrink confirming the conversation and its content. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the CASC, Adam Tenbrink could be subpoenaed to confirm that Steve Todd was the one who told him that Laci walked up as they were doing the burglary. At that point, the information would be admissible as a hearsay exception—as the witness (Laci) was killed to prevent her from testifying against Todd.


Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Amanda Knox was convicted twice.


Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

Todd’s original intention was to remove Laci from the scene of the burglary so she couldn’t report it. Putting the body where Scott went fishing was intended to keep the focus on Scott and away from the people who murdered her.

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon

You don’t know anything about what the Peterson’s have done and are still doing to exonerate Scott. Stay tuned.


I don't need to read anyone's opinion, I got a list of the items in the car and an image of scott's apearence from the court files, it very simple to draw a reasonable inference of what Scott was doing.

Show me Todd's statemet, its really that simple, what did he say and who did he say it to...Still without the benefit of being under oath or in a court of law. but I guess any old interview will do. A Signed statement saying what, he overheard someone say that Laci was killed by burglars? Sounds like Hearsay again to me!

Hearsay does not have t be more than one level in California, it is inadmissible unless it meets a very specific criteria, the criteria you gave is not valid for admission. Laci's availability to speak is no an exception as she was not the one who made any attributable comments.

In Italy a guilty verdict is not converted to a final conviction until the highest court confirms it, so no she was not Ultimately convicted

You Logic Jane leave much to be desired. you fail to grasp even basic rules of evidence and foundations.

The Peterson's worked to help their son escape justice, that is a criminal act....They should have been tried for obstruction of Justice.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:41 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Not that you’ll bother to read anything that doesn’t support your point of view, but here’s a link: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

The defense was unaware of the significance of the Aponte tip until the end of the prosecution case on October 5, 2004 shortly before Geragos was to begin his CIC. At that time they attempted to contact Aponte and it took some time to reach him. Then Aponte began a search for the taped conversations of the Tenbrink brothers and was unable to find them. The defense did not interview Aponte until after Scott had been convicted. The judge refused to consider the Aponte info because of the Servas 10:18 timeline for finding the dog.

One level of hearsay has been removed by the signed declaration for the habeas from Sean Tenbrink confirming the conversation and its content. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the CASC, Adam Tenbrink could be subpoenaed to confirm that Steve Todd was the one who told him that Laci walked up as they were doing the burglary. At that point, the information would be admissible as a hearsay exception—as the witness (Laci) was killed to prevent her from testifying against Todd.


Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Amanda Knox was convicted twice.


Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

Todd’s original intention was to remove Laci from the scene of the burglary so she couldn’t report it. Putting the body where Scott went fishing was intended to keep the focus on Scott and away from the people who murdered her.

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon

You don’t know anything about what the Peterson’s have done and are still doing to exonerate Scott. Stay tuned.


I don't need to read anyone's opinion, I got a list of the items in the car and an image of scott's apearence from the court files, it very simple to draw a reasonable inference of what Scott was doing.

Show me Todd's statemet, its really that simple, what did he say and who did he say it to...Still without the benefit of being under oath or in a court of law. but I guess any old interview will do. A Signed statement saying what, he overheard someone say that Laci was killed by burglars? Sounds like Hearsay again to me!

Hearsay does not have t be more than one level in California, it is inadmissible unless it meets a very specific criteria, the criteria you gave is not valid for admission. Laci's availability to speak is no an exception as she was not the one who made any attributable comments.

In Italy a guilty verdict is not converted to a final conviction until the highest court confirms it, so no she was not Ultimately convicted

You Logic Jane leave much to be desired. you fail to grasp even basic rules of evidence and foundations.

The Peterson's worked to help their son escape justice, that is a criminal act....They should have been tried for obstruction of Justice.

Anon


By any chance, Anonshy, are you from Modesto?
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Broseph » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:55 pm

Jane, are you a friend, relative or admirer of SP?

(On ISF I've noticed that, with only 1 or 2 exceptions, every one now posting in defense of Knox has either met her in person or wants to meet her in person.)
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:18 am

Broseph wrote:Jane, are you a friend, relative or admirer of SP?

(On ISF I've noticed that, with only 1 or 2 exceptions, every one now posting in defense of Knox has either met her in person or wants to meet her in person.)


None of the above. Just an ordinary citizen very concerned about the problem of wrongful convictions. The Peterson case is one of the worst. Extreme media bias, dishonest investigation, misconduct by the prosecutors, false testimony by expert witnesses, judicial bias, juror misconduct, numerous violations of Peterson's constitutional rights to due process.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:57 am

There is no way that Scott Peterson could be guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn child.

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.

So how did the jury find him guilty? Hatred, pure and simple.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:45 pm

jane wrote:There is no way that Scott Peterson could be guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn child.

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.

So how did the jury find him guilty? Hatred, pure and simple.


Not from Modesto, Sorry!

Scott is a convicted Murderer of his wife an unborn child, he had both a credible motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. That is a legal reality, again, you may not like it but that is a fact. There may be some form of revision through Habeas or on Appeal, but as it stands now, he is convicted of the brutal Murder of his Wife and son! Circumstantial as it is, and with some very obvious deficiencies, the jury was in fact able to reach a verdict. Scott was the only one that could have Killed laci without leaving a trace, it would have taken time, planning and opportunity that on Peterson had. Everything points to Scotts guilt an no one else. Sure you can try to shift blame away from Scott by suggesting some Meth-Head small time burglars committed the act, but we all know this is just the last ditch hail marry that is not supported by any credible evidence. Hearsay statements that have not been released or held up to an form of scrutiny are passed off as undisputed fact. If you look at it in the aggregate it is almost laughable. The shortest distance between 2 points is always a straight line, and in the same way the Occam's proved to be correct in the Knox case, so will it continue to be correct in the Peterson matter. The Habeas and Appeals have been classified by experts as being very weak. and the PWC Publicity campaign has been ineffective of changing or generating any advancement for Peterson in the public or legal communities.

The Peterson's have been deplorable through the whole process, fighting Lac's family's every at requests to have her personal belongings, from her personal journals down to the Wedding Ring given to Laci that Scott Demanded to keep. These are not good people, and as it turns out they raised a monster!

To those new here, beware of the use of Fantasy as fact, and speculation over foundation, if you understand those tenants you will have no issue wading through the nonsense that will be throw around as fact.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:41 pm

Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:03 pm

jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:26 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon


Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:06 am

Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:23 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon


Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:28 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:37 am

jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:39 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.


I was not discussing the break-in, I was discussing the initial stance of the Peterson's towards lacis family. If they felt they had to "Break In" to Laci's own house, to Retrieve Laci's own belonging's you make my point for me.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:41 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:46 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.


I was not discussing the break-in, I was discussing the initial stance of the Peterson's towards lacis family. If they felt they had to "Break In" to Laci's own house, to Retrieve Laci's own belonging's you make my point for me.

Anon


And here's more from another Modbee article on May 31, 2003:

Scott Peterson's family had planned to voluntarily turn over only some of the items that his wife's family wanted from the couple's home.

Laci Peterson's family and friends acted first, though, and took what they wanted Friday from the Covena Avenue house -- over the Peterson family's objections.

Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, expressed dismay: "Yesterday we see a coroner's report about a baby, and today we're talking about salt and pepper shakers," she said by telephone from her home in San Diego County.

In discussing the Rochas' request for property from the home, Peterson said some of the items, such as Laci's journals, could not be turned over.

"Scott didn't even know she had journals," Peterson said. "If she did, police have them."

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother. Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

The Rocha family could not be reached for comment.

The family had submitted a 22-point list of items sought from the house. Peterson said Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, later revised it to 16 points.

The Rochas still wanted the crib intended for Conner, the boy with whom Laci was pregnant at the time of her disappearance. And they wanted the rocking chair from the baby's room, too.

Crib and rocking chair went out the door Friday.

Earlier this week, family attorneys said the Rochas needed to "sit in Conner's room in the rocking chair Laci had purchased to rock him in, and just to have the opportunity to feel her presence."

Peterson said she and her family bought almost everything in the baby's room, including crib, rocking chair, clothes and toys -- all baby shower gifts. Scott wanted to keep the baby's things, his mother said.

She said Sharon Rocha was welcome to take back the crib bedding that she had purchased.

Peterson said her son previously agreed to give some property to Laci's brother and half sister: for Brent Rocha, flower vase wall sconces that he had given to Laci as a gift; and for Amy Rocha, wicker furniture and lamps given to Laci by the women's paternal grandmother.

Other items, she said, Scott and Laci acquired as a couple -- such as two white chairs and an end table. "They are not Sharon's," Peterson said.

Nor did her son want to turn over kitchenware -- a food processor, a mixer and cookbooks -- "that Scott will need to keep house," his mother said.

Scott already had decided to turn over the salt and pepper shaker set, in snail motif.

The Rochas also had asked for "Laci's fine china and stemware." Peterson noted how the listing omitted Scott's name.

She described the china and stemware as wedding gifts to the couple, entitling Scott to keep them. She added that she and her husband bought most of the china, filling out the set after the wedding.

There are no photos of Laci to turn over, Peterson said. She said police took every one that included Laci, leaving four photos in the house. She said police also took most of Laci's clothing. "But she (Sharon Rocha) can have all of it."............
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:46 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:49 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon


The things you say are not true. You are making things up. If you have a credible source for this information, name it.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:49 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.


I was not discussing the break-in, I was discussing the initial stance of the Peterson's towards lacis family. If they felt they had to "Break In" to Laci's own house, to Retrieve Laci's own belonging's you make my point for me.

Anon


And here's more from another Modbee article on May 31, 2003:

Scott Peterson's family had planned to voluntarily turn over only some of the items that his wife's family wanted from the couple's home.

Laci Peterson's family and friends acted first, though, and took what they wanted Friday from the Covena Avenue house -- over the Peterson family's objections.

Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, expressed dismay: "Yesterday we see a coroner's report about a baby, and today we're talking about salt and pepper shakers," she said by telephone from her home in San Diego County.

In discussing the Rochas' request for property from the home, Peterson said some of the items, such as Laci's journals, could not be turned over.

"Scott didn't even know she had journals," Peterson said. "If she did, police have them."

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother. Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

The Rocha family could not be reached for comment.

The family had submitted a 22-point list of items sought from the house. Peterson said Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, later revised it to 16 points.

The Rochas still wanted the crib intended for Conner, the boy with whom Laci was pregnant at the time of her disappearance. And they wanted the rocking chair from the baby's room, too.

Crib and rocking chair went out the door Friday.

Earlier this week, family attorneys said the Rochas needed to "sit in Conner's room in the rocking chair Laci had purchased to rock him in, and just to have the opportunity to feel her presence."

Peterson said she and her family bought almost everything in the baby's room, including crib, rocking chair, clothes and toys -- all baby shower gifts. Scott wanted to keep the baby's things, his mother said.

She said Sharon Rocha was welcome to take back the crib bedding that she had purchased.

Peterson said her son previously agreed to give some property to Laci's brother and half sister: for Brent Rocha, flower vase wall sconces that he had given to Laci as a gift; and for Amy Rocha, wicker furniture and lamps given to Laci by the women's paternal grandmother.

Other items, she said, Scott and Laci acquired as a couple -- such as two white chairs and an end table. "They are not Sharon's," Peterson said.

Nor did her son want to turn over kitchenware -- a food processor, a mixer and cookbooks -- "that Scott will need to keep house," his mother said.

Scott already had decided to turn over the salt and pepper shaker set, in snail motif.

The Rochas also had asked for "Laci's fine china and stemware." Peterson noted how the listing omitted Scott's name.

She described the china and stemware as wedding gifts to the couple, entitling Scott to keep them. She added that she and her husband bought most of the china, filling out the set after the wedding.

There are no photos of Laci to turn over, Peterson said. She said police took every one that included Laci, leaving four photos in the house. She said police also took most of Laci's clothing. "But she (Sharon Rocha) can have all of it."............


I don't care what the Peterson's told the press they "Planned to do", I m interested in what they actually did do, can you not think for yourself?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:52 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon


The things you say are not true. You are making things up. If you have a credible source for this information, name it.


I reference your own posting, go read it yourself, it states that lawyers were involved, that the petersons blocked access requiring an agreement in the first place, and from your article, there were resrtictions place on their access. What other source do I need to quote.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:44 am

WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:28 pm

anonshy wrote:WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon


You proved my point. No further need to comment. You have no source for your allegations. Therefore, you referenced the sources in my posts which you obviously did not read or understand.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:47 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon


The things you say are not true. You are making things up. If you have a credible source for this information, name it.


I reference your own posting, go read it yourself, it states that lawyers were involved, that the petersons blocked access requiring an agreement in the first place, and from your article, there were resrtictions place on their access. What other source do I need to quote.

Anon


Anon - I love how you make inferences from something you've read and suddenly it becomes fact. How do you know it wasn't the Rocha's that wanted the communications to be done via the lawyers? Scott had only been in jail six weeks when the Rocha's broke into the home. Ummm....the Petersons kind of had a lot on their plate don't ya think? Are you aware that Sharon Rocha started her demands of Laci's things as early as January, 2003? She wanted the baby's belongings, the crib, Laci's photographs, two tiffany lamps........Yes - Scott denied her those things because he still believed that Laci might come home. He hadn't been arrested yet. He was still living in the home! Scott agreed to share the photos with her - but said no to the lamps because he said they were Laci's and they should be in their home when she returned home. January!!! She had already stolen Laci's wedding ring. 11 days after Laci went missing - January 4th - even before anyone found out about Amber - Sharon Rocha went to the jeweler and picked up Laci's wedding ring.

Why wouldn't restrictions be placed on their access? Yes - it was Laci's home - but it was also Scott's home. Should the Rocha's have been able to enter and take everything they wanted? You look at everything from a guilty perspective. For once consider that Scott is innocent. Would you then feel that Sharon Rocha should have dibs on nursery furniture that was given to Scott and Laci by the Petersons? Why shouldn't Scott be entitled to that furniture? It was HIS furniture! Yes - the Rocha's lost their daughter and their grandson. But Scott lost his wife and his unborn son. And the Petersons lost their beloved daughter-in-law and grandson/nephew. They aren't these horrible people who knew their son was guilty and were depriving the in-laws of Laci's possessions. They weren't helping him "flee". They were parents who knew their son was innocent and were likely a little overwhelmed with the fact that Laci and Conner's bodies had just washed ashore, their son had been arrested, and all that came with it. The Petersons were protecting their innocent son. The Petersons had every intention of sharing Laci's belongings with the Rocha's....unfortunately Sharon Rocha could not wait and decided to break into the home and take what she wanted. And somehow people like you manage to vilify the Petersons over it. The truth is the Petersons were being more than reasonable and Sharon Rocha's demands and actions were outrageous. Sharon wanted Laci and Scott's wedding china??! You find that reasonable?

I'm not going to sit here and trash the Rocha's in order to defend the Petersons against your ridiculous allegations. But the TRUTH is Laci was very close to the Petersons. They travelled together. The Petersons gave Laci and Scott the money for the down payment on their home. It was the Peterson family that threw Laci a baby shower. It was the Petersons that purchased the Del Rio Country Club membership for Scott - likely to make it easier for him to entertain customers for his business. It was the Petersons who loaned Scott and Laci the money to open their first business. The Petersons helped both Laci and Scott enrich their lives. Scott AND Laci had decided (written in Laci's journal) to name their baby Conner LATHAM Peterson. Latham was JACKIE PETERSON'S maiden name!

And I think it is hysterical that anyone thinks that Scott was fleeing based on what he had in his car. Just how far and how long do you think he could have hidden with $15,000.00? He had CAMPING equipment in his car. Do you REALLY think he was going to rough it - and live in the wilderness and camp in MEXICO?

And your comparison and interpretation of the Italian justice system and saying that Amanda Knox was never convicted but Scott Peterson was - is nonsense. As Jane pointed out - she was found guilty twice. She was sentenced to 26 years in prison. Her conviction not being finalized until it's affirmed by the highest court is the equivalent of our appellate system here. It's not over for Scott yet. Your point is moot.

And like Jane said about what the Petersons have been doing to exonerate Scott. She gave you good advice. Stay tuned.

And STOP calling PWC-SII.com a paid Peterson publicity firm. Why are you resorting to lies to discredit Jane? Marlene Newell and many others contributed their own money to put that website together. And none of that money came from the Petersons.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:56 pm

First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:24 pm

anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


Troll alert. :roll:
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:43 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


Troll alert. :roll:


Brainless Lemming Alert!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:47 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon


You proved my point. No further need to comment. You have no source for your allegations. Therefore, you referenced the sources in my posts which you obviously did not read or understand.


The point that is lost on you, is that there was no need for another source, your own post supported everything I had put forward. I'm starting to understand how your twisted mind works Jane, a little scary1

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:33 am

anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


You are beyond ridiculous - and I'm sure that the Knox case participants would (and do) see that. In fact - I'm pretty sure you were reprimanded by admin over on the Knox forum.

It is YOU that posts NOTHING but conjecture and speculation. You post no references - no proof - for anything that you say - and then when we do - you accuse us of copying and pasting instead of thinking for ourselves. Our theories about this case are based on the FACTS - all of the facts - not the ones we pick and choose - as you do. It is your theory/the prosecution's case that is based on conjecture and speculation.

You say I lose credibility by saying Scott wasn't running - while you profess to know what Scott was thinking ("Scott was determined to have the thing melted down).....lol......okay. Do you actually listen to yourself? Do you actually read what you write? According to you Scott wanted the jewelry to melt it down and the Rocha's wanted to safeguard their daughter's jewelry from Scott 11 days after their daughter went missing because he wasn't acting right. No bias there - eh?

The Rocha's did NOT have a "right" to their daughter's belongings. Their daughter's belongings belonged to their daughter's spouse. Like it or not. Anything Scott was willing to give to them - and he WAS willing to let them have things - was up to him. They had no "right" to make any demands of her belongings. Do I understand why they would have wanted some of her things? Absolutely...and the Petersons understood that too. But expecting Scott to give up furniture from his home while he was still living in it is just a tad unreasonable...whether you'll admit it or not.

But worst of all about your posts......are your LIES. There is NO credible documentation that Laci and Scott's mom didn't get along or that the Petersons were upset about Scott and Laci living in Modesto. NONE. There is no documentation that the Petersons worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. There is not one statement anywhere that Scott wanted to melt Laci's wedding ring down.....you made it up and stated it as fact. You've done it over and over again....lying in a desperate attempt to discredit us. For that reason - and that reason alone - I am DONE discussing this case with you. I'll continue to call you out on your lies...but I'm done trying to reason with someone that is SO blindly biased and unreasonable...and who resorts to lying and name calling (uh yes - calling someone stupid IS name calling). I've done my best to get along with you...and now I am done.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:34 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon


You proved my point. No further need to comment. You have no source for your allegations. Therefore, you referenced the sources in my posts which you obviously did not read or understand.


The point that is lost on you, is that there was no need for another source, your own post supported everything I had put forward. I'm starting to understand how your twisted mind works Jane, a little scary1

Anon


Ha! Ummmm...no....it didn't.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:22 am

Anon definitely fits the troll profile.*

Constant insults, posts filled with false information based on malicious gossip.

https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-inter ... ls-3485894

** Most like categories 1, 2, and 5
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Connie C » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:03 am

Why did Scott list the house for sale as furnished if he thought Laci might come home?
Connie C
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:49 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:34 pm

jane wrote:Anon definitely fits the troll profile.*

Constant insults, posts filled with false information based on malicious gossip.

https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-inter ... ls-3485894

** Most like categories 1, 2, and 5


This is hilarious, I'm a troll simply because I have a different opinion.

There have been a few books written, by people close to and even family members, and the general concensus is that Laci and Scott's mom had a rocky relationship. I believe one of these sources is Scot's Half Sister, whom he stayed with after Laci went missing. No that it really matters, it's all symantics and posturing at this point without Laci around to give confirmation.

It is obvious and for good reason, that the Rocha's very early on, knew what Scott did to their daughter.
It is obvious that the Peterson's were aiding their son in his preparations to avoid his legal consequences.
it is obvious there were troubles in Laci & Scott's relationship, as Reference by Scott Himeslf

The more I think about it, he likely drowned her in their own pool.

So if your going to call me a troll, Fine, don't really care about your personal classification.


Here are the Key Items that lead to my opinion that Scott was going to flee with the help of his Family:
- Driver's license for John Edward Peterson, Scott Peterson's brother
- Approximately $15,000 in cash, including $14,000 in $100 bills with paper wrapper bands
Credit cards:
One Visa card issued to Anne E. Bird, Scott Peterson's sister
Chevron card issued to Jacqueline Peterson
- 24 blister packs of sleeping pills
- 12 tablets of Viagra
- Four cell phones
- Double-edged dagger with a t-handle
- A hand shovel
- A Water purifier
- Duct tape
- Two folding knives
- Folding saw
- Two packs of razor blades
- An Axe
- At least 10 pairs of athletic socks
- At least six pairs of underwear briefs


Everything speculative, without foundation that you drop as fact in this thread is gossip!
Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:46 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


You are beyond ridiculous - and I'm sure that the Knox case participants would (and do) see that. In fact - I'm pretty sure you were reprimanded by admin over on the Knox forum.

It is YOU that posts NOTHING but conjecture and speculation. You post no references - no proof - for anything that you say - and then when we do - you accuse us of copying and pasting instead of thinking for ourselves. Our theories about this case are based on the FACTS - all of the facts - not the ones we pick and choose - as you do. It is your theory/the prosecution's case that is based on conjecture and speculation.

You say I lose credibility by saying Scott wasn't running - while you profess to know what Scott was thinking ("Scott was determined to have the thing melted down).....lol......okay. Do you actually listen to yourself? Do you actually read what you write? According to you Scott wanted the jewelry to melt it down and the Rocha's wanted to safeguard their daughter's jewelry from Scott 11 days after their daughter went missing because he wasn't acting right. No bias there - eh?

The Rocha's did NOT have a "right" to their daughter's belongings. Their daughter's belongings belonged to their daughter's spouse. Like it or not. Anything Scott was willing to give to them - and he WAS willing to let them have things - was up to him. They had no "right" to make any demands of her belongings. Do I understand why they would have wanted some of her things? Absolutely...and the Petersons understood that too. But expecting Scott to give up furniture from his home while he was still living in it is just a tad unreasonable...whether you'll admit it or not.

But worst of all about your posts......are your LIES. There is NO credible documentation that Laci and Scott's mom didn't get along or that the Petersons were upset about Scott and Laci living in Modesto. NONE. There is no documentation that the Petersons worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. There is not one statement anywhere that Scott wanted to melt Laci's wedding ring down.....you made it up and stated it as fact. You've done it over and over again....lying in a desperate attempt to discredit us. For that reason - and that reason alone - I am DONE discussing this case with you. I'll continue to call you out on your lies...but I'm done trying to reason with someone that is SO blindly biased and unreasonable...and who resorts to lying and name calling (uh yes - calling someone stupid IS name calling). I've done my best to get along with you...and now I am done.


Re-Read her post, its all there

Lawyers, Agreements, and Restrictions at the hands of the Peterson's and their Lawyers.

You can Run to the Peterson's aid all you like, you are obviously in that camp on some level.

I hate that this bozo killed his Wife and unborn child, it is outrageous that people try to pass off fantastical unproven theories as fact, in light of the serious nature of Scott's crimes. You can both get off your soap-boxes now - its time for you to put up or shut up - its time for you to present facts, not fantasy!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:36 pm

There is no need for the name calling. I understand that this thread often gets heated, but it looks like it has become a bit more elevated lately. Please refrain from personal attacks.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4439
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:06 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:There is no need for the name calling. I understand that this thread often gets heated, but it looks like it has become a bit more elevated lately. Please refrain from personal attacks.


To Whom are you referring?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:10 pm

Connie C wrote:Why did Scott list the house for sale as furnished if he thought Laci might come home?


I'll go one further, What danger would there be in the Rocha's collecting Laci's personal items, If Scott knew she would be back to collect them?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:18 pm

anonshy wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:There is no need for the name calling. I understand that this thread often gets heated, but it looks like it has become a bit more elevated lately. Please refrain from personal attacks.


To Whom are you referring?

Anon


I made a general statement to everyone in the thread.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4439
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:33 am

I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:18 am

jane wrote:I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.


So the general sentiment in all of the books is the same, they paint Scott in a negative light, and your contention is that every one of them was wrong - Noted.

What the Rocha's / Peterson's did after the murder and Scott's arrest is only marginally interesting and does not really go to the core of the argument. You continuously advocate for Scott as an upstanding citizen wronged by the world, you should be prepared and accept alternative views. When presented with other views that paint scott in a negative light, don't be so offended, There is nothing wrong with pointing out that He is a Convicted Killer of his wife and un-born child, crimes that are unfathomable and could only be commit by a monster. At this point, that is a legal fact (The conviction part).

You stopped discussing the core facts of this case some time ago, You cut and paste articles from a site that is mostly editorial about Scotts innocence, which only present one side of the story, and in most cases, even what you post is easily refuted with simple investigation. Once again I challenge you to post your theory, right here in writing so everyone knows what your theory is, and in doing so you will be open to critical question. Its easy just to sit on a forum and attack anything you don't like, it is another thing to be open to challenges. If you really think Scott is Innocent, you have had the luxury of a decade of time to formalize your theory of his innocence. so lets hear it!

Here is what I anticipate you will say:
Baby was too old - Scott Didn't do it
Baby was born Alive - Scott Didn't do it
There was a Burglary across the Street - Scott Didn't do it
There was a mysterious black van on the street - Scott didn't do it
Some inmate overheard another inmate say that he overheard someone say that Laci.......- Scott Didn't do it

That that's a good start, I look forward to debating the facts of the case based on facts and evidence with proper foundation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:46 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.


So the general sentiment in all of the books is the same, they paint Scott in a negative light, and your contention is that every one of them was wrong - Noted.

What the Rocha's / Peterson's did after the murder and Scott's arrest is only marginally interesting and does not really go to the core of the argument. You continuously advocate for Scott as an upstanding citizen wronged by the world, you should be prepared and accept alternative views. When presented with other views that paint scott in a negative light, don't be so offended, There is nothing wrong with pointing out that He is a Convicted Killer of his wife and un-born child, crimes that are unfathomable and could only be commit by a monster. At this point, that is a legal fact (The conviction part).

You stopped discussing the core facts of this case some time ago, You cut and paste articles from a site that is mostly editorial about Scotts innocence, which only present one side of the story, and in most cases, even what you post is easily refuted with simple investigation. Once again I challenge you to post your theory, right here in writing so everyone knows what your theory is, and in doing so you will be open to critical question. Its easy just to sit on a forum and attack anything you don't like, it is another thing to be open to challenges. If you really think Scott is Innocent, you have had the luxury of a decade of time to formalize your theory of his innocence. so lets hear it!

Here is what I anticipate you will say:
Baby was too old - Scott Didn't do it
Baby was born Alive - Scott Didn't do it
There was a Burglary across the Street - Scott Didn't do it
There was a mysterious black van on the street - Scott didn't do it
Some inmate overheard another inmate say that he overheard someone say that Laci.......- Scott Didn't do it

That that's a good start, I look forward to debating the facts of the case based on facts and evidence with proper foundation.

Anon


Evidently it isn't possible for you to discuss a case without making personal attacks. This post consists mostly of "you did this and you did that....." which IMO are accusations.

First of all, my previous post included a clip from a Larry King Live segment on May 30, 2003 and one from Sharon Rocha's book.

The PWC site consists mostly of factual information from the case: trial transcripts, case documents, and exhibits etc. Anything that is editorial in nature is in the Research and Analysis section or clearly stated as an opinion.

I'm not sure what your point is when you ask for a theory. That would be speculation or an opinion. Then you say you want to debate the facts of the case based on facts and evidence. Which is it?
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:01 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.


So the general sentiment in all of the books is the same, they paint Scott in a negative light, and your contention is that every one of them was wrong - Noted.

What the Rocha's / Peterson's did after the murder and Scott's arrest is only marginally interesting and does not really go to the core of the argument. You continuously advocate for Scott as an upstanding citizen wronged by the world, you should be prepared and accept alternative views. When presented with other views that paint scott in a negative light, don't be so offended, There is nothing wrong with pointing out that He is a Convicted Killer of his wife and un-born child, crimes that are unfathomable and could only be commit by a monster. At this point, that is a legal fact (The conviction part).

You stopped discussing the core facts of this case some time ago, You cut and paste articles from a site that is mostly editorial about Scotts innocence, which only present one side of the story, and in most cases, even what you post is easily refuted with simple investigation. Once again I challenge you to post your theory, right here in writing so everyone knows what your theory is, and in doing so you will be open to critical question. Its easy just to sit on a forum and attack anything you don't like, it is another thing to be open to challenges. If you really think Scott is Innocent, you have had the luxury of a decade of time to formalize your theory of his innocence. so lets hear it!

Here is what I anticipate you will say:
Baby was too old - Scott Didn't do it
Baby was born Alive - Scott Didn't do it
There was a Burglary across the Street - Scott Didn't do it
There was a mysterious black van on the street - Scott didn't do it
Some inmate overheard another inmate say that he overheard someone say that Laci.......- Scott Didn't do it

That that's a good start, I look forward to debating the facts of the case based on facts and evidence with proper foundation.

Anon


Evidently it isn't possible for you to discuss a case without making personal attacks. This post consists mostly of "you did this and you did that....." which IMO are accusations.

First of all, my previous post included a clip from a Larry King Live segment on May 30, 2003 and one from Sharon Rocha's book.

The PWC site consists mostly of factual information from the case: trial transcripts, case documents, and exhibits etc. Anything that is editorial in nature is in the Research and Analysis section or clearly stated as an opinion.

I'm not sure what your point is when you ask for a theory. That would be speculation or an opinion. Then you say you want to debate the facts of the case based on facts and evidence. Which is it?


2 things:

1 -You need to get thicker skin, there was no "Attack" in any of my post.

2 - As I stated, I dont wish to discuss fantasy which is speculation not supported by any facts, This also includes facts or evidence that has a complete lack of foundation. I will use an example: In the Amanda Knox case, one of the watershed arguments came from the DNA evidence, specifically in regards to the knife found at Raf's and the Bra Clasp found at the cottage. In terms of the DNA, there was enough observable discrepancies in the testing results and in the collection that it called into question the very heart of the prosecution case. At one point the DNA was speculative, but was always debatable because there was tangible evidence (Reports and Collection Video) to call the results into question. What I am not interested in doing is taking something that is complete speculation and using it as the entire basis of an argument, then weaving together other portions of unproven arguments to support the original failed speculation. Think of it like a building, if the foundation is flawed, then so is everything that is built on top of it. Evidence in a trial can't be entered int the record without foundation, I think the same rules should apply here, if something is hearsay, or assuming facts not in evidence, then you should either provide the necessary info or withdraw it.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:13 pm

Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:22 am

jane wrote:Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.


And all of what you just posted would have meant something a decade ago, these arguments are moot at this point. Here are the facts:

1 - The total lack of evidence is evidence of something. If the lack of evidence would indicate a level of planning or opportunity that would point to only a single individual, that is circumstantial evidence that has some weight.

2 - There is also no direct evidence that supports any other theory, and none has been found in over a decade.

3 - The hair in the pliers, is weak, but it is something.

4 - The motive of the affair and wanting a different life is reasonable given the circumstances. I personally think its weak as many people have affairs and don't kill their spouses, but if you look at domestic violence as a whole, cheating is usually a byproduct or at least part of the equasion. In marriages with infadellity there is a much higher rate of violence.

5 - Scott is a convicted Murderer, the rules have changed, gone is the presumption of innocence. Trying to argue his case now as if it is the first trial is flawed, it has to be looked at as a reverse burden. He is guilty, and it will take something miraculous to have any amendment. The lack of evidence works to Scott's detriment at this point, without a confession, New Evidence or DNA, it is very unlikely any of the arguments on appeal or Habeas will lead to action. The legal system puts a huge emphasis on verdicts that are delivered by jurys, holding their results as almost sacred. To have a Jury verdict set-aside, you have to have a lot more than a thoery based on hearsay.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:17 am

I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2258
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:24 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.


And all of what you just posted would have meant something a decade ago, these arguments are moot at this point. Here are the facts:

1 - The total lack of evidence is evidence of something. If the lack of evidence would indicate a level of planning or opportunity that would point to only a single individual, that is circumstantial evidence that has some weight.

2 - There is also no direct evidence that supports any other theory, and none has been found in over a decade.

3 - The hair in the pliers, is weak, but it is something.

4 - The motive of the affair and wanting a different life is reasonable given the circumstances. I personally think its weak as many people have affairs and don't kill their spouses, but if you look at domestic violence as a whole, cheating is usually a byproduct or at least part of the equasion. In marriages with infadellity there is a much higher rate of violence.

5 - Scott is a convicted Murderer, the rules have changed, gone is the presumption of innocence. Trying to argue his case now as if it is the first trial is flawed, it has to be looked at as a reverse burden. He is guilty, and it will take something miraculous to have any amendment. The lack of evidence works to Scott's detriment at this point, without a confession, New Evidence or DNA, it is very unlikely any of the arguments on appeal or Habeas will lead to action. The legal system puts a huge emphasis on verdicts that are delivered by jurys, holding their results as almost sacred. To have a Jury verdict set-aside, you have to have a lot more than a thoery based on hearsay.

Anon


You seem to be saying that because Scott was convicted that is the end of it.

This board is named Injustice Anywhere. This section of the board is titled Possible Wrongful Convictions. That is the point of all the discussions on this board--injustice and wrongful convictions.

It is a fact that Scott Peterson has filed a direct appeal and a habeas appeal with the California Supreme Court. All of the claims in the appeals are well documented. Any one of the claims, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient to reverse the verdict and give him a new trial.

He is not appealing on the basis of innocence. He is not appealing on the basis of a theory. He is not appealing on the basis of hearsay. These are some of the well researched and well documented grounds on which he is basing his appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.

Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:39 pm

On the death penalty jurors, I oppose the death penalty myself however I don't think that argument is going to be valid

https://www.capitalpunishmentincontext. ... lification
Courts can eliminate potential jurors who are not willing to vote for the death penalty in a capital case. If the judge believes that a juror's feelings about the death penalty would impair his or her ability to judge the case and choose the punishment fairly, that juror will be "dismissed "for cause." There is an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges and typically all jurors who say that they oppose the death penalty are excluded. Jurors who are not eliminated by the judge "for cause" because of their death penalty views can be eliminated by lawyers through "peremptory challenges." The lawyers from both sides are allowed to exclude a limited number of jurors without having to give any reason or show any bias, although they are not allowed to base peremptory challenges solely on the juror's race, gender or religion. Prosecutors can strike jurors who have doubts about the death penalty, and this process may reduce the number of people of a particular race or gender who can serve on the jury. Defense attorneys can challenge jurors who are so pro-death penalty that they could not judge guilt fairly in a capital case (Hovey v. California). However, research has shown that there are very few people who favor the death penalty so strongly that they can be excluded from the jury. The remaining jurors are then “death qualified.”

Wainwright v. Witt (1985)
The Supreme Court replaced the death qualification standards of Witherspoon with the standards of Wainwright v. Witt. The Witt standard gave more discretion to the judge in death qualification. The judge decides whether the jurors’ attitudes toward the death penalty would “prevent or substantially impair” their ability to decide on sentence fairly. This decision broadened the range of people who could be excluded by death qualification.

Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
In Lockhart v. McCree, the results of the empirical research on the effects of death-qualification came before the Supreme Court. The court held that the process of death-qualification does not unconstitutionally bias juries towards a verdict of guilt. Justice Rehnquist criticized the research, but ultimately the Court held that general empirical research could not decide the issue; instead, a defendant would have to demonstrate that his or her own jury was biased.

Uttecht v. Brown (2007)
The Supreme Court held that when a capital juror is disqualified and that decision is challenged on appeal, the court should generally defer to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to observe the juror’s demeanor. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a trial judge’s exclusion of a juror who had expressed some hesitation about imposing the death penalty, but was not totally opposed to it. The juror from the state of Washington stated on six occasions during voir dire that he could follow the law on applying the death penalty. However, some of his other statements were equivocal and the judge excused him from jury service.

Based on that, I don't any upper court will reverse on that.

May not like my opinions but I try to be as honest as I can be.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2258
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:59 am

Desert Fox wrote:On the death penalty jurors, I oppose the death penalty myself however I don't think that argument is going to be valid

https://www.capitalpunishmentincontext. ... lification
Courts can eliminate potential jurors who are not willing to vote for the death penalty in a capital case. If the judge believes that a juror's feelings about the death penalty would impair his or her ability to judge the case and choose the punishment fairly, that juror will be "dismissed "for cause." There is an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges and typically all jurors who say that they oppose the death penalty are excluded. Jurors who are not eliminated by the judge "for cause" because of their death penalty views can be eliminated by lawyers through "peremptory challenges." The lawyers from both sides are allowed to exclude a limited number of jurors without having to give any reason or show any bias, although they are not allowed to base peremptory challenges solely on the juror's race, gender or religion. Prosecutors can strike jurors who have doubts about the death penalty, and this process may reduce the number of people of a particular race or gender who can serve on the jury. Defense attorneys can challenge jurors who are so pro-death penalty that they could not judge guilt fairly in a capital case (Hovey v. California). However, research has shown that there are very few people who favor the death penalty so strongly that they can be excluded from the jury. The remaining jurors are then “death qualified.”

Wainwright v. Witt (1985)
The Supreme Court replaced the death qualification standards of Witherspoon with the standards of Wainwright v. Witt. The Witt standard gave more discretion to the judge in death qualification. The judge decides whether the jurors’ attitudes toward the death penalty would “prevent or substantially impair” their ability to decide on sentence fairly. This decision broadened the range of people who could be excluded by death qualification.

Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
In Lockhart v. McCree, the results of the empirical research on the effects of death-qualification came before the Supreme Court. The court held that the process of death-qualification does not unconstitutionally bias juries towards a verdict of guilt. Justice Rehnquist criticized the research, but ultimately the Court held that general empirical research could not decide the issue; instead, a defendant would have to demonstrate that his or her own jury was biased.

Uttecht v. Brown (2007)
The Supreme Court held that when a capital juror is disqualified and that decision is challenged on appeal, the court should generally defer to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to observe the juror’s demeanor. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a trial judge’s exclusion of a juror who had expressed some hesitation about imposing the death penalty, but was not totally opposed to it. The juror from the state of Washington stated on six occasions during voir dire that he could follow the law on applying the death penalty. However, some of his other statements were equivocal and the judge excused him from jury service.

Based on that, I don't any upper court will reverse on that.

May not like my opinions but I try to be as honest as I can be.


Desert Fox, in order to fully understand the arguments put forward on this issue by the appellate attorneys, you need to read the actual document from pages 72-147. The judge dismissed jurors on the basis of their jury questionnaires without allowing the attorneys to question them. That is clearly error.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... sbrief.pdf

These are the claims of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISCHARGED THIRTEEN PROSPECTIVE JURORS OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION BASED SOLELY ON JURY QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS SHOWING THAT ALTHOUGH THEY OPPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY, THEY COULD NEVERTHELESS CONSIDER DEATH AS AN OPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
II. THE TRIAL COURT’S IMPROPER DISCHARGE OF THIRTEEN PROSPECTIVE JURORS BASED ON THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY ALSO VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RELIABLE GUILT PHASE PROCEDURES, AND REQUIRES REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTIONS AS WELL . . . . . . 108
III. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY EXCUSED AN ADDITIONAL 17 PROSPECTIVE JURORS BASED SOLELY ON JURY QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS WHICH DID NOT SHOW THESE JURORS WOULD BE UNABLE TO SET ASIDE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
IV. BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCUSED FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO WERE EQUIVOCAL ABOUT WHETHER THEIR ATTITUDES ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD AFFECT THEIR PENALTY PHASE DELIBERATIONS, REVERSAL OF THE DEATH SENTENCE IS REQUIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

This is an excerpt from one of the arguments on this issue.

.......Indeed, at one point defense counsel complained that “we have now [lost] some
twenty some odd people, losing people solely because of their opposition to the death
penalty.” (16 RT 3363.) The court responded, “well, that’s the law in California.”
(Ibid.)

As discussed more fully below, this is not the law in California, or anywhere else.
The trial court here discharged juror after juror simply because they stated in their written
questionnaire they were opposed to the death penalty. Every one of these prospective
jurors stated in the questionnaire that despite their opposition to the death penalty, they
would consider death as an option, and not a single one of these jurors was ever even
questioned about their views. Instead, these jurors were summarily discharged. Defense
counsel objected to every one of these discharges.

During these objections, there were at least two prosecutors sitting at counsel table
for the state. (See, e.g., 17 CT 5522.) At no point during the trial court’s exchanges with
defense counsel did either prosecutor say anything; the state’s attorneys did nothing and
said nothing to correct the trial court’s view. Instead, they simply took advantage of the
rulings to try their case to a jury selected in this way.

76
This strategy of silence worked. Of the 12 jurors selected to try the case, 11 were
in favor of the death penalty while the lone remaining juror was “ok with [the] death
penalty if warranted.” (CT MJQ 19, 42, 65, 88, 111, 134, 157, 180, 203, 226, 249, 272.)23
Of the six alternates selected, all six supported the death penalty. (CT MJQ 295, 318,
341, 364, 387, 410.) And more important for purposes of this argument, numerous jurors
who were completely qualified to sit as jurors were summarily discharged from jury
service, without voir dire.

As discussed in detail below, a new penalty phase is required. More than 40 years
ago the Supreme Court recognized “that a State may not entrust the determination of
whether a man should live or die to a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.”
(Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at p. 521.) Only five years ago the Court
reiterated that a death sentence could not stand where “the systematic removal of those in
the venire opposed to the death penalty had led to a jury ‘uncommonly willing to
condemn a man to die.’” (Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 6, citations omitted.) But
that is exactly what happened here. As a matter of federal constitutional law, the trial
court’s clearly stated view that “if you don’t support the death penalty you cannot be
death qualified” is unquestionably wrong. Reversal of the penalty phase is required.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:59 pm

You need to reads Uttecht v. Brown. . . .Strait from the supreme court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-413.pdf
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2258
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Desert Fox wrote:You need to reads Uttecht v. Brown. . . .Strait from the supreme court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-413.pdf


In Uttecht, the judge conducted voir dire on the jurors who had issues with the death penalty to determine whether or not they could set aside their views and follow the law. Judge Delucchi did not do this. He excluded jurors solely on the basis of their juror questionnaires and did not interview them to determine if they could set aside their views. The juror questionnaire did not ask this question.

In 2015, the California Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in a case on this basis:

....... the panel reversed the convicted double-murderer’s death sentence, finding that a “cursory” examination of three prospective jurors who expressed general opposition to the death penalty was “simply not sufficient to permit an informed decision about their ability to serve.”

The panel noted that binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires automatic reversal of a death sentence based on error in excusing a prospective juror for cause based on that person’s views about the death penalty.

“Thus, regardless of whether defendant suffered any actual prejudice from the dismissal of these panelists, his penalty judgment must be reversed,” Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote on behalf of the panel.

http://mynewsla.com/crime/2015/06/29/ca ... -murderer/

The error in the Peterson case is even more egregious and calls for reversal of both the death penalty and the conviction.

See appellate document for more detailed explanations.
jane
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests