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
86
79%
No
23
21%
 
Total votes : 109

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:11 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:46 pm

Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:00 am

To Jane

Hey Jane, you have guts to stand into your way of supporting Scott Peterson and I have to say it. You are right that he innocent even every time I hate it when me or you or anyone being a target of attack even I know that I put people in my foe list and the reason why? Because I an't buying it. I tried everything into a court of law. I know sometimes people don't like me?

Why? Because I am retarded of why I am deaf of being a retarded monster. I know that I see this case was into a heated way. I never seen a tough cookie woman who fight for anything. I know a lot of people do go out of there way and yes I did watch that episode Snapped of Scott Peterson and I do believe for his innocent. I know it hard for me, in ways when I explain my detail of how I believe into criminal law. I tried everything and it never works. I know it stinks into a :jaw-dropping: moment. It hard me even I only believe guilt into self defense and that is were I stand!!!

I do truly hope you keep up the good work even yes we got 2 trolls in here and I already put them in my foe list. I am not going to listen even I go by my own way and I believe if there is a chance of change to prove his or her innocent or the police play some stupid silly game of DA of sloppy Joe. I an't going to buy it. Yes they can sue me!!!

I will pray for your wish of Scott Peterson to be set free: :beg: :for you: I wish you the best of luck and I know that I never get any responds, even I don't want any responds from my 2 trolls as well. So keep up the good work Jane and your doing a great job and thanks for the case of Sarah Johnson, and I am going to find some more ways. I also going out my own way to free the innocent and I hope you wish me luck and I will wish you the best of luck to free Scott Peterson and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:37 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.


Agree Completely, there is no issue here for Appeal, and limited usage for Habeas - Again living with the reality of a convicted felon.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:39 am

ScifiTom wrote:To Jane

Hey Jane, you have guts to stand into your way of supporting Scott Peterson and I have to say it. You are right that he innocent even every time I hate it when me or you or anyone being a target of attack even I know that I put people in my foe list and the reason why? Because I an't buying it. I tried everything into a court of law. I know sometimes people don't like me?

Why? Because I am retarded of why I am deaf of being a retarded monster. I know that I see this case was into a heated way. I never seen a tough cookie woman who fight for anything. I know a lot of people do go out of there way and yes I did watch that episode Snapped of Scott Peterson and I do believe for his innocent. I know it hard for me, in ways when I explain my detail of how I believe into criminal law. I tried everything and it never works. I know it stinks into a :jaw-dropping: moment. It hard me even I only believe guilt into self defense and that is were I stand!!!

I do truly hope you keep up the good work even yes we got 2 trolls in here and I already put them in my foe list. I am not going to listen even I go by my own way and I believe if there is a chance of change to prove his or her innocent or the police play some stupid silly game of DA of sloppy Joe. I an't going to buy it. Yes they can sue me!!!

I will pray for your wish of Scott Peterson to be set free: :beg: :for you: I wish you the best of luck and I know that I never get any responds, even I don't want any responds from my 2 trolls as well. So keep up the good work Jane and your doing a great job and thanks for the case of Sarah Johnson, and I am going to find some more ways. I also going out my own way to free the innocent and I hope you wish me luck and I will wish you the best of luck to free Scott Peterson and talk to you soon Jane!!!


Thank you, Tom!
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:30 pm

anonshy wrote:Agree Completely, there is no issue here for Appeal, and limited usage for Habeas - Again living with the reality of a convicted felon.


I do hope that California decides to end the death penalty however. I don't see executing him as any kind of justice.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:54 am

How many lies can you find in this excerpt from Distaso's Closing Argument?

Russell Graybill. He was on Covena between 10:35 and 10:50. He didn't see anything. Amy Krigbaum, between 10:30 and 10:38. She didn't see anything.
You heard some testimony about Diane Jackson. Remember that? And seeing a van.
Remember what Amy Krigbaum said. She said that she had that white Siemens van at the time. I had her write on this picture. Remember, this is looking at the Peterson house. Remember, this is from her house looking there.
Remember what she said? She said, yeah, it was parked right in front of my house. He even had it right where it was, a van.
You heard Diane Jackson saw a van. I think the testimony was 11:40. You heard that through the officer. There is a van. Of course, she saw a van. Van is right there on the street.
You saw Kim Westphal, one of the women that came walking. Said she was walking on Covena around 10:50. She didn't see anything.
Kristin Dempewolf. Her husband Martin came in and testified. She said she left home around 9:15 to 9:30. I think the testimony was that it's on the map that is in evidence, it would have put her walking past the Petersons' home some time around 10:00 o'clock or so. I don't remember that exactly, so you should probably go back to check that one.
Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.
She said, I called my son as we were leaving town. And the record shows they  left at 10:33. And she said, I called from Encina. It's on here, Encina, right turned on to Encina. That's where she called. That's where she called from.
And Encina is right around the corner. So she probably left her house her at 10:32. Couldn't take more than a minute to drive down Covena to Encina. She didn't see anything.
Now that's a good point. That brings up a good point with the Medinas.
Remember we heard all that testimony about the burglary at their house? There was a burglary at their house. It didn't happen on December 24th. It didn't have anything to do with Laci Peterson's disappearance, because the Medinas were home at the time the dog was found.
You can take everything about the cell sites, and you can take everything about Austin's receipts and throw it away, go with Karen Servas's original statement where she said, I found the dog exactly at 10:30.
Well, let me discuss that. She just left, or they were just getting ready to leave, or they were in their driveway and they hadn't left yet, and she found the dog.Now, the Medina's didn't see anything about the dog. What that tells us is that Karen Servas's 10:18 time is right. They already put that dog away.
But one thing we know without any doubt whatsoever is that Medina burglary had nothing to do with this crime whatsoever. Because that dog was found before the Medinas even left their home.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:45 am

Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Agree Completely, there is no issue here for Appeal, and limited usage for Habeas - Again living with the reality of a convicted felon.


I do hope that California decides to end the death penalty however. I don't see executing him as any kind of justice.


I agree, it is very barbaric for a first world nation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:43 am

anonshy wrote:I also have hope on this great Holiday (Happy 4th!), Hope & happiness that no one will ever be Harmed again at the hands of the Evil Monster Scott Peterson. So on a day where proud Americans celebrate the country and Freedom, we can all add Safety to that list as one less Monster is out walking the streets!

Anon


It is posts like this that say volumes about your character. Your sole intention with this post is to bait and provoke emotion. Very sad but not surprising.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:11 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.


Can you please explain why not? If a defense attorney has information that could have changed the verdict (and the Graybill information certainly could have changed the verdict if the jury was made to understand what it meant) and he doesn't use it - how is that not IAC? There was NO strategic reason for Geragos not to ask Graybill about the open gate. Geragos was clearly trying to discredit Karen Servas. He questioned her about changing her times and her testimony from prelim to trial. He attempted to prove that her Austin's receipt was not accurate. Graybill proves one of two things. Either Karen Servas was wrong. Or Scott Peterson is innocent. Both would have been beneficial to Scott. So there was no benefit to not using the Graybill information about the gate being open. It was not a strategic decision. Geragos doesn't say in the habeas that he chose not to use it - he says in the habeas he never saw that information. Because if he had had that information - he would have used it. Even if it was because Geragos' hired lame assistants who failed to bring this info to his attention - or Geragos just missed it - ultimately the fault lies with Geragos. Geragos has admitted to this in the habeas.

However, you may be able to overcome the presumption that your attorney's work was effective. You need to show that his work didn't meet professional standards. For instance, counsel's assistance may be ineffective when he:

Fails to investigate fully the facts and circumstances of the defendant's case, such as when the attorney fails to find there was an alibi witness
•Gives the defendant bad advice about the law governing the case and, based upon that bad advice, the defendant pleads guilty to crime
•Doesn't tell the defendant about a plea bargain offered by the state or prosecution


Graybill is an alibi witness to a certain degree. Scott was indisputably at the warehouse when Grabyill delivered the mail. There is no doubt what time Graybill delivered the mail (10:35-10:50). According to the prosecution there is no doubt that Karen Servas found the dog at 10:18 (latest). And there is no doubt someone returned the dog to the yard after Graybill delivered the mail. And there is no doubt that it could not have been Scott. If Servas is right -which according to the prosecution she is....and Graybill is right....Scott Peterson is innocent. Anonshy can argue all day long that Graybill is probably wrong.....but the jury should have gotten the chance to decide that.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:29 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:I also have hope on this great Holiday (Happy 4th!), Hope & happiness that no one will ever be Harmed again at the hands of the Evil Monster Scott Peterson. So on a day where proud Americans celebrate the country and Freedom, we can all add Safety to that list as one less Monster is out walking the streets!

Anon


It is posts like this that say volumes about your character. Your sole intention with this post is to bait and provoke emotion. Very sad but not surprising.


Just the Ying to the Yang of the post I was responding to. And in this instance I am un-apoligetic and happy that this type of criminal is not on the streets.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:45 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.


Can you please explain why not? If a defense attorney has information that could have changed the verdict (and the Graybill information certainly could have changed the verdict if the jury was made to understand what it meant) and he doesn't use it - how is that not IAC? There was NO strategic reason for Geragos not to ask Graybill about the open gate. Geragos was clearly trying to discredit Karen Servas. He questioned her about changing her times and her testimony from prelim to trial. He attempted to prove that her Austin's receipt was not accurate. Graybill proves one of two things. Either Karen Servas was wrong. Or Scott Peterson is innocent. Both would have been beneficial to Scott. So there was no benefit to not using the Graybill information about the gate being open. It was not a strategic decision. Geragos doesn't say in the habeas that he chose not to use it - he says in the habeas he never saw that information. Because if he had had that information - he would have used it. Even if it was because Geragos' hired lame assistants who failed to bring this info to his attention - or Geragos just missed it - ultimately the fault lies with Geragos. Geragos has admitted to this in the habeas.

However, you may be able to overcome the presumption that your attorney's work was effective. You need to show that his work didn't meet professional standards. For instance, counsel's assistance may be ineffective when he:

Fails to investigate fully the facts and circumstances of the defendant's case, such as when the attorney fails to find there was an alibi witness
•Gives the defendant bad advice about the law governing the case and, based upon that bad advice, the defendant pleads guilty to crime
•Doesn't tell the defendant about a plea bargain offered by the state or prosecution


Graybill is an alibi witness to a certain degree. Scott was indisputably at the warehouse when Grabyill delivered the mail. There is no doubt what time Graybill delivered the mail (10:35-10:50). According to the prosecution there is no doubt that Karen Servas found the dog at 10:18 (latest). And there is no doubt someone returned the dog to the yard after Graybill delivered the mail. And there is no doubt that it could not have been Scott. If Servas is right -which according to the prosecution she is....and Graybill is right....Scott Peterson is innocent. Anonshy can argue all day long that Graybill is probably wrong.....but the jury should have gotten the chance to decide that.


Was the witness presented to the court for examination? Was the Prosecution and Defense allowed direct and cross examination? Given all of the other information in this case, as I have said many times, it is more likely that Graybil is off on his timing than any other explanation. Your explanations all circle around the same failed argument, that Laci was caught up in a robbery and killed. There is no credible evidence that that ever happened, in that vacuum, there is only one reality, Scott Planned and killed Laci. In any event, Graybil was covered off by discovery and was a witness presented to the court and was available to be asked any question by either side. This is not new evidence, it was available to both parties, and therefore doe not adhere to the rules of New Evidence for the purposes of Appeal or Habeas, after all we should all be looking at this case from the proper perspective. That perspective being, Scott is a convicted murderer and his avenues to change that status are limited to Appeal and Habeas, Both Habeas and Appeal have very strict rules that govern procedure and submission. This is the area that needs to be concentrated on. So as much as you feel Graybil gives an air tight alibi, the question you really have to answer is if the information is admissible on appeal, there is a strong indication that it is not.

Geragos has Graybil's statement, from his interview and the submission in the grand jury. The reson he did not push in any one direction was directy due to the strategy his team and Peterson decided to put forward. Strategy in light of full disclsure is not an issue on Appeal or Habeas. Scott's defense is easily classified by the fact he had a very seasoned lawyer that indeed put on a persuasive defense. Lawyers lose all the time, losing in and of itself does not constitute IAC. Geragos did not fall below any standard for representation, the few items you disagree with are easily explained as Strategy!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:00 pm

lsmith510 wrote:Can you please explain why not? If a defense attorney has information that could have changed the verdict (and the Graybill information certainly could have changed the verdict if the jury was made to understand what it meant) and he doesn't use it - how is that not IAC? There was NO strategic reason for Geragos not to ask Graybill about the open gate. Geragos was clearly trying to discredit Karen Servas. He questioned her about changing her times and her testimony from prelim to trial. He attempted to prove that her Austin's receipt was not accurate. Graybill proves one of two things. Either Karen Servas was wrong. Or Scott Peterson is innocent. Both would have been beneficial to Scott. So there was no benefit to not using the Graybill information about the gate being open. It was not a strategic decision. Geragos doesn't say in the habeas that he chose not to use it - he says in the habeas he never saw that information. Because if he had had that information - he would have used it. Even if it was because Geragos' hired lame assistants who failed to bring this info to his attention - or Geragos just missed it - ultimately the fault lies with Geragos. Geragos has admitted to this in the habeas.


Brady is if the prosecution knew about a witness or evidence and did not disclose it to the police. . . .As long as they disclose witness or information, no Brady

In the case of Ineffective Assistance, if the defense attorney knows about a witness and/or evidence and does not interview a witness (or have their investigator do so) and if they don't properly examine evidence, that can be a claim of ineffective assistance. If they did their due diligence to investigate, even if not later using in court, it is seen as strategy.

There may be other ways that ineffective assistance can be claimed but at least no a claim in the manner I am thinking. It is still a hard argument. There is a case in Maryland where the defense attorney was suffering from multiple sclerosis and appeared to do no real preparations, yet arguing ineffective assistance is almost impossible.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 am

Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:38 pm

jane wrote:Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”

What's the latest Jane? Has the Graybill point, which I see as a potential knockout, been answered yet? I move to reasonable doubt if Graybill stands up.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:13 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:What's the latest Jane? Has the Graybill point, which I see as a potential knockout, been answered yet? I move to reasonable doubt if Graybill stands up.

And I will pass out.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:40 pm

jane wrote:Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”


Is this testimony from the trial? These names don't seem to be lawyers from the case.......

On conviction reasonable Doubt requirments and the presumption of innocence no longer apply. Neither Habeas or Appeal are about re-trying the case.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:18 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”

What's the latest Jane? Has the Graybill point, which I see as a potential knockout, been answered yet? I move to reasonable doubt if Graybill stands up.


Welcome back, Clive.

It's a long, painful process. The prosecution has until December 15 to file their reply to the habeas. All of the documents have been filed in the direct appeal. Then I suppose it will take another year or two for the CASC to hear arguments and make a decision. And a few more years if there's a retrial.

There are some new developments coming up in the next few weeks which should have a positive effect on public opinion about the case.

I'll post it here when it happens.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:42 am

Details emerge to counter Scott Peterson appeal

By Garth Stapley

gstapley@modbee.com

Scott Peterson is “truly among the worst of the worst” of California’s murderers for callously slaying his pregnant wife and their unborn son in late 2002, state prosecutors said this week in a blistering reply to the Modesto man’s death sentence appeal.

Even as his mother-in-law prepared to host a Christmas party to which they were invited, Peterson “weighted down his wife’s lifeless body and dumped her in the (San Francisco) Bay in the hope that the forces of nature would carry the evidence out to sea,” the 519-page document says. “(Peterson) did not care one whit for the wife who vowed to love him for a lifetime or his child waiting to be born.”

Peterson, then 30, later was convicted in a trial that intrigued people around the globe and arrived on death row in March 2005. Attorneys hired by his family filed his official appeal in July 2012, and he turned 42 in October.

California has not had an execution in nine years, and 749 condemned prisoners were on death row as of Jan. 5.

Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when her Christmas Eve 2002 disappearance captured the attention of well-wishers far and wide. Her husband said he went fishing alone and she was gone when he returned.

Revelations of his affair with Amber Frey of Fresno turned public sentiment against Scott Peterson, and authorities arrested him after the bodies of mother and unborn child washed ashore nearly four months later. His celebrity attorney from Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, was unable to convince jurors that Peterson had nothing to do with the killings.

His new attorneys argued in the 2012 appeal that evidence “was anything but overwhelming” and charged that Judge Alfred Delucci, who since has died, made several missteps warranting a new trial. This week’s response from the office of California Attorney General Kamala Harris attempts to provide point-by-point answers.

For example, the appeal says Delucci should have:

▪ Kept dozens of prospective jurors in the pool even though they professed misgivings about the death penalty, because some may have been willing to overlook their own views in some cases.

The response details information on each prospective juror in question, some of whom said they would never impose a death penalty because of moral or religious reasons and others who would have no income if forced to participate in a trial expected to last several months. One “repeated that she ‘vehemently’ opposed the death penalty”; another said when questioned before the trial, “I’ve assumed he’s guilty” and “I don’t believe his alibi”; and another said capital punishment is “barbaric and uncivilized and an embarrassment to this country.”

Such approaches never would be appropriate in a death penalty trial, and Delucci was wise to dismiss them, the response says. Also, with peremptory challenges, or without needing to explain why, Geragos legally could have excused any of the jurors ultimately chosen, but he did not, the response says.

▪ Excluded testimony about a certified dog finding Laci Peterson’s scent at a Berkeley Marina pier. Geragos had referred to such evidence as “voodoo,” “nonsense” and the equivalent of “pin the tail on the donkey.”

The response counters that “there exists no stronger testament to (the dog’s) capabilities” than the fact the bodies came ashore not far away.

Besides, “the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence” of Peterson’s guilt, the document says, including his “highly suspicious behavior inconsistent with” that of a worried father-to-be. For example, Peterson subscribed to pornographic television programs less than two weeks after his wife disappeared; he sold her vehicle and considered selling their home less than a month later; he stopped mail from being sent to the home; and he used the bedroom they had converted into a nursery for storage.

“(He) knew Laci and Conner were not coming home,” the document says.

▪ Held all jurors to the same standard, rather than dismissing one for talking about evidence outside the courtroom, but not others.

Interviewed separately in the judge’s chamber, most jurors confirmed that the one to be dismissed seemed to relish attention from reporters and had repeatedly chatted about the trial and threatened to taint other jurors, the document says.

“(His) preoccupation with the media was a distraction,” the response reads, and “it was evident that (he) harbored a decided bias against the prosecution.” His “unrepentant attitude and pattern of misconduct” were far worse than other jurors’ unproved indiscretions, the document says.

▪ Allowed a defense video showing the defense team’s experiment of throwing a body overboard, which capsized the boat.

Delucci was wise to bar the video, the response contends, because conditions were different from those suspected in the Peterson case. For example, the boat in the experiment had a higher center of gravity and the man hefting a weighted dummy overboard seemed to try to tip it by leaning on the gunwale, or rim of the boat, the document says.

Also, the judge offered to let Geragos try another experiment with Peterson’s actual boat, with prosecutors watching this time, but Peterson’s camp declined.

Geragos had theorized that vagrants or men in a suspicious van must have killed Laci Peterson and framed her husband by putting her body where everyone knew he had been fishing. But authorities watching Scott Peterson proved that he visited the marina five times in five different rented vehicles as law enforcement officers searched the bay before the bodies were recovered, surmising that he was “checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.”

Peterson’s attorneys will provide counterarguments as the next step in the appeals process.

Bee staff writer Garth Stapley can be reached at xxxxxxxx@xxxxx

From the prosecution brief

Excerpts from a California Supreme Court brief filed Jan. 26 by state prosecutors supporting the death penalty for Modesto’s Scott Peterson:

▪ When Laci disappeared on Christmas Eve, (Scott) was weeks away from a life-altering event: the birth of his first child – a responsibility that would last a lifetime. Or, so it seemed. During a conversation with (girlfriend Amber) Frey, (Scott) lamented that he had never enjoyed “a prolonged period of freedom from responsibility” in his life.

▪ (Scott’s) statement that he went fishing by himself on Christmas Eve was, indeed, a fish story.

▪ As the search for Laci and Conner expanded to include San Francisco Bay, (Scott) made repeated surreptitious trips to the Berkeley Marina in January 2003, driving a different vehicle every time. He never stopped to talk to anyone at the marina. As the prosecutor argued, (Scott) was checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.

▪ The condition of the bodies suggested they had been in the bay for a matter of months, and Laci died while she was still carrying Conner. The forces of nature carrying Laci’s and Conner’s bodies ashore constituted unimpeachable evidence that (Scott) did not go to the bay to fish; he went to dispose of his pregnant wife’s body.

▪ One would reasonably expect that if (Scott) had truly been concerned about the disappearance of his wife and child, then he would take some action when he learned that the bodies of a woman and a baby were recovered. He did not. (Scott) never returned Sharon Rocha’s call about the discovery of the bodies.

▪ (Scott’s) penchant for lying was on a par with his unfailing dedication to self-interest. It was also corroborative of his guilt.

▪ There is no requirement that jurors be totally ignorant of the facts of a case, so long as they can lay aside their impressions and render an impartial verdict.

▪ No one, except for (Scott), knew exactly how he positioned Laci’s body in the boat, where he was in the boat, and how he maneuvered Laci’s body into the bay. Contrary to (Scott’s) suggestion, those circumstances mattered very little. What mattered was that, in the midst of his clandestine affair with another woman, (Scott) drove about three hours and 180 miles round-trip from Modesto to go “fishing” for about 45 minutes to an hour on San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve – in a recently purchased boat that he told no one about – on the day his pregnant wife went missing.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/articl ... rylink=cpy
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:55 am

anonshy wrote:▪ No one, except for (Scott), knew exactly how he positioned Laci’s body in the boat, where he was in the boat, and how he maneuvered Laci’s body into the bay. Contrary to (Scott’s) suggestion, those circumstances mattered very little. What mattered was that, in the midst of his clandestine affair with another woman, (Scott) drove about three hours and 180 miles round-trip from Modesto to go “fishing” for about 45 minutes to an hour on San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve – in a recently purchased boat that he told no one about – on the day his pregnant wife went missing.


Pretty much the heart of the case
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:57 am

January 29, 2003
Interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America

A portion of his taped January 28 interview aired on the following day.

Sawyer: What kind of marriage was it?

Peterson: God, the first word that comes to mind is, you know, glorious. I mean we took care of each other, very well. She was amazing. She is amazing.

The biggest blunder Peterson makes in this statement is that he speaks about his wife in the past tense. What this tells us is that Peterson knew his wife was dead at the time he gave this interview. He realizes what he has said so he corrects himself by referring to her in the present tense "she is amazing." We often see the same thing when a child disappears. Statistics say a family member is usually involved. Many of these cases are solved because a family member speaks about the missing kid in the past tense.

Sawyer: You haven't mentioned your son.

Peterson: Hmm. [Long pause] That was, it's so hard. I can't go in there. [Referring to the baby's room.] That door is closed until there's someone to put in there.

In talking about his unborn son, Peterson again uses the past tense, "That was." He does not finish his sentence so we do not know what he was thinking.

In talking about the baby's room, he refers to his son as "someone." That is very impersonal and distant. Although his baby had not yet been born, he and Laci had picked the name "Conner." We would expect him to use the baby's name or at least refer to him as "my son."

(We also know what he did to this room!)

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:46 am

KEMPLE: I, I was around that immediate, immediate area for just a little while, talking to other family members and other friends that had started arriving up towards their home. I went back over to Scott and I asked him where had he been, why was Laci down in the park by herself, where was he.

DISTASO: And when you asked him that, where did this, where did that conversation take place?

KEMPLE: Right there, on the same area as his driveway.

DISTASO: Okay. And was anyone around when you asked him that?

KEMPLE: Again, there was people around within feet of, of us standing there.

DISTASO: Okay. So same, same kind of thing, people milling about in the driveway, but was anyone else part of the conversation that you had with him?

KEMPLE: You know, I couldn't say that for a fact. No, I don't know. I really don't.

DISTASO: Okay. And what did he, where did he tell you he had been that day?

KEMPLE:He told me he went to play golf. And I said 'Golf.' And I immediately started heading back down to the park to find my brother that had been looking with me.

DISTASO: Okay. And at any time that night did Scott Peterson tell you that he had been fishing that day?

KEMPLE: I didn't,

DISTASO: Hold on. I want to get your memory of exactly just what he told you, not what someone else might have told you.

KEMPLE: No, he did not tell me that.
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:56 am

Some people are starting to pay attention to the information brought forward in the appeal documents. One of them is Garth Stapley who covered the trial for the Modesto Bee. In February 2017, he appeared in this podcast:

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley

Go to the link to upload the episode.

There's a very definite change Garth's point of view from when he covered the trial. He said the appeal is very much alive.  Pointed out that the judge allowed the dog scent evidence which is considered very unreliable and that the dog did not have a good track record.  Also mentioned juror who had been assaulted when pregnant who lied about this on her juror questionnaire.  Seemed to agree that anyone who wanted to frame Scott would have known where to put the body.  Searches in the bay with no results and then all of a sudden the bodies washed up.  Also mentioned defense theory about the age of the baby contrasted with the prosecution theory. .............Etc.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:24 pm

jane wrote:Some people are starting to pay attention to the information brought forward in the appeal documents. One of them is Garth Stapley who covered the trial for the Modesto Bee. In February 2017, he appeared in this podcast:

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley

Go to the link to upload the episode.

There's a very definite change Garth's point of view from when he covered the trial. He said the appeal is very much alive.  Pointed out that the judge allowed the dog scent evidence which is considered very unreliable and that the dog did not have a good track record.  Also mentioned juror who had been assaulted when pregnant who lied about this on her juror questionnaire.  Seemed to agree that anyone who wanted to frame Scott would have known where to put the body.  Searches in the bay with no results and then all of a sudden the bodies washed up.  Also mentioned defense theory about the age of the baby contrasted with the prosecution theory. .............Etc.


Very little National, Regional, or local coverage, and no change in public perception as to Peterson's Guilt. There may be some limited chatter in here but nothing of note in the media.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:32 am

I just came across this article from 2015. It's a very fair, in-depth look at the case.

January 25, 2015
by Lise LaSalle
American cases
Scott Peterson Was not Entitled to a Perfect Trial, but he Was Entitled to a Fair One – He Received Neither

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/2015/0 ... d-neither/

This site has articles about several American and Canadian wrongful conviction cases:

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/posts/
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:49 am

A&E Network to Premiere Original Limited Documentary Series 'The Murder of Laci Peterson' on Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT

A&E NETWORK TO PREMIERE ORIGINAL LIMITED DOCUMENTARY SERIES
‘THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON’
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 AT 10PM ET/PT
SIX-EPISODE, NEW SERIES TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL
TO DELIVER A DEFINITIVE FACTUAL ACCOUNT THROUGH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND INTERVIEWS
FROM THOSE CLOSEST TO THE TRIAL INCLUDING SCOTT PETERSON

New York, NY – July 17, 2017 – A&E Network will premiere the new six-episode, limited documentary series, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” showcasing new interviews with Scott Peterson himself from prison.  The series explores the infamous Scott Peterson trial, the case that destroyed a family, gripped a nation and defined an era, as a vehicle for understanding America’s criminal justice system and the ways in which outside influences can affect that system.  “The Murder of Laci Peterson” is set to premiere Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT on A&E.

“A&E is in the business of finding and uncovering the real stories behind some of the most impactful cultural moments that our audience hasn’t heard and ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ does exactly that,” said Elaine Frontain Bryant, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, A&E Network.  “The media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial was unlike anything seen before.  This new series will cut through the mass hysteria that has plagued and distorted the reporting of this story to deliver, for the first time, a definitive factual account by those who lived and breathed it every day.”

The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation.  Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace.  Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level.  To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony.  Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
  
As the 15th Anniversary of Laci Peterson’s disappearance approaches, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” takes a fresh, new look at the case, reexamining the circumstantial evidence and assessing the media’s influence on the case and its outcome......

http://www.aenetworks.com/article/ae-ne ... day-august

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/arti ... N-20170717
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:41 pm

jane wrote:A&E Network to Premiere Original Limited Documentary Series 'The Murder of Laci Peterson' on Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT

A&E NETWORK TO PREMIERE ORIGINAL LIMITED DOCUMENTARY SERIES
‘THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON’
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 AT 10PM ET/PT
SIX-EPISODE, NEW SERIES TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL
TO DELIVER A DEFINITIVE FACTUAL ACCOUNT THROUGH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND INTERVIEWS
FROM THOSE CLOSEST TO THE TRIAL INCLUDING SCOTT PETERSON

New York, NY – July 17, 2017 – A&E Network will premiere the new six-episode, limited documentary series, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” showcasing new interviews with Scott Peterson himself from prison.  The series explores the infamous Scott Peterson trial, the case that destroyed a family, gripped a nation and defined an era, as a vehicle for understanding America’s criminal justice system and the ways in which outside influences can affect that system.  “The Murder of Laci Peterson” is set to premiere Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT on A&E.

“A&E is in the business of finding and uncovering the real stories behind some of the most impactful cultural moments that our audience hasn’t heard and ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ does exactly that,” said Elaine Frontain Bryant, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, A&E Network.  “The media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial was unlike anything seen before.  This new series will cut through the mass hysteria that has plagued and distorted the reporting of this story to deliver, for the first time, a definitive factual account by those who lived and breathed it every day.”

The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation.  Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace.  Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level.  To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony.  Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
  
As the 15th Anniversary of Laci Peterson’s disappearance approaches, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” takes a fresh, new look at the case, reexamining the circumstantial evidence and assessing the media’s influence on the case and its outcome......

http://www.aenetworks.com/article/ae-ne ... day-august

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/arti ... N-20170717

:bop:
What's this? NATIONAL news coverage, proof that the Petersons are still working tirelessly to free Scott and find the real killers and a six part docuseries at that! Jackpot! :::thumbs up:::
lsmith510
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:32 am

jane wrote:A&E Network to Premiere Original Limited Documentary Series 'The Murder of Laci Peterson' on Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT

A&E NETWORK TO PREMIERE ORIGINAL LIMITED DOCUMENTARY SERIES
‘THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON’
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 AT 10PM ET/PT
SIX-EPISODE, NEW SERIES TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL
TO DELIVER A DEFINITIVE FACTUAL ACCOUNT THROUGH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND INTERVIEWS
FROM THOSE CLOSEST TO THE TRIAL INCLUDING SCOTT PETERSON

New York, NY – July 17, 2017 – A&E Network will premiere the new six-episode, limited documentary series, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” showcasing new interviews with Scott Peterson himself from prison.  The series explores the infamous Scott Peterson trial, the case that destroyed a family, gripped a nation and defined an era, as a vehicle for understanding America’s criminal justice system and the ways in which outside influences can affect that system.  “The Murder of Laci Peterson” is set to premiere Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT on A&E.

“A&E is in the business of finding and uncovering the real stories behind some of the most impactful cultural moments that our audience hasn’t heard and ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ does exactly that,” said Elaine Frontain Bryant, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, A&E Network.  “The media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial was unlike anything seen before.  This new series will cut through the mass hysteria that has plagued and distorted the reporting of this story to deliver, for the first time, a definitive factual account by those who lived and breathed it every day.”

The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation.  Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace.  Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level.  To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony.  Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
  
As the 15th Anniversary of Laci Peterson’s disappearance approaches, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” takes a fresh, new look at the case, reexamining the circumstantial evidence and assessing the media’s influence on the case and its outcome......

http://www.aenetworks.com/article/ae-ne ... day-august

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/arti ... N-20170717


To Jane

Thanks Jane for the information and course I am willing to look forward of watching this, and I had put this on my calendar and thanks for the head up and for sure I will watch it, and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:51 am

New A&E promo video for the 6-part docuseries which starts on August 15:

https://www.facebook.com/AETV/videos/10155470968284799/
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:15 am

The latest promo for the 6 part docuseries which starts on Tuesday August 15 at 10pm ET:

http://people.com/crime/scott-peterson- ... onviction/

Includes a 5 minute video.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:24 am

jane wrote:The latest promo for the 6 part docuseries which starts on Tuesday August 15 at 10pm ET:

http://people.com/crime/scott-peterson- ... onviction/

Includes a 5 minute video.


To Jane

Thanks Jane for the information and course I am looking forward of watching this, even only 6 days left to come and it looking good to watch, and only 2 days left until I keep track of the first Premier League football and my team will start on Sunday. So right now I got a busy schedule to watch Premier League and Scott Peterson case and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:01 am

The California Attorney General filed a response to Scott Peterson's habeas appeal on August 10.

The document will be posted on the Scott Peterson Appeal website sometime early next week.

In the meantime, the prosecutors have leaked some of the contents to the Modesto Bee. It sounds like the same old, same old tabloid trash that we've heard from them before:

http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... 34837.html
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:06 am

Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the upcoming 6-part docuseries which begins on Tuesday, August 15 on A&E at 10pm ET:

TV doc makes case for Scott Peterson’s innocence

http://m.sfgate.com/tv/article/TV-doc-m ... o-13677667
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:15 am

To everyone

Hey everyone today is the big day of Scott Peterson fight for his innocent and it about damn time for it. You only got 9 hours and 15 mins left. I am so thrill to watch this tonight even it will start 10pm and Scott will get his freedom for it all the way. I wonder what will the trolls will say about this too!!!

But they will complain over and over again. It shame I have 2 trolls in my foe and nope I an't listing to any of them. I only listen to Jane and she the one I trust because she does a great job into a very good way and yes I am keeping my promise to watch each part of the documentary and if I miss it. I hope they have it on demand as well. But here is 2 more article and enjoy reading both of them!!!

http://nypost.com/2017/08/14/scott-pete ... aci-alive/

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/08/14/s ... innocence/

I hope these article will prove for Scott innocent and set him free right now!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:33 am

For the record Tom, since you bring up the word "Trolls" to label anyone who is not swayed by the fiction introduced as fact from the innocence side, this is very short-sighted. If you want to debate, fine, but labels like this are ignorant and self serving. For every argument for innocence there is a stronger, counter argument for guilt. I too will watch this series, and will try to keep an open mind, but I will also keep in mind where this case is in terms of the legal process and, safeguard facts and ignore fantasy. I have a feeling this will be mostly editorial opinion and little to do with standards of evidence suitable for a court- room. The Appeal and Habeas have been filed and are very weak, A Television series designed for ratings, is hardly the same as what is provable in a court of law, it is however a perfect media for story-telling where fantastic ideas can be presented without the need for supporting evidence.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:07 am

anonshy wrote:For the record Tom, since you bring up the word "Trolls" to label anyone who is not swayed by the fiction introduced as fact from the innocence side, this is very short-sighted. If you want to debate, fine, but labels like this are ignorant and self serving. For every argument for innocence there is a stronger, counter argument for guilt. I too will watch this series, and will try to keep an open mind, but I will also keep in mind where this case is in terms of the legal process and, safeguard facts and ignore fantasy. I have a feeling this will be mostly editorial opinion and little to do with standards of evidence suitable for a court- room. The Appeal and Habeas have been filed and are very weak, A Television series designed for ratings, is hardly the same as what is provable in a court of law, it is however a perfect media for story-telling where fantastic ideas can be presented without the need for supporting evidence.

Anon


To Anon

For the record Anon I bring up the word troll because you and desert fox go to far of hurting a good friend name Jane. I trust Jane very well!!!

Label like this is ignorant of self serving. For ever argument for innocent there is a stronger counter argument for guilt. You support the guilt. What I support is the innocent against the guilt and course I am glad you enjoy watching the series because I watch it too, even isn't it odd that Scott went out of his way to fight to find his wife Laci who happen to be 8 month pregnant. Oh fantasy what I wonderful word even didn't you forget I read a novel through that way! Duh with a story. Remember that! I support reading a novel into different way of criminal law!!!

Yes there are people here for opinions even I have my own opinion and if people can hate me with my opinion, even I am not a fan through debate, even isn't that odd for you, I care for only for innocent. I happen to be a former Amanda Knox support and I call the site of TJMK trolls and if they don't like it. The can: Sue me! I triple dare it, even what count is real evidence!!!

What I don't like is what you and Desert Fox against into a huge attack against Jane, and it is a disgrace and it shouldn't happen. Jane went out of her way to fight for Scott and I am proud of that part and damn proud of her, even she a lady with the innocent of the right!!!

When people say things let stick to the fact isn't that to hard to calm down even I know my grammer is not good enough, into debate. Some people won't understand me of what I am saying because I act like a monster of being deaf and it my living ways of speaking ways!!!

I am sorry I stir the issue into this of label the trolls. But I don't like people attacking and that what you did, even you went that way. I support facts into innocent and I am against the guilt even I read stories and of it and yes I also support Polygraph!!!

Let hope your not against that part. I support it because people can beat a Polygraph test and he what happen was that the police went district respectful into it of him not following it, and if he follow it, It would had been follow into a different way!!!

Being staggied into a jail cell is hard into a criminal law for many innocent people when they go to jail it bother people because they get staggied into it, of not fighting of what is right for them!!!

Did you know who did saw Laci last, Not Scott? He far away from fishing and isn't that odd, someone must had saw her!!!

2 bulargies broke into the house even trash the evidence. Oh right the police clean up even it was clean like a whistile blower, People can complain I feel the pain even yes I do want to catch the person who committed this crime even isn't odd there should be other witness to this crime and not Scott Peterson!!!

Now I am done if you want the debate. I will be glad to give you one, but I am no fan of it, even I stick to the fact into reading a novel and it who I am and it where I stand, and thank you Anon and talk to you soon Anon!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:58 pm

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:For the record Tom, since you bring up the word "Trolls" to label anyone who is not swayed by the fiction introduced as fact from the innocence side, this is very short-sighted. If you want to debate, fine, but labels like this are ignorant and self serving. For every argument for innocence there is a stronger, counter argument for guilt. I too will watch this series, and will try to keep an open mind, but I will also keep in mind where this case is in terms of the legal process and, safeguard facts and ignore fantasy. I have a feeling this will be mostly editorial opinion and little to do with standards of evidence suitable for a court- room. The Appeal and Habeas have been filed and are very weak, A Television series designed for ratings, is hardly the same as what is provable in a court of law, it is however a perfect media for story-telling where fantastic ideas can be presented without the need for supporting evidence.

Anon


To Anon

For the record Anon I bring up the word troll because you and desert fox go to far of hurting a good friend name Jane. I trust Jane very well!!!

Label like this is ignorant of self serving. For ever argument for innocent there is a stronger counter argument for guilt. You support the guilt. What I support is the innocent against the guilt and course I am glad you enjoy watching the series because I watch it too, even isn't it odd that Scott went out of his way to fight to find his wife Laci who happen to be 8 month pregnant. Oh fantasy what I wonderful word even didn't you forget I read a novel through that way! Duh with a story. Remember that! I support reading a novel into different way of criminal law!!!

Yes there are people here for opinions even I have my own opinion and if people can hate me with my opinion, even I am not a fan through debate, even isn't that odd for you, I care for only for innocent. I happen to be a former Amanda Knox support and I call the site of TJMK trolls and if they don't like it. The can: Sue me! I triple dare it, even what count is real evidence!!!

What I don't like is what you and Desert Fox against into a huge attack against Jane, and it is a disgrace and it shouldn't happen. Jane went out of her way to fight for Scott and I am proud of that part and damn proud of her, even she a lady with the innocent of the right!!!

When people say things let stick to the fact isn't that to hard to calm down even I know my grammer is not good enough, into debate. Some people won't understand me of what I am saying because I act like a monster of being deaf and it my living ways of speaking ways!!!

I am sorry I stir the issue into this of label the trolls. But I don't like people attacking and that what you did, even you went that way. I support facts into innocent and I am against the guilt even I read stories and of it and yes I also support Polygraph!!!

Let hope your not against that part. I support it because people can beat a Polygraph test and he what happen was that the police went district respectful into it of him not following it, and if he follow it, It would had been follow into a different way!!!

Being staggied into a jail cell is hard into a criminal law for many innocent people when they go to jail it bother people because they get staggied into it, of not fighting of what is right for them!!!

Did you know who did saw Laci last, Not Scott? He far away from fishing and isn't that odd, someone must had saw her!!!

2 bulargies broke into the house even trash the evidence. Oh right the police clean up even it was clean like a whistile blower, People can complain I feel the pain even yes I do want to catch the person who committed this crime even isn't odd there should be other witness to this crime and not Scott Peterson!!!

Now I am done if you want the debate. I will be glad to give you one, but I am no fan of it, even I stick to the fact into reading a novel and it who I am and it where I stand, and thank you Anon and talk to you soon Anon!!!


This is a pro innocence site but that does not mean that we can promote innocence in every case. This case in particular is not sponsored, the only reason it is listed is because of the initial question posted asking if it is a worthy case, it has never been endorsed. I have never attacked Jane or anyone else, I have been critical of illogical arguments and the introduction of fantastical speculation. that is not not anything close to what you are projecting. Your arguments make no sense and are not supported by any evidence presented in this case.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:50 pm

anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:For the record Tom, since you bring up the word "Trolls" to label anyone who is not swayed by the fiction introduced as fact from the innocence side, this is very short-sighted. If you want to debate, fine, but labels like this are ignorant and self serving. For every argument for innocence there is a stronger, counter argument for guilt. I too will watch this series, and will try to keep an open mind, but I will also keep in mind where this case is in terms of the legal process and, safeguard facts and ignore fantasy. I have a feeling this will be mostly editorial opinion and little to do with standards of evidence suitable for a court- room. The Appeal and Habeas have been filed and are very weak, A Television series designed for ratings, is hardly the same as what is provable in a court of law, it is however a perfect media for story-telling where fantastic ideas can be presented without the need for supporting evidence.

Anon


To Anon

For the record Anon I bring up the word troll because you and desert fox go to far of hurting a good friend name Jane. I trust Jane very well!!!

Label like this is ignorant of self serving. For ever argument for innocent there is a stronger counter argument for guilt. You support the guilt. What I support is the innocent against the guilt and course I am glad you enjoy watching the series because I watch it too, even isn't it odd that Scott went out of his way to fight to find his wife Laci who happen to be 8 month pregnant. Oh fantasy what I wonderful word even didn't you forget I read a novel through that way! Duh with a story. Remember that! I support reading a novel into different way of criminal law!!!

Yes there are people here for opinions even I have my own opinion and if people can hate me with my opinion, even I am not a fan through debate, even isn't that odd for you, I care for only for innocent. I happen to be a former Amanda Knox support and I call the site of TJMK trolls and if they don't like it. The can: Sue me! I triple dare it, even what count is real evidence!!!

What I don't like is what you and Desert Fox against into a huge attack against Jane, and it is a disgrace and it shouldn't happen. Jane went out of her way to fight for Scott and I am proud of that part and damn proud of her, even she a lady with the innocent of the right!!!

When people say things let stick to the fact isn't that to hard to calm down even I know my grammer is not good enough, into debate. Some people won't understand me of what I am saying because I act like a monster of being deaf and it my living ways of speaking ways!!!

I am sorry I stir the issue into this of label the trolls. But I don't like people attacking and that what you did, even you went that way. I support facts into innocent and I am against the guilt even I read stories and of it and yes I also support Polygraph!!!

Let hope your not against that part. I support it because people can beat a Polygraph test and he what happen was that the police went district respectful into it of him not following it, and if he follow it, It would had been follow into a different way!!!

Being staggied into a jail cell is hard into a criminal law for many innocent people when they go to jail it bother people because they get staggied into it, of not fighting of what is right for them!!!

Did you know who did saw Laci last, Not Scott? He far away from fishing and isn't that odd, someone must had saw her!!!

2 bulargies broke into the house even trash the evidence. Oh right the police clean up even it was clean like a whistile blower, People can complain I feel the pain even yes I do want to catch the person who committed this crime even isn't odd there should be other witness to this crime and not Scott Peterson!!!

Now I am done if you want the debate. I will be glad to give you one, but I am no fan of it, even I stick to the fact into reading a novel and it who I am and it where I stand, and thank you Anon and talk to you soon Anon!!!


This is a pro innocence site but that does not mean that we can promote innocence in every case. This case in particular is not sponsored, the only reason it is listed is because of the initial question posted asking if it is a worthy case, it has never been endorsed. I have never attacked Jane or anyone else, I have been critical of illogical arguments and the introduction of fantastical speculation. that is not not anything close to what you are projecting. Your arguments make no sense and are not supported by any evidence presented in this case.

Anon


To Anon

No Anon my argument make perfect sense of detail through the innocent of pro innocent and what this site represent is people who support a case detail of innocent and how a case detail shows proof of represent by stories and how the facts is shown even through pictures as well of great detail. I deal with my own fact and if you don't like it tough nugget. I do it that way of criminal law!!!

2nd the only reason it never been endorse is by a judge who is denying a case!!!

3rd was what you said to Jane:
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.


You said: Your a fool even it doesn't sound like an attack but she called you this:
Troll alert. :roll:


Then you came back and call her:
Brainless Lemming Alert!


Look I stick with my own facts of into a story and it were I stand of ways into criminal law even I follow through stories, and yes your more welcome to disagree with that part. But my stories represent the facts of different ways and remember Bruce always said stories are facts and I know it. He knows and Jane knows it and that is my fact and it where I go with to stand and I do it for every innocent person of my own for the innocent 5! Take it or leave it Anon! I support my facts into reading a novel and into a story and it who I have been all my life for a very long time zone and if your no fan of reading a novel then you only want to stick fact for the guilt and that is that and Jane shows facts of real life and I support it!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:23 pm

To everyone

As knowing I keep a good head straight into stories of into facts through innocent project and through criminal law of DNA testing and it who I support of represent and it the out come of what I believe in and where I stand for a very long time even I support of reading a novel with the facts of innocent and anyone can make a story into facts to fight for his or her innocent and it were I stand, and I want to make it clear for anyone of who I support of it and I would like Bruce to come here and explain every detail of why I support stories of reading a novel and why I stick it with facts and now the time is 8:23pm and it time for me to go to bed and goodnight everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:22 pm

ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

As knowing I keep a good head straight into stories of into facts through innocent project and through criminal law of DNA testing and it who I support of represent and it the out come of what I believe in and where I stand for a very long time even I support of reading a novel with the facts of innocent and anyone can make a story into facts to fight for his or her innocent and it were I stand, and I want to make it clear for anyone of who I support of it and I would like Bruce to come here and explain every detail of why I support stories of reading a novel and why I stick it with facts and now the time is 8:23pm and it time for me to go to bed and goodnight everyone!!!


I would take the time to respond to your post, but it is evident, you did not understand a thing I posted. Interesting you did bring up "Lemmings", fitting I would say. Enjoy your life Tom, and especially your love for Anne Hathaway, we can agree, she is a beautiful and talent woman.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:33 pm

jane wrote:Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the upcoming 6-part docuseries which begins on Tuesday, August 15 on A&E at 10pm ET:

TV doc makes case for Scott Peterson’s innocence

http://m.sfgate.com/tv/article/TV-doc-m ... o-13677667


I watched the first episode. This looks like another case of confirmation bias run wild. Doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities got it wrong but they definitely locked in waaaaay too early. The way this works is that - once they decide that Scott did it - then they ignore all exculpatory evidence. The mindset is that - if someone comes forward and says they saw Laci walking around at 11:30 a.m. - rather than investigate it, the police immediately determine that it is wrong ("you must have the day mixed up" or "you must have seen someone else who looked like her" or "you got the time wrong") because we "know" to a certainty that by 11:30 Laci was dead. It is the same mindset that would lead you or me to disbelieve someone who said that they saw Elvis Presley walking around yesterday.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:32 am

jane wrote:Clive posted:

10:10 Laci is ready to go, has dog on leash but then remembers something and leaves McKenzie in the garden. He trails his leash in the pool and then gets grass and leaves on it and then goes out through the gate that Scott maybe left open.
10:18 Servas finds McKenzie outside with wet, muddy leash and puts him back, closing the gate.
10:38 Krigbaum hears the dog bark
10:40 Laci takes him for his walk leaving the gate open
10:45 Graybill turns up and notes open gate and no dog
11:20 Laci returns, puts pooch in yard, closes gate and heads across street to find out what's going on there and gets abducted
16:30 Scott returns home and finds the gate closed with McKenzie still in the yard with his leash on.

It seems a bit funny Laci would not take McKenzie across the street for protection but then she might have been worried that he would freak out if she got into any kind of argument. Maybe she did not figure that was going on was a burglary in broad daylight.


Interesting timeline, Clive. I agree with a lot of it.

Here are some other possibilities:

The 10:38 barking may have been when Graybill was on the street delivering mail. In that case, the unfamiliar dog Krigbaum heard was not McKenzie.

If Servas' 10:18 time is accurate, Laci could have left for her walk between that time and the time Graybill arrived on the street.

Further info, Graybill delivered to only 8 houses on that section of Covena. The houses were very close together, so he may have been on the street for only about 5 minutes sometime after the Medinas left home at 10:32.

Laci's walk would have taken at least 45 minutes if she went as far as Mitchell's.

I had this exchange with Jane a while back. Between us we constructed a reasonable theory of what may have happened which explains the state of the gate at various points in the day (seen to be open and physically closed by Servas, seen by Graybill to be open, seen by Scott to be closed again). The state's response to the habeus petition, the relevant part of which I have now read, is simply thst Graybill is unreliable. In other words, they don't have a knock out punch. As I think Graybill is reiuable on the key points I move for a mis-trial and switch my position on this case to reasonable doubt.

By the way, hi everybody.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:40 am

anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

As knowing I keep a good head straight into stories of into facts through innocent project and through criminal law of DNA testing and it who I support of represent and it the out come of what I believe in and where I stand for a very long time even I support of reading a novel with the facts of innocent and anyone can make a story into facts to fight for his or her innocent and it were I stand, and I want to make it clear for anyone of who I support of it and I would like Bruce to come here and explain every detail of why I support stories of reading a novel and why I stick it with facts and now the time is 8:23pm and it time for me to go to bed and goodnight everyone!!!


I would take the time to respond to your post, but it is evident, you did not understand a thing I posted. Interesting you did bring up "Lemmings", fitting I would say. Enjoy your life Tom, and especially your love for Anne Hathaway, we can agree, she is a beautiful and talent woman.

Anon


To Anon

I would take time to respond to your post. But it is evident, that you did not understand a thing I posted. Interesting you did bring up " Anne Hathaway" Course she the love of my life and she a great talent actress who can sing. I hope you enjoy your life too Anon!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:46 am

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the upcoming 6-part docuseries which begins on Tuesday, August 15 on A&E at 10pm ET:

TV doc makes case for Scott Peterson’s innocence

http://m.sfgate.com/tv/article/TV-doc-m ... o-13677667


I watched the first episode. This looks like another case of confirmation bias run wild. Doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities got it wrong but they definitely locked in waaaaay too early. The way this works is that - once they decide that Scott did it - then they ignore all exculpatory evidence. The mindset is that - if someone comes forward and says they saw Laci walking around at 11:30 a.m. - rather than investigate it, the police immediately determine that it is wrong ("you must have the day mixed up" or "you must have seen someone else who looked like her" or "you got the time wrong") because we "know" to a certainty that by 11:30 Laci was dead. It is the same mindset that would lead you or me to disbelieve someone who said that they saw Elvis Presley walking around yesterday.


I agree, there was a lot of things wrong wit the investigation. Scott did not help his cause in this regard, with his words and actions.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:48 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Clive posted:

10:10 Laci is ready to go, has dog on leash but then remembers something and leaves McKenzie in the garden. He trails his leash in the pool and then gets grass and leaves on it and then goes out through the gate that Scott maybe left open.
10:18 Servas finds McKenzie outside with wet, muddy leash and puts him back, closing the gate.
10:38 Krigbaum hears the dog bark
10:40 Laci takes him for his walk leaving the gate open
10:45 Graybill turns up and notes open gate and no dog
11:20 Laci returns, puts pooch in yard, closes gate and heads across street to find out what's going on there and gets abducted
16:30 Scott returns home and finds the gate closed with McKenzie still in the yard with his leash on.

It seems a bit funny Laci would not take McKenzie across the street for protection but then she might have been worried that he would freak out if she got into any kind of argument. Maybe she did not figure that was going on was a burglary in broad daylight.


Interesting timeline, Clive. I agree with a lot of it.

Here are some other possibilities:

The 10:38 barking may have been when Graybill was on the street delivering mail. In that case, the unfamiliar dog Krigbaum heard was not McKenzie.

If Servas' 10:18 time is accurate, Laci could have left for her walk between that time and the time Graybill arrived on the street.

Further info, Graybill delivered to only 8 houses on that section of Covena. The houses were very close together, so he may have been on the street for only about 5 minutes sometime after the Medinas left home at 10:32.

Laci's walk would have taken at least 45 minutes if she went as far as Mitchell's.

I had this exchange with Jane a while back. Between us we constructed a reasonable theory of what may have happened which explains the state of the gate at various points in the day (seen to be open and physically closed by Servas, seen by Graybill to be open, seen by Scott to be closed again). The state's response to the habeus petition, the relevant part of which I have now read, is simply thst Graybill is unreliable. In other words, they don't have a knock out punch. As I think Graybill is reiuable on the key points I move for a mis-trial and switch my position on this case to reasonable doubt.

By the way, hi everybody.


If we were at the reasonable doubt stage, I would agree with you, but this case has a conviction and is over a decade on......

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:52 am

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

As knowing I keep a good head straight into stories of into facts through innocent project and through criminal law of DNA testing and it who I support of represent and it the out come of what I believe in and where I stand for a very long time even I support of reading a novel with the facts of innocent and anyone can make a story into facts to fight for his or her innocent and it were I stand, and I want to make it clear for anyone of who I support of it and I would like Bruce to come here and explain every detail of why I support stories of reading a novel and why I stick it with facts and now the time is 8:23pm and it time for me to go to bed and goodnight everyone!!!


I would take the time to respond to your post, but it is evident, you did not understand a thing I posted. Interesting you did bring up "Lemmings", fitting I would say. Enjoy your life Tom, and especially your love for Anne Hathaway, we can agree, she is a beautiful and talent woman.

Anon


To Anon

I would take time to respond to your post. But it is evident, that you did not understand a thing I posted. Interesting you did bring up " Anne Hathaway" Course she the love of my life and she a great talent actress who can sing. I hope you enjoy your life too Anon!!!


You should stick to Cut & Pasting, that actually makes sense.....

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:01 am

anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Clive posted:

10:10 Laci is ready to go, has dog on leash but then remembers something and leaves McKenzie in the garden. He trails his leash in the pool and then gets grass and leaves on it and then goes out through the gate that Scott maybe left open.
10:18 Servas finds McKenzie outside with wet, muddy leash and puts him back, closing the gate.
10:38 Krigbaum hears the dog bark
10:40 Laci takes him for his walk leaving the gate open
10:45 Graybill turns up and notes open gate and no dog
11:20 Laci returns, puts pooch in yard, closes gate and heads across street to find out what's going on there and gets abducted
16:30 Scott returns home and finds the gate closed with McKenzie still in the yard with his leash on.

It seems a bit funny Laci would not take McKenzie across the street for protection but then she might have been worried that he would freak out if she got into any kind of argument. Maybe she did not figure that was going on was a burglary in broad daylight.


Interesting timeline, Clive. I agree with a lot of it.

Here are some other possibilities:

The 10:38 barking may have been when Graybill was on the street delivering mail. In that case, the unfamiliar dog Krigbaum heard was not McKenzie.

If Servas' 10:18 time is accurate, Laci could have left for her walk between that time and the time Graybill arrived on the street.

Further info, Graybill delivered to only 8 houses on that section of Covena. The houses were very close together, so he may have been on the street for only about 5 minutes sometime after the Medinas left home at 10:32.

Laci's walk would have taken at least 45 minutes if she went as far as Mitchell's.

I had this exchange with Jane a while back. Between us we constructed a reasonable theory of what may have happened which explains the state of the gate at various points in the day (seen to be open and physically closed by Servas, seen by Graybill to be open, seen by Scott to be closed again). The state's response to the habeus petition, the relevant part of which I have now read, is simply thst Graybill is unreliable. In other words, they don't have a knock out punch. As I think Graybill is reiuable on the key points I move for a mis-trial and switch my position on this case to reasonable doubt.

By the way, hi everybody.


If we were at the reasonable doubt stage, I would agree with you, but this case has a conviction and is over a decade on......

Anon

Let me repeat 'I move for a mistrial ...' which would mean another trial, no? And he would be entitled to the presumption of innocence, wouldn't he. And I'm a lawyer, not a moron. And finally, this is the internet, not a courtroom and I can think whatever I want.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:08 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:11 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:
If we were at the reasonable doubt stage, I would agree with you, but this case has a conviction and is over a decade on......

Anon


Let me repeat 'I move for a mistrial ...' which would mean another trial, no? And he would be entitled to the presumption of innocence, wouldn't he. And I'm a lawyer, not a moron. And finally, this is the internet, not a courtroom and I can think whatever I want.


To Anon and Clive

I agree with Clive and he is right that he is a lawyer and I trust him, even I have a family who done criminal law. Anon has you done criminal law? I would like to see your theory. If I did do a theory. I would do it too, and I thank you Clive and keep up the good work!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:21 am

anonshy wrote:You should stick to Cut & Pasting, that actually makes sense.....

Anon


To Anon

You should stick with Criminal Law that actually make sense of his or her own theory of how he or she being wrongful convicted of crime!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:38 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

Hi Bill and Tom. I will check out the show. What is A & E? It means 'accident and emergency' here :boggled:

Hey, I think I need a new signature. The one below is out of date.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:46 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

Hi Bill and Tom. I will check out the show. What is A & E? It means 'accident and emergency' here :boggled:

Hey, I think I need a new signature. The one below is out of date.


Arts & Entertainment 
Introspectre
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:26 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:16 am

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:You should stick to Cut & Pasting, that actually makes sense.....

Anon


To Anon

You should stick with Criminal Law that actually make sense of his or her own theory of how he or she being wrongful convicted of crime!!!


What the heck does criminal law, theory, his or her, he or she and theories have to do with anything. I know you have some sort of disability, but I cant make out what your trying to say!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:28 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Clive posted:

10:10 Laci is ready to go, has dog on leash but then remembers something and leaves McKenzie in the garden. He trails his leash in the pool and then gets grass and leaves on it and then goes out through the gate that Scott maybe left open.
10:18 Servas finds McKenzie outside with wet, muddy leash and puts him back, closing the gate.
10:38 Krigbaum hears the dog bark
10:40 Laci takes him for his walk leaving the gate open
10:45 Graybill turns up and notes open gate and no dog
11:20 Laci returns, puts pooch in yard, closes gate and heads across street to find out what's going on there and gets abducted
16:30 Scott returns home and finds the gate closed with McKenzie still in the yard with his leash on.

It seems a bit funny Laci would not take McKenzie across the street for protection but then she might have been worried that he would freak out if she got into any kind of argument. Maybe she did not figure that was going on was a burglary in broad daylight.


Interesting timeline, Clive. I agree with a lot of it.

Here are some other possibilities:

The 10:38 barking may have been when Graybill was on the street delivering mail. In that case, the unfamiliar dog Krigbaum heard was not McKenzie.

If Servas' 10:18 time is accurate, Laci could have left for her walk between that time and the time Graybill arrived on the street.

Further info, Graybill delivered to only 8 houses on that section of Covena. The houses were very close together, so he may have been on the street for only about 5 minutes sometime after the Medinas left home at 10:32.

Laci's walk would have taken at least 45 minutes if she went as far as Mitchell's.

I had this exchange with Jane a while back. Between us we constructed a reasonable theory of what may have happened which explains the state of the gate at various points in the day (seen to be open and physically closed by Servas, seen by Graybill to be open, seen by Scott to be closed again). The state's response to the habeus petition, the relevant part of which I have now read, is simply thst Graybill is unreliable. In other words, they don't have a knock out punch. As I think Graybill is reiuable on the key points I move for a mis-trial and switch my position on this case to reasonable doubt.

By the way, hi everybody.


If we were at the reasonable doubt stage, I would agree with you, but this case has a conviction and is over a decade on......

Anon

Let me repeat 'I move for a mistrial ...' which would mean another trial, no? And he would be entitled to the presumption of innocence, wouldn't he. And I'm a lawyer, not a moron. And finally, this is the internet, not a courtroom and I can think whatever I want.


Who said you were a moron? No me...

I think the discussion about the mini-series is one thing and a completely different discussion than what are viable arguments for Appeal and Habeas, that was the point I was making. It seemed like you were promoting Reasonable Doubt as a criteria on appeal or Habeas to force a mis-trial, Reasonable doubt would not be a consideration for either of those filings. Your free to say anything you like, right, wrong whatever, Did someone tell you you cant post?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:31 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


Clive, don't be too quick to dismiss the sighting witnesses. There are 5 more episodes coming.

Because Geragos did not know about Graybill, he believed that the prosecutors would destroy any sightings that were not between 10:08 and 10:18.

Now that it appears Laci went walking after Servas found the dog, the timeline for the witnesses to have seen Laci is greatly expanded. In fact, Servas at some point admitted she may have found the dog as early as 10:10.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:35 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


I would suggest the same is true of Todd, poor evidence quality and value dismissed by the Defense as a matter of strategy, not Ineffectiveness of council. If Laci walked the dog down the same path at the same time ever day, and there was nothing remarkable, these general sightings are easily explained, there would be no reason to note the date or time as a regular occurance.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:42 am

jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


Clive, don't be too quick to dismiss the sighting witnesses. There are 5 more episodes coming.

Because Geragos did not know about Graybill, he believed that the prosecutors would destroy any sightings that were not between 10:08 and 10:18.

Now that it appears Laci went walking after Servas found the dog, the timeline for the witnesses to have seen Laci is greatly expanded. In fact, Servas at some point admitted she may have found the dog as early as 10:10.


"Admittedly May Have?" is very weak language.
If the eyewitnesses were credible, the defense would have called them, The defense does not have to prove anything, and muddying the waters in light of Servas would be a reasonable tactic for the defense to employ,

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:47 am

jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


Clive, don't be too quick to dismiss the sighting witnesses. There are 5 more episodes coming.

Because Geragos did not know about Graybill, he believed that the prosecutors would destroy any sightings that were not between 10:08 and 10:18.

Now that it appears Laci went walking after Servas found the dog, the timeline for the witnesses to have seen Laci is greatly expanded. In fact, Servas at some point admitted she may have found the dog as early as 10:10.


You may also want to review Servas's testimony at trial, she called out when returning the dog, looked in the windows, there was no one home!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:57 am

jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


Clive, don't be too quick to dismiss the sighting witnesses. There are 5 more episodes coming.

Because Geragos did not know about Graybill, he believed that the prosecutors would destroy any sightings that were not between 10:08 and 10:18. Y

Now that it appears Laci went walking after Servas found the dog, the timeline for the witnesses to have seen Laci is greatly expanded. In fact, Servas at some point admitted she may have found the dog as early as 10:10.

I do not believe this. I know the habeus petition contains this claim but it has to say something. This, however, does not stack up. If these witnesses were solid then, Servas or no Servas, it would have been utter madness not to have called them. They would simply force one to reinterpret Servas in a manner consistent with innocence, as does our reconstruction of the events involving the gate.

I know I am being lazy here. I haven't done the legwork involved in studying what these witnesses say. That would involve poring over maps, making a chronology and reconstructing her route (has anyone tried this? - much more worthwhile than traipsing along the high water line of the Bay).
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:59 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


Clive, don't be too quick to dismiss the sighting witnesses. There are 5 more episodes coming.

Because Geragos did not know about Graybill, he believed that the prosecutors would destroy any sightings that were not between 10:08 and 10:18.

Now that it appears Laci went walking after Servas found the dog, the timeline for the witnesses to have seen Laci is greatly expanded. In fact, Servas at some point admitted she may have found the dog as early as 10:10.


You may also want to review Servas's testimony at trial, she called out when returning the dog, looked in the windows, there was no one home!

Anon

How loud and which windows?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:02 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

There are many pages of discussion here in which, if memory serves, Rose pulled apart these sightings. Geragos could have called these witnesses but chose not to. On this point, I find the habeus petition deeply unconvincing. Such evidence would have destroyed the state's case. It obviously did not stack up or the witnesses would have been called. It's ridiculous to suggest, as the petition does, they weren't called because of Servas.


Clive, don't be too quick to dismiss the sighting witnesses. There are 5 more episodes coming.

Because Geragos did not know about Graybill, he believed that the prosecutors would destroy any sightings that were not between 10:08 and 10:18.

Now that it appears Laci went walking after Servas found the dog, the timeline for the witnesses to have seen Laci is greatly expanded. In fact, Servas at some point admitted she may have found the dog as early as 10:10.


You may also want to review Servas's testimony at trial, she called out when returning the dog, looked in the windows, there was no one home!

Anon


Not correct. From testimony: SERVAS: and walked back along to here and back through the covered patio area And then this is where I basically, you know, said "McKenzie, stay." You know, said bye-bye, shut the gate and I left.
*******
Servas did nothing to determine whether or not Laci was home.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:10 pm

anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:You should stick to Cut & Pasting, that actually makes sense.....

Anon


To Anon

You should stick with Criminal Law that actually make sense of his or her own theory of how he or she being wrongful convicted of crime!!!


What the heck does criminal law, theory, his or her, he or she and theories have to do with anything. I know you have some sort of disability, but I cant make out what your trying to say!

Anon


To Clive or Jane

Can someone please tell Anon, what is criminal law? A theory of his or her time line and, he or she means? Because he does not know what it means?
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:13 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:By the way, hi everybody.

The new and improved (and not a moron) CW is quite welcome to be back.

The A&E network is 1 episode into a six part series dealing with this case. Episode 1 was a little non-descript but obviously setting up a "not proven" narrative to come. There were brief clips of interviews with those who'd claimed to see Lacy walking the dog. All said that they'd reported their sightings to police, and were ignored.

Karen Servas was on but (so far) said nothing about Christmas purchase receipts.

Welcome back.

Hi Bill and Tom. I will check out the show. What is A & E? It means 'accident and emergency' here :boggled:

Hey, I think I need a new signature. The one below is out of date.


To Clive

Hey Clive I hope you check out the show, and what is A & E It means not accident & emergency. It means Anne & Entertainment of why I Iove my Anne Hathaway!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:34 pm

jane wrote:
Not correct. From testimony: SERVAS: and walked back along to here and back through the covered patio area And then this is where I basically, you know, said "McKenzie, stay." You know, said bye-bye, shut the gate and I left.
*******
Servas did nothing to determine whether or not Laci was home.

It does not help the discussion for posters to make up imaginary evidence.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:46 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:
Not correct. From testimony: SERVAS: and walked back along to here and back through the covered patio area And then this is where I basically, you know, said "McKenzie, stay." You know, said bye-bye, shut the gate and I left.
*******
Servas did nothing to determine whether or not Laci was home.

It does not help the discussion for posters to make up imaginary evidence.


Correct, What we know is that Servas walked to the back of the pool area which exposed her to the patio entrance and the French doors by the pool. She was asked directly if she saw any activity in the house, she stated she saw none. Notice she did not say, I did not look, she clearly observed no activity in the house. If Laci had been in the house, she would have greeted her nabour, especially to thank her for returning the dog.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:09 pm

anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:
Not correct. From testimony: SERVAS: and walked back along to here and back through the covered patio area And then this is where I basically, you know, said "McKenzie, stay." You know, said bye-bye, shut the gate and I left.
*******
Servas did nothing to determine whether or not Laci was home.

It does not help the discussion for posters to make up imaginary evidence.


Correct, What we know is that Servas walked to the back of the pool area which exposed her to the patio entrance and the French doors by the pool. She was asked directly if she saw any activity in the house, she stated she saw none. Notice she did not say, I did not look, she clearly observed no activity in the house. If Laci had been in the house, she would have greeted her nabour, especially to thank her for returning the dog.

Anon

You don't tell us what she could see and it's only common sense that Laci could easily have been in a part of the house without being visible to Servas. And I would add that if Servas had believed the house to be empty, her conduct in putting the dog back and going about her business would strike one as very odd.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:30 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:
Not correct. From testimony: SERVAS: and walked back along to here and back through the covered patio area And then this is where I basically, you know, said "McKenzie, stay." You know, said bye-bye, shut the gate and I left.
*******
Servas did nothing to determine whether or not Laci was home.

It does not help the discussion for posters to make up imaginary evidence.


Correct, What we know is that Servas walked to the back of the pool area which exposed her to the patio entrance and the French doors by the pool. She was asked directly if she saw any activity in the house, she stated she saw none. Notice she did not say, I did not look, she clearly observed no activity in the house. If Laci had been in the house, she would have greeted her nabour, especially to thank her for returning the dog.

Anon

You don't tell us what she could see and it's only common sense that Laci could easily have been in a part of the house without being visible to Servas. And I would add that if Servas had believed the house to be empty, her conduct in putting the dog back and going about her business would strike one as very odd.


Then strictly from the transcript Serva's Describes 1- No Activity in or around the house. 2 - It was very quiet 3 - there was no sign of struggle. I think Laci would have been keeping tabs on the Dog considering the mail delivery schedule. I just think if Laci was in the house at that time, she would have been aware of Mac's whereabouts and the gate being open. Servas was probably influenced by the presence of Laci's car, and already running behind on her errands.

Anon

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:50 pm

Image
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:58 pm

To everyone

As knowing no want to answer, my question because Anon doesn't know criminal law. So here is something to learn about it, into defense ways and if he doesn't understand. Then why is he here?

Letting It Play out

Sometimes the best move for the defense is to do nothing. It can take several months for the prosecution to learn that there’s insufficient evidence to convict the defendant, whether because a witness recants a story or it becomes evident that the witness isn’t credible. (For instance, the witness might have a history of false accusations, or an alleged victim might be actually motivated by a family issue, like child custody.)
Other times a case might go away because the defense wins a pretrial motion, like one to suppress illegally seized evidence. Or perhaps (in a felony case), the defense will win the preliminary hearing, and the prosecution will decide not to re-file. There are several in-court proceedings that might bring about the end of a case short of a plea or trial. But the defense’s chances truly depend on the circumstances.


This is what criminal law all about and how it is work and I prove this message once and for all!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:49 pm

This is a small point perhaps but it is a point - on p.124-125 of the response to the habeus petition the state, in the course of giving reasons why Graybill is unreliable, says the claim that Graybill delivered a package on 24th December is not in the Skulketty note nor in Graybill's testimony. This is Servas's testimony:

GERAGOS: And when you returned home you said that you knew that UPS delivery had been made as you saw a package near the front of the residence?
SERVAS: It was a package.
GERAGOS: Do you want to show us where?
SERVAS: Yeah, there was a box. It looked like just a square maybe book box that was sticking out of their mailbox. And later on I found out it was actually a UPS, not a UPS delivery, but a postal delivery. When I went over the next night they said that that actually had come from the postal service, which would be right because the mail gets delivered between like 10:30 and 11:30 in our neighborhood.

So this is a crappy, semi-dishonest point, since Servas corroborates the fact the delivery was made. Jane has also shown me a picture of the mailbox with the package sticking out of it.

Personally, I think the habeus petition is full of lousy points, but Graybill is not easily explained away and certainly not by this kind of horse shit.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:30 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:This is a small point perhaps but it is a point - on p.124-125 of the response to the habeus petition the state, in the course of giving reasons why Graybill is unreliable, says the claim that Graybill delivered a package on 24th December is not in the Skulketty note nor in Graybill's testimony. This is Servas's testimony:

GERAGOS: And when you returned home you said that you knew that UPS delivery had been made as you saw a package near the front of the residence?
SERVAS: It was a package.
GERAGOS: Do you want to show us where?
SERVAS: Yeah, there was a box. It looked like just a square maybe book box that was sticking out of their mailbox. And later on I found out it was actually a UPS, not a UPS delivery, but a postal delivery. When I went over the next night they said that that actually had come from the postal service, which would be right because the mail gets delivered between like 10:30 and 11:30 in our neighborhood.

So this is a crappy, semi-dishonest point, since Servas corroborates the fact the delivery was made. Jane has also shown me a picture of the mailbox with the package sticking out of it.

Personally, I think the habeus petition is full of lousy points, but Graybill is not easily explained away and certainly not by this kind of horse shit.


Actually, Clive, the picture shows the mailbox; but the package was not there when the crime scene photo was taken because Scott collected the mail when he came home at around 4:45 p.m. and the crime scene photos weren't taken until some time later.

But it is a crappy, dishonest point, no doubt about that.

There is testimony from Servas and Krigbaum/Venable that the package was there earlier in the day--a large white box sticking out of the mailbox.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:58 pm

jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:This is a small point perhaps but it is a point - on p.124-125 of the response to the habeus petition the state, in the course of giving reasons why Graybill is unreliable, says the claim that Graybill delivered a package on 24th December is not in the Skulketty note nor in Graybill's testimony. This is Servas's testimony:

GERAGOS: And when you returned home you said that you knew that UPS delivery had been made as you saw a package near the front of the residence?
SERVAS: It was a package.
GERAGOS: Do you want to show us where?
SERVAS: Yeah, there was a box. It looked like just a square maybe book box that was sticking out of their mailbox. And later on I found out it was actually a UPS, not a UPS delivery, but a postal delivery. When I went over the next night they said that that actually had come from the postal service, which would be right because the mail gets delivered between like 10:30 and 11:30 in our neighborhood.

So this is a crappy, semi-dishonest point, since Servas corroborates the fact the delivery was made. Jane has also shown me a picture of the mailbox with the package sticking out of it.

Personally, I think the habeus petition is full of lousy points, but Graybill is not easily explained away and certainly not by this kind of horse shit.


Actually, Clive, the picture shows the mailbox; but the package was not there when the crime scene photo was taken because Scott collected the mail when he came home at around 4:45 p.m. and the crime scene photos weren't taken until some time later.

But it is a crappy, dishonest point, no doubt about that.

There is testimony from Servas and Krigbaum/Venable that the package was there earlier in the day--a large white box sticking out of the mailbox.

I stand corrected. Thank you.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:08 pm

i think a very interesting point to partially counter some of the Laci spottings on the 24th is tha lack of anyoneother than Servas seeing Mac running around the naborhood with a leash and no owner.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:11 pm

anonshy wrote:i think a very interesting point to partially counter some of the Laci spottings on the 24th is tha lack of anyoneother than Servas seeing Mac running around the naborhood with a leash and no owner.

Anon

She did not see him 'running around the neighbourhood'. He was standing, not running, in the road outside his house. He might have been there for a few seconds for all we know. Her evidence has nothing to do at all with the claimed sightings.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:53 am

Link to youtube version of The Murder of Laci Peterson, Episode One:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVSsNgihvww&t=1709s

Link to the California Attorney General's Habeas Response which was filed on August 10, 2017:

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

Explanation from SPAppeal facebook page:

This document is not a court decision. This is a response from the State Attorney General, who basically represents the side of the prosecution. From what we understand, there will ultimately be 3 habeas documents; the original petition (from Scott's attorneys), the response (the one we just posted from the state), and then a reply from Scott's attorneys. Then, the three habeas documents will be reviewed by the California Supreme Court (no time frame for this). The Court will then decide whether to call an evidentiary hearing on any of the issues.
jane
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:13 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:i think a very interesting point to partially counter some of the Laci spottings on the 24th is tha lack of anyoneother than Servas seeing Mac running around the naborhood with a leash and no owner.

Anon

She did not see him 'running around the neighbourhood'. He was standing, not running, in the road outside his house. He might have been there for a few seconds for all we know. Her evidence has nothing to do at all with the claimed sightings.


That was the point, you have these people who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog, but you have no one the spots the dog running anywhere by himself with a leash on. You have Servas saying she did not hear Mac barking in front of the house and you have a very dirty dog leash that had mud amd other debris.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:57 pm

anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:i think a very interesting point to partially counter some of the Laci spottings on the 24th is tha lack of anyoneother than Servas seeing Mac running around the naborhood with a leash and no owner.

Anon

She did not see him 'running around the neighbourhood'. He was standing, not running, in the road outside his house. He might have been there for a few seconds for all we know. Her evidence has nothing to do at all with the claimed sightings.


That was the point, you have these people who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog, but you have no one the spots the dog running anywhere by himself with a leash on. You have Servas saying she did not hear Mac barking in front of the house and you have a very dirty dog leash that had mud amd other debris.

Anon

The 'point' is against you. I already explained how everything works perfectly well without a dog running free, with Laci taking a walk and with a muddy leash. But you go ahead and explain the open gate Graybill saw.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:00 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:i think a very interesting point to partially counter some of the Laci spottings on the 24th is tha lack of anyoneother than Servas seeing Mac running around the naborhood with a leash and no owner.

Anon

She did not see him 'running around the neighbourhood'. He was standing, not running, in the road outside his house. He might have been there for a few seconds for all we know. Her evidence has nothing to do at all with the claimed sightings.


That was the point, you have these people who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog, but you have no one the spots the dog running anywhere by himself with a leash on. You have Servas saying she did not hear Mac barking in front of the house and you have a very dirty dog leash that had mud amd other debris.

Anon

The 'point' is against you. I already explained how everything works perfectly well without a dog running free, with Laci taking a walk and with a muddy leash. But you go ahead and explain the open gate Graybill saw.


I don't know what your theory is. Where is it exactly that you feel Laci was abducted?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:28 pm

anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:i think a very interesting point to partially counter some of the Laci spottings on the 24th is tha lack of anyoneother than Servas seeing Mac running around the naborhood with a leash and no owner.

Anon

She did not see him 'running around the neighbourhood'. He was standing, not running, in the road outside his house. He might have been there for a few seconds for all we know. Her evidence has nothing to do at all with the claimed sightings.


That was the point, you have these people who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog, but you have no one the spots the dog running anywhere by himself with a leash on. You have Servas saying she did not hear Mac barking in front of the house and you have a very dirty dog leash that had mud amd other debris.

Anon

The 'point' is against you. I already explained how everything works perfectly well without a dog running free, with Laci taking a walk and with a muddy leash. But you go ahead and explain the open gate Graybill saw.


I don't know what your theory is. Where is it exactly that you feel Laci was abducted?

Anon

It's in the first post I made on returning to this thread a day or two ago. Doesn't surprise me you didn't read it.

I want you to pretend Graybill is reliable, for the sake of argument, and then explain how Scott can still be guilty.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:10 pm

Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:32 pm

anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon

The burglars across the street.

Now answer my question.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:50 am

anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon


To Anon

Anon why haven't you answer my question. I know that I ask people what is criminal law even you had no clue! What it is criminal law? You mostly wanted to know what is criminal law and 2nd you couldn't understand me of what I was saying to you? The way I explain detail is this!!!

Criminal law is: Reading a novel of fiction or fantasy stories that is put into a theory? Have you ever learn anything about it? Plus DNA evidence count for criminal law as well of testing an evidence it shows that you want to support the guilt against innocent project! I support it for every case of people who work with the case. I am against self defense. Because they committed the crime of doing it, and it plan wrong. If someone plead his or her innocent it means they didn't do it, and if Jane or Clive is trying hard enough to explain their actions for it. It means they are doing there jobs for that part of theory and I prove this message to you again!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:00 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon

The burglars across the street.

Now answer my question.


To Clive

Hey Clive here is the answer into many ways of criminal law!!!

A) The burglars across the street committed this crime!!!

B) Who ever saw Laci last committed this crime!!!

C) Scott was 50 miles away from the crime scene!!!

D) He wasn't there he went fishing!!!

E) If neighbors in the neighbor hood had saw burglars who had broken in there houses that is a huge deal of him or her committed this crime!!!

All of this shows facts and reading a novel shows facts! It look like that Anon need to go to Barnes and noble book store to learn some part of reading a novel!!!

Image

Sorry Clive I get carried away of reading a novel into barnes and noble of book stories!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:39 pm

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon


To Anon

Anon why haven't you answer my question. I know that I ask people what is criminal law even you had no clue! What it is criminal law? You mostly wanted to know what is criminal law and 2nd you couldn't understand me of what I was saying to you? The way I explain detail is this!!!

Criminal law is: Reading a novel of fiction or fantasy stories that is put into a theory? Have you ever learn anything about it? Plus DNA evidence count for criminal law as well of testing an evidence it shows that you want to support the guilt against innocent project! I support it for every case of people who work with the case. I am against self defense. Because they committed the crime of doing it, and it plan wrong. If someone plead his or her innocent it means they didn't do it, and if Jane or Clive is trying hard enough to explain their actions for it. It means they are doing there jobs for that part of theory and I prove this message to you again!!!


I really can't understand a thing you say.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:43 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon

The burglars across the street.

Now answer my question.


If you believe the burglars did it, in light of evidentiary rules, then there really is nothing I can say to,you.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:12 pm

anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon

The burglars across the street.

Now answer my question.


If you believe the burglars did it, in light of evidentiary rules, then there really is nothing I can say to,you.

Anon

You are a disappointment.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:41 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon

The burglars across the street.

Now answer my question.


If you believe the burglars did it, in light of evidentiary rules, then there really is nothing I can say to,you.

Anon

You are a disappointment.


Your theory is disappointing, if your going to spout off that you are a lawyer to gain credence to your arguments, perhaps your arguments should be based on a perspective in line with your credentials.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:01 pm

anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon


To Anon

Anon why haven't you answer my question. I know that I ask people what is criminal law even you had no clue! What it is criminal law? You mostly wanted to know what is criminal law and 2nd you couldn't understand me of what I was saying to you? The way I explain detail is this!!!

Criminal law is: Reading a novel of fiction or fantasy stories that is put into a theory? Have you ever learn anything about it? Plus DNA evidence count for criminal law as well of testing an evidence it shows that you want to support the guilt against innocent project! I support it for every case of people who work with the case. I am against self defense. Because they committed the crime of doing it, and it plan wrong. If someone plead his or her innocent it means they didn't do it, and if Jane or Clive is trying hard enough to explain their actions for it. It means they are doing there jobs for that part of theory and I prove this message to you again!!!


I really can't understand a thing you say.

Anon


To Anon

Hey Anon if you can't understand a thing I am saying to you. Then you my friend has fail education of criminal law and you never graduate from college. So you're a dropout from an education, and let face it. You don't understand me!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:48 pm

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon


To Anon

Anon why haven't you answer my question. I know that I ask people what is criminal law even you had no clue! What it is criminal law? You mostly wanted to know what is criminal law and 2nd you couldn't understand me of what I was saying to you? The way I explain detail is this!!!

Criminal law is: Reading a novel of fiction or fantasy stories that is put into a theory? Have you ever learn anything about it? Plus DNA evidence count for criminal law as well of testing an evidence it shows that you want to support the guilt against innocent project! I support it for every case of people who work with the case. I am against self defense. Because they committed the crime of doing it, and it plan wrong. If someone plead his or her innocent it means they didn't do it, and if Jane or Clive is trying hard enough to explain their actions for it. It means they are doing there jobs for that part of theory and I prove this message to you again!!!


I really can't understand a thing you say.

Anon


To Anon

Hey Anon if you can't understand a thing I am saying to you. Then you my friend has fail education of criminal law and you never graduate from college. So you're a dropout from an education, and let face it. You don't understand me!!!


You are right on all counts!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:06 am

Hi all, new here. I read this entire thread. It's obvious there are a few willful ignorants that are still stuck on a hamster wheel on not proving SP is innocent. All proof of his murder is ignored. How many times can you debunk the same garbage that never counts when it comes to reality? Not even his own lawyers use the silly stuff on some innocent sites. It's all hogwash. He is where he belongs. What does he mean he didn't see it coming? What a load of bull he spewed for he is a narcissist pig. If he was hung in public. The public would celebrate. He shouldn't still be breathing.
Nick
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Nick » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:08 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound


Do you think women ovulate on the same day every cycle (Day 14)?

Anon

Yikes, that's Marlene Newell's bull tripe that has & will always be debunked. :facepalm: ::doh::
Nick
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:37 am

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the upcoming 6-part docuseries which begins on Tuesday, August 15 on A&E at 10pm ET:

TV doc makes case for Scott Peterson’s innocence

http://m.sfgate.com/tv/article/TV-doc-m ... o-13677667


I watched the first episode. This looks like another case of confirmation bias run wild. Doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities got it wrong but they definitely locked in waaaaay too early. The way this works is that - once they decide that Scott did it - then they ignore all exculpatory evidence. The mindset is that - if someone comes forward and says they saw Laci walking around at 11:30 a.m. - rather than investigate it, the police immediately determine that it is wrong ("you must have the day mixed up" or "you must have seen someone else who looked like her" or "you got the time wrong") because we "know" to a certainty that by 11:30 Laci was dead. It is the same mindset that would lead you or me to disbelieve someone who said that they saw Elvis Presley walking around yesterday.


They were focused on Scott, he met the 2 biggest criteria as a suspect, Spouse and Last Person reported to see Laci Alive. Not saying this is right, just that in how it works.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:32 am

anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the upcoming 6-part docuseries which begins on Tuesday, August 15 on A&E at 10pm ET:

TV doc makes case for Scott Peterson’s innocence

http://m.sfgate.com/tv/article/TV-doc-m ... o-13677667


I watched the first episode. This looks like another case of confirmation bias run wild. Doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities got it wrong but they definitely locked in waaaaay too early. The way this works is that - once they decide that Scott did it - then they ignore all exculpatory evidence. The mindset is that - if someone comes forward and says they saw Laci walking around at 11:30 a.m. - rather than investigate it, the police immediately determine that it is wrong ("you must have the day mixed up" or "you must have seen someone else who looked like her" or "you got the time wrong") because we "know" to a certainty that by 11:30 Laci was dead. It is the same mindset that would lead you or me to disbelieve someone who said that they saw Elvis Presley walking around yesterday.


They were focused on Scott, he met the 2 biggest criteria as a suspect, Spouse and Last Person reported to see Laci Alive. Not saying this is right, just that in how it works.

Anon





I agree that it makes sense to focus on him initially but they jumped to the conclusion that he did it way too fast which led them to ignore all sorts of other evidence. Even at this point, I don't see this as a case in which they have really conclusive evidence (even in the absence of the exculpatory evidence) of his guilt. So they should have followed up on the other leads all the way through. Another example of a botched investigation producing a case in which we will never know for sure exactly what happened.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:40 am

anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is a very simple question, Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing his wife and son, if not Scott Peterson, who committed the crime?

Anon


To Anon

Anon why haven't you answer my question. I know that I ask people what is criminal law even you had no clue! What it is criminal law? You mostly wanted to know what is criminal law and 2nd you couldn't understand me of what I was saying to you? The way I explain detail is this!!!

Criminal law is: Reading a novel of fiction or fantasy stories that is put into a theory? Have you ever learn anything about it? Plus DNA evidence count for criminal law as well of testing an evidence it shows that you want to support the guilt against innocent project! I support it for every case of people who work with the case. I am against self defense. Because they committed the crime of doing it, and it plan wrong. If someone plead his or her innocent it means they didn't do it, and if Jane or Clive is trying hard enough to explain their actions for it. It means they are doing there jobs for that part of theory and I prove this message to you again!!!


I really can't understand a thing you say.

Anon


To Anon

Hey Anon if you can't understand a thing I am saying to you. Then you my friend has fail education of criminal law and you never graduate from college. So you're a dropout from an education, and let face it. You don't understand me!!!


You are right on all counts!

Anon


To everyone

:jaw-dropping: Wow I am right on all counts that Anon is a troll in real life. I am :shocked: :confused: :facepalm: It like he not understanding anything. He won't care even it so sad that when Jane, Clive, Me or Bill or any per person do his or her work into this case of helping hand. Anon want to be this type of troll!!!

Image

Am I challenging Anon to a debate. It look like the man want one. He won't understand me, because that what he is. No wonder Jane was right all along he is a lemony snicket troll of this netflix.com tv show!!!

Image

I would really would, like to talk about true crime into Scott Peterson case, and that what Jane & Clive are doing for their jobs and I am looking forward of 2nd episode tomorrow on A&E channel, and I wonder oh where are the trolls going to do while they keep on complaining to watch Scott Peterson 2nd episode of freedom!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:42 am

erasmus44 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about the upcoming 6-part docuseries which begins on Tuesday, August 15 on A&E at 10pm ET:

TV doc makes case for Scott Peterson’s innocence

http://m.sfgate.com/tv/article/TV-doc-m ... o-13677667


I watched the first episode. This looks like another case of confirmation bias run wild. Doesn't necessarily mean that the authorities got it wrong but they definitely locked in waaaaay too early. The way this works is that - once they decide that Scott did it - then they ignore all exculpatory evidence. The mindset is that - if someone comes forward and says they saw Laci walking around at 11:30 a.m. - rather than investigate it, the police immediately determine that it is wrong ("you must have the day mixed up" or "you must have seen someone else who looked like her" or "you got the time wrong") because we "know" to a certainty that by 11:30 Laci was dead. It is the same mindset that would lead you or me to disbelieve someone who said that they saw Elvis Presley walking around yesterday.


They were focused on Scott, he met the 2 biggest criteria as a suspect, Spouse and Last Person reported to see Laci Alive. Not saying this is right, just that in how it works.

Anon





I agree that it makes sense to focus on him initially but they jumped to the conclusion that he did it way too fast which led them to ignore all sorts of other evidence. Even at this point, I don't see this as a case in which they have really conclusive evidence (even in the absence of the exculpatory evidence) of his guilt. So they should have followed up on the other leads all the way through. Another example of a botched investigation producing a case in which we will never know for sure exactly what happened.


I won't go as far to say they got it wrong, but do agree that right or wrong, Scott was the primary focus. I don't think there is anything unique about this. I do think they wanted to rule Scott out, and the polygraph refusal, denial of the search warrant and changing alibi did nothing to deflect the focus.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:45 am

Tom;

You can call me any insult you like, I considering the source. I can't debate someone when I cant even understand what they are saying.....

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:52 am

erasmus44 wrote:I agree that it makes sense to focus on him initially but they jumped to the conclusion that he did it way too fast which led them to ignore all sorts of other evidence. Even at this point, I don't see this as a case in which they have really conclusive evidence (even in the absence of the exculpatory evidence) of his guilt. So they should have followed up on the other leads all the way through. Another example of a botched investigation producing a case in which we will never know for sure exactly what happened.


To Erasmus

Hey Erasmus if you are my friend, would you understand me? I want to know? I take criminal law very serious even Anon doesn't understand me? Look what he said in his own word of that I got it all right in all count. I had done criminal law with innocent people through cases of support with Amanda Knox, Kirstin Lobato, Sarah Johnson, Scott Peterson, Michael Skakel & Dusty Turner and I tried to do my best of interist of criminal law and I do agree that they should refresh there head into the investigation and produce a case and free Scott Peterson even he wasn't there. The dog was muddy with a lease on with a tied bow and he was laying of tied down and it shows that part and mostly I am looking forward of 2nd episode to see what will happen next. So that I can picture my own theory of ways into criminal law. I went out of my own way of criminal law for Kirstin Lobato and she is truly wrongful convicted of murder. I hope you accept this part of half of a good friend and trust me. I do wanted to be trusted even Anon can't understand me, because I am deaf and he doesn't care for deaf people who do have a heart to believe for that person of innocent of him or her!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:10 am

anonshy wrote:Tom;

You can call me any insult you like, I considering the source. I can't debate someone when I cant even understand what they are saying.....

Anon


To Anon

Hey Anon let me explain something to you? Over the decade millions of people speak into different languages for a reason even some people can't understand that person and why? Because they don't get it, even If I go my own way. You not giving them that chance of it and it shows crystal clear that when someone tried for his or her way of criminal law. You told me I got it all count right. that is what your being a hurt man even it not the insult of it. It means you don't want to help out. Clive & Jane do want to help out for Scott Peterson and for that reason and there doing something nice and if I insult you. I am sorry but the nervious of you can't understand me? It means you just don't care because I go out of my way for a reason of innocent and a great cause of that part and if Bruce was here. I would do what best for the income of that part. Bruce want to focus on cases not debate and I know that part. In every detail I show that part into stories and it look like you will never understand what it means of different ways into criminal law and when that person of who happen to be your sister or brother look at you or a family member of that way. They will know you are lost Anon and then they will know you have no love of losing a love. I play games with trolls and I beat them. This is not an insult of criminal law. A insult is someone calling names back and forward into name calling. I didn't name call you. I just think a way of a reason and you wanted a debate.

We all give you one and you just don't care. Jane went out her way and she still do an amazing job and Clive as well. I take that and I accept it. I go out of my own way to do my best of best and it you that don't understand the mean of people who trying hard enough to explain the differences of criminal into the innocent project that what really count for me, and go ahead and complain Anon because I am trying to explain the differences and it like you don't care for it!!!

I take things very seriously ways for any per person who support criminal law and it who I am and will be the rest of my life and it like you want to have the debate because your against it, and someone with that type of attitude is someone who doesn't care, and that is you. Not me! I care for people for a lot of reason. Anne Hathaway would care for people for a lot of reason! Millions of celebrity care for a love one even if that person is begging for there innocent and that what really count!!!

I don't care if I said it like: He or She! Him or Her! I do it that way of differences and it a reason even I am deaf it shows you won't understand someone who doesn't care. I care for a great cause and a great reason for the innocent in any type of criminal law and for a great reason of that person. No matter who he or she is. I am not the problem you are the problem!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:31 am

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:Tom;

You can call me any insult you like, I considering the source. I can't debate someone when I cant even understand what they are saying.....

Anon


To Anon

Hey Anon let me explain something to you? Over the decade millions of people speak into different languages for a reason even some people can't understand that person and why? Because they don't get it, even If I go my own way. You not giving them that chance of it and it shows crystal clear that when someone tried for his or her way of criminal law. You told me I got it all count right. that is what your being a hurt man even it not the insult of it. It means you don't want to help out. Clive & Jane do want to help out for Scott Peterson and for that reason and there doing something nice and if I insult you. I am sorry but the nervious of you can't understand me? It means you just don't care because I go out of my way for a reason of innocent and a great cause of that part and if Bruce was here. I would do what best for the income of that part. Bruce want to focus on cases not debate and I know that part. In every detail I show that part into stories and it look like you will never understand what it means of different ways into criminal law and when that person of who happen to be your sister or brother look at you or a family member of that way. They will know you are lost Anon and then they will know you have no love of losing a love. I play games with trolls and I beat them. This is not an insult of criminal law. A insult is someone calling names back and forward into name calling. I didn't name call you. I just think a way of a reason and you wanted a debate.

We all give you one and you just don't care. Jane went out her way and she still do an amazing job and Clive as well. I take that and I accept it. I go out of my own way to do my best of best and it you that don't understand the mean of people who trying hard enough to explain the differences of criminal into the innocent project that what really count for me, and go ahead and complain Anon because I am trying to explain the differences and it like you don't care for it!!!

I take things very seriously ways for any per person who support criminal law and it who I am and will be the rest of my life and it like you want to have the debate because your against it, and someone with that type of attitude is someone who doesn't care, and that is you. Not me! I care for people for a lot of reason. Anne Hathaway would care for people for a lot of reason! Millions of celebrity care for a love one even if that person is begging for there innocent and that what really count!!!

I don't care if I said it like: He or She! Him or Her! I do it that way of differences and it a reason even I am deaf it shows you won't understand someone who doesn't care. I care for a great cause and a great reason for the innocent in any type of criminal law and for a great reason of that person. No matter who he or she is. I am not the problem you are the problem!!!


Again, I really don't care what you think of me personally, I''m in the very nicest way, trying not to upset or insult you, I truly can not understand what you are saying, I get parts of it but I can't make it all out, so I defer debate. For the sake of civility, please engage those who understand what you are communicating, I clearly do not, If I cant understand your points, how can I raise counter arguments?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests