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 anonshy » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:07 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:I did not think the documentary could have gotten any worse but last nights complete editorial, It has become sad to watch, and at this point serves no purpose, its all about over emotionalizing the opinions of the Petersons. "So a horse walks into a bar........" really.....Totally uncompelling.

Anon

It is very much a defence/Peterson-family PR piece, which is not to say that what is in it is not true. "PR" is also a process of sometimes getting the real story out. So are editorials - neither are a euphemism for "it's a pack of lies".

That said, the most strange part was the interviews with the jurors. I kept thinking, "Is this the jury which convicted Scott?" However, it did accurately, IMO, portray the circus around the jury shenanigans. It also portrayed the media frenzy well - even got a shot in at Nancy Grace a couple of times.

Nancy Grace got "owned" twice. Once was when she lampooned Scott's claim that he'd made only one anchor, and that the rest of the raw cement powder had gone to fill in holes from his driveway. Her lampoon didn't last long when she and a rival journalist actually visited the Covena home, and saw the powdered concrete actually there. Instead of admitting she'd been wrong, all she said was a flat, "huh," and she moved on as if nothing was wrong. Another was when she was interviewed a juror who'd been tossed from the jury over comments he'd made to witnesses on entry into the courthouse. He was telling Grace about the jury shenanigans, and she said, "Are you sure you were on the Peterson jury?" He deadpanned, "I was on it a lot longer than you were." Even she shut up after than zinger.

Also, saw Marlene from this very thread!!!! She portrayed it well that her interest was just in getting the facts (as she saw them) out, and the internet and forums like this one were natural vehicles. She had not been prepared, thought, for all the ad hominem heaped at her - ad hominem as a way of avoiding the points she was raising. She looked positively perplexed beyond belief when she reported the anonymous stuff aimed her way, including the constant retort that she was secretly in love with Scott.

Then there was the predictable coverage of "he smiled at the wrong times" or "he cried at the wrong times".

Also - the Martha Stewart debacle in the prosecution's opening statements. The prosecution had not bothered to actually watch the Martha Stewart episode in question for the morning of Dec 24. That combined with the search of Lacy's computer showing it had been searching for sunflower-themed goods on the morning of Dec 24 gave a de facto alibi to Scott. If true, Scott then had about a 5 minute window to murder Laci and clean the crime scene (all in broad daylight), so much so, so that that evening there were no forensics at all in the house.

Still - it is very clear the documentary is presenting one side of the story. Therefore it should be taken very very provisionally. It was good to see Marlene though!


I'm not really that concerned with the Martha Stewart testimony. Aside from it being a Opening Statement blunder, Scott's statement that it was Laci watching the show is not provable, all it tells us is that Scott watched the show.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:21 am

anonshy wrote:I did not think the documentary could have gotten any worse but last nights complete editorial, It has become sad to watch, and at this point serves no purpose, its all about over emotionalizing the opinions of the Petersons. "So a horse walks into a bar........" really.....Totally uncompelling.

Anon
Anonshy, you're just one of the people who prefers the Nancy Grace version. Admit it.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:29 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:I did not think the documentary could have gotten any worse but last nights complete editorial, It has become sad to watch, and at this point serves no purpose, its all about over emotionalizing the opinions of the Petersons. "So a horse walks into a bar........" really.....Totally uncompelling.

Anon
Anonshy, you're just one of the people who prefers the Nancy Grace version. Admit it.


I'm no Nancy Grace fan, can't stand her or her show, so there is nothing to admit. I have a theory that is based on the facts in this case, it is very clear and concise, does not require mass speculation or unreasonable leaps of faith. Until I hear something that moves me off of that position, there I will remain. I notice you never took the time to answer my 2 questions up-thread, I will take that as an unwillingness to engage in real dialogue or debate. I for one can see both sides of the argument, Others have more trouble with critical thinking.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:17 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:I did not think the documentary could have gotten any worse but last nights complete editorial, It has become sad to watch, and at this point serves no purpose, its all about over emotionalizing the opinions of the Petersons. "So a horse walks into a bar........" really.....Totally uncompelling.

Anon


Anonshy, you're just one of the people who prefers the Nancy Grace version. Admit it.


To Jane

Hey Jane, I did in fact watched the episode and it was excellent even I love it, even I love one of the lawyer did an amazing job of explaining the case inside the court and she describle it like the Jury was on the left side while Scott was standing on an ankle of crime of being far away and he was hurt of what the Prosecutor did was wanted to show the make believe and when the defense did the action to show the real proof of an episode of Martha Stewart and it killed the Prosecutor big time even I knew the defense was winning so well even I love juror number 5 and he went out and creme the case and said the word Not guilty and it bother you media news. GROW UP. You know I can care less if Anon hate Nancy Grace or be like her. But Jane the way I see Anon is not about Nancy Grace. It about Anon only care for guilt into sadness that what the Prosecutor did in the end killed the jury of a dead body of that baby and it hurt Scott, and that what cause the sadness and I had the guts feeling after jury elenmate some jurors. It turn out ugly and I knew the guilty verdict was coming. I truly think the case was not fair in the end and that how I see it, even the Prosecutor wanted to hurt Scott and that what cause it, even I just thought the end was bad and it died and it was over even I did enjoy the attack even I knew it should had been not guilty instead and that is what I want and it must be a done deal that way. But it was good episode and that all Jane 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:24 am

anonshy wrote:I'm not really that concerned with the Martha Stewart testimony. Aside from it being a Opening Statement blunder, Scott's statement that it was Laci watching the show is not provable, all it tells us is that Scott watched the show.

Anon

I will at this point (at the appeal level) admit that it probably doesn't amount to much. I'm still stuck back in 2004 at the fact-finding, jury trial.

Back then, reasonable doubt was still in play in Scott's favour. Of course it could have been Scott who turned on Lacy's show, as a way to establish some sort of alibi. Yet, it is equally likely that Lacy had been alive during the airing of that show, and it was she who was watching it - rather than the less likely that Scott had turned it on while scrubbing the place of ALL forensics, including cleaning up the signs themselves that a clean had taken place.

As far as the documentary is concerned - obviously presenting an innocence point of view, and very little to the contrary - the computer evidence also speaks to Lacy being alive early in the morning doing routine stuff - online shopping and that sort of thing.

That leaves a very, very narrow window for Scott to have snapped, killed his wife, scrubbed the place clean, loaded a body in the back of his truck - all in broad daylight. And remember, he had not headed directly to the Marina at SF Bay; he'd stopped at his warehouse, checked his own computer there - and supposedly transferred a body to the boat - again, all in broad daylight.

Also, acc. to the documentary Lacy had been seen at the warehouse on Dec 23 with Scott; so so much for her being unaware that he'd bought a boat.

But to repeat - all this is provisional, as it is one side; and it is unclear how any of this helps Scott for the appeal, other than to whip up public opinion in his favour.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:39 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:I'm not really that concerned with the Martha Stewart testimony. Aside from it being a Opening Statement blunder, Scott's statement that it was Laci watching the show is not provable, all it tells us is that Scott watched the show.

Anon

I will at this point (at the appeal level) admit that it probably doesn't amount to much. I'm still stuck back in 2004 at the fact-finding, jury trial.

Back then, reasonable doubt was still in play in Scott's favour. Of course it could have been Scott who turned on Lacy's show, as a way to establish some sort of alibi. Yet, it is equally likely that Lacy had been alive during the airing of that show, and it was she who was watching it - rather than the less likely that Scott had turned it on while scrubbing the place of ALL forensics, including cleaning up the signs themselves that a clean had taken place.

As far as the documentary is concerned - obviously presenting an innocence point of view, and very little to the contrary - the computer evidence also speaks to Lacy being alive early in the morning doing routine stuff - online shopping and that sort of thing.

That leaves a very, very narrow window for Scott to have snapped, killed his wife, scrubbed the place clean, loaded a body in the back of his truck - all in broad daylight. And remember, he had not headed directly to the Marina at SF Bay; he'd stopped at his warehouse, checked his own computer there - and supposedly transferred a body to the boat - again, all in broad daylight.

Also, acc. to the documentary Lacy had been seen at the warehouse on Dec 23 with Scott; so so much for her being unaware that he'd bought a boat.

But to repeat - all this is provisional, as it is one side; and it is unclear how any of this helps Scott for the appeal, other than to whip up public opinion in his favour.


again, unless you account for the internet activity, it really does not amount to much, Laci could have left tabs open in the browser, which could account for the activity. Just because it had something to do with a sunflower, does not mean it was Laci.

I don't think their had to be a big Murder Clean-Up, there are many possibilities that would leave little evidence if none at all.

Who knows what Scott told Laci about the boat, May have said it was a friends, A family members, who knows, this is not evidence that Scott told Laci or anyone else about the boat, Just that it is possible Laci had seen it there with a possible excuse.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:51 am

So truly disappointed. I was hoping for reality, instead so far, I get what I expected. SLP's family and more so his investigators, are at best deceitful and at worst deceitful.

Nevermind to mention the email that is addressed to SLP.

Nevermind that 9:48 timestamp.

Nevermind "Laci’s hairstyle".

With two more episodes, undoubtedly more misinformation by Ermoian, Dalton and Geragos will be given.

SMH
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:42 am

anonshy wrote: again, unless you account for the internet activity, it really does not amount to much, Laci could have left tabs open in the browser, which could account for the activity. Just because it had something to do with a sunflower, does not mean it was Laci.

I don't think their had to be a big Murder Clean-Up, there are many possibilities that would leave little evidence if none at all.

Who knows what Scott told Laci about the boat, May have said it was a friends, A family members, who knows, this is not evidence that Scott told Laci or anyone else about the boat, Just that it is possible Laci had seen it there with a possible excuse.

Anon

All of this could have meant a lot of things. Yet, back in 2004 it was up to the prosecution to demonstrate that these were something other than routine Lacy-activity. All of that was dealt with in the judge's charge to the jury - if there were two equally possible reasons for one particular fact (ie. the knowledge that meringue had been talked about on Martha Stewart) the jury must accept the one that is in the defence's favour. The prosecution showed nothing other than that it was possible - they led no evidence to show that it was so.

So, yes - who knows what Scott could have told Lacy about the boat. But in the absence of the prosecution showing something other than this mere possibility, in California the jury must find that Lacy had known about the boat.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:56 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:I'm not really that concerned with the Martha Stewart testimony. Aside from it being a Opening Statement blunder, Scott's statement that it was Laci watching the show is not provable, all it tells us is that Scott watched the show.

Anon

I will at this point (at the appeal level) admit that it probably doesn't amount to much. I'm still stuck back in 2004 at the fact-finding, jury trial.

Back then, reasonable doubt was still in play in Scott's favour. Of course it could have been Scott who turned on Lacy's show, as a way to establish some sort of alibi. Yet, it is equally likely that Lacy had been alive during the airing of that show, and it was she who was watching it - rather than the less likely that Scott had turned it on while scrubbing the place of ALL forensics, including cleaning up the signs themselves that a clean had taken place.

As far as the documentary is concerned - obviously presenting an innocence point of view, and very little to the contrary - the computer evidence also speaks to Lacy being alive early in the morning doing routine stuff - online shopping and that sort of thing.

That leaves a very, very narrow window for Scott to have snapped, killed his wife, scrubbed the place clean, loaded a body in the back of his truck - all in broad daylight. And remember, he had not headed directly to the Marina at SF Bay; he'd stopped at his warehouse, checked his own computer there - and supposedly transferred a body to the boat - again, all in broad daylight.

Also, acc. to the documentary Lacy had been seen at the warehouse on Dec 23 with Scott; so so much for her being unaware that he'd bought a boat.

But to repeat - all this is provisional, as it is one side; and it is unclear how any of this helps Scott for the appeal, other than to whip up public opinion in his favour.


The docuseries has covered Amber, the location of the bodies, the dyed hair and the cash, the (fictitious) multiple anchors, the perceived lack of emotion on Scott's part, the "I lost my wife" comment and has given a voice to Laci's family through old interviews even though they refused to participate. I've had family members and friends of mine (who know I am pro-innocence) upset that the series is portraying Scott in a bad light. I'm curious - what is it on the side of pro-guilt that they have left out that makes you say it's one sided?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:15 pm

lsmith510 wrote:The docuseries has covered Amber, the location of the bodies, the dyed hair and the cash, the (fictitious) multiple anchors, the perceived lack of emotion on Scott's part, the "I lost my wife" comment and has given a voice to Laci's family through old interviews even though they refused to participate. I've had family members and friends of mine (who know I am pro-innocence) upset that the series is portraying Scott in a bad light. I'm curious - what is it on the side of pro-guilt that they have left out that makes you say it's one sided?

The doc is not covering the guilt side to any sort of detail - which may be because most of those folk refused to participate.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:23 pm

Introspectre wrote:So truly disappointed. I was hoping for reality, instead so far, I get what I expected. SLP's family and more so his investigators, are at best deceitful and at worst deceitful.

Nevermind to mention the email that is addressed to SLP.

Nevermind that 9:48 timestamp.

Nevermind "Laci’s hairstyle".

With two more episodes, undoubtedly more misinformation by Ermoian, Dalton and Geragos will be given.

SMH


Deceitful...that's a stretch.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:26 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The docuseries has covered Amber, the location of the bodies, the dyed hair and the cash, the (fictitious) multiple anchors, the perceived lack of emotion on Scott's part, the "I lost my wife" comment and has given a voice to Laci's family through old interviews even though they refused to participate. I've had family members and friends of mine (who know I am pro-innocence) upset that the series is portraying Scott in a bad light. I'm curious - what is it on the side of pro-guilt that they have left out that makes you say it's one sided?

The doc is not covering the guilt side to any sort of detail - which may be because most of those folk refused to participate.


If you are referring to no interviews with anyone on the guilt side - that's exactly what happened. Everyone knew that the producers of this docuseries were also involved in the recent documentary that never got picked up by networks. They were given the opportunity to participate - but unfortunately they refused.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:34 pm

jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:12 pm

I hope that they tie it together at the end and go through the arguments on each side. But it is hard to make this entertaining and it may depart from the "pure" documentary approach. Still, I think that the "true crime" TV/movie production sector (which is becoming HUGE) should try to do this in each case rather than taking sides.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:17 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The docuseries has covered Amber, the location of the bodies, the dyed hair and the cash, the (fictitious) multiple anchors, the perceived lack of emotion on Scott's part, the "I lost my wife" comment and has given a voice to Laci's family through old interviews even though they refused to participate. I've had family members and friends of mine (who know I am pro-innocence) upset that the series is portraying Scott in a bad light. I'm curious - what is it on the side of pro-guilt that they have left out that makes you say it's one sided?

The doc is not covering the guilt side to any sort of detail - which may be because most of those folk refused to participate.


If you are referring to no interviews with anyone on the guilt side - that's exactly what happened. Everyone knew that the producers of this docuseries were also involved in the recent documentary that never got picked up by networks. They were given the opportunity to participate - but unfortunately they refused.


Well that frames it perfectly.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:39 pm

I am not sure what the "no interviews with people on the guilt side" means here. They have lots of segments with Nancy Grace, the various police investigators, a local reporter who appears to be on the guilt side.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:21 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I am not sure what the "no interviews with people on the guilt side" means here. They have lots of segments with Nancy Grace, the various police investigators, a local reporter who appears to be on the guilt side.


To Erasmus

Well Erasmus, that reporter is Gloria Gomez and she want to be famous of entertainment even she playing this silly guilt crap of trying to be famous even I truly think this whole guilt is plan blonie crap and I an't buying it. I just think Gloria want the interview and she wanted to be famous even she no famous even I teach the world and I show it to prove it. One day she will be a poor soul loser. I truly think the only way entertainment work is by me. I will show you entertainment and I done it before. I do it 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:40 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I am not sure what the "no interviews with people on the guilt side" means here. They have lots of segments with Nancy Grace, the various police investigators, a local reporter who appears to be on the guilt side.

Everytime they have Grace on, they make her look stupid. They've had police investigators on, but never really laying out a case for guilt. That one local reporter was mainly wide-eyed that she'd been thrust into the national spotlight.

"Strawberry Shortcake" makes an appearance, looking very different.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:12 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not sure what the "no interviews with people on the guilt side" means here. They have lots of segments with Nancy Grace, the various police investigators, a local reporter who appears to be on the guilt side.

Everytime they have Grace on, they make her look stupid. They've had police investigators on, but never really laying out a case for guilt. That one local reporter was mainly wide-eyed that she'd been thrust into the national spotlight.

"Strawberry Shortcake" makes an appearance, looking very different.


To Bill

Really Bill, well that case here you go of Strawberry Shortcake

Image

Now I am off 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:51 am

Bill Williams wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not sure what the "no interviews with people on the guilt side" means here. They have lots of segments with Nancy Grace, the various police investigators, a local reporter who appears to be on the guilt side.

Everytime they have Grace on, they make her look stupid. They've had police investigators on, but never really laying out a case for guilt. That one local reporter was mainly wide-eyed that she'd been thrust into the national spotlight.

"Strawberry Shortcake" makes an appearance, looking very different.


I guess it depends on what you consider an interview. The Grace snippets were just copies of her TV performance. The investigators got to explain their thinking. So far I think it is pretty fair.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:07 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I am not sure what the "no interviews with people on the guilt side" means here. They have lots of segments with Nancy Grace, the various police investigators, a local reporter who appears to be on the guilt side.

Everytime they have Grace on, they make her look stupid. They've had police investigators on, but never really laying out a case for guilt. That one local reporter was mainly wide-eyed that she'd been thrust into the national spotlight.

"Strawberry Shortcake" makes an appearance, looking very different.


I guess it depends on what you consider an interview. The Grace snippets were just copies of her TV performance. The investigators got to explain their thinking. So far I think it is pretty fair.


I would disagree, There is a obvious slant to the message and the allotment of time is not even close to equal. Its an innocence fluff piece without any direct examination of the evidence. Making of a Murderer did such a good job of making points, and then supporting those points with evidence as well as commentary, This series is the exact opposite, emotion and opinion, just like we get in this thread.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby geebee2 » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:01 pm

Nancy Grace just IS stupid. I enjoyed this recent comment on the recent episode:

"Well Nancy Grace , he really did pour the Cement!!! Eat your crow and enjoy it !!"

https://www.facebook.com/FreeScottPeter ... 9355247253
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:14 pm

anonshy wrote:I would disagree, There is a obvious slant to the message and the allotment of time is not even close to equal. Its an innocence fluff piece without any direct examination of the evidence. Making of a Murderer did such a good job of making points, and then supporting those points with evidence as well as commentary, This series is the exact opposite, emotion and opinion, just like we get in this thread.

Anon

I would, in the main, agree with this post and will leave it up to others to assess the last sentence.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:26 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:I would disagree, There is a obvious slant to the message and the allotment of time is not even close to equal. Its an innocence fluff piece without any direct examination of the evidence. Making of a Murderer did such a good job of making points, and then supporting those points with evidence as well as commentary, This series is the exact opposite, emotion and opinion, just like we get in this thread.

Anon

I would, in the main, agree with this post and will leave it up to others to assess the last sentence.


Probably should have left that last part out, sorry in advance!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:37 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, as knowing I am going to keep the support of Scott Peterson. But I am going to change something else even I know this man is on death row and I hate that part. But I want to focus of creating a special Manchester United Diamond T-shirt of on my own and I am going to focus it with these 4 on my signature and yes you can sue me! I keep a promise of these 4 and I support them even it plan bogus blonie of these 4 convicted murders and it make no sense even I truly believe they are all innocent. But Scott is fighting for death row and I am not a fan of it, even I do believe he will get his freedom anyway. I just hate it when someone is being sentence to death is not me, even I am no fan of it and talk to you soon 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:25 pm

Mark Smith, an investigator for the prosecution in this case is posting on A&E's Facebook page...and he posts lie after lie after lie. It is a perfect example of how the prosecution distorted the facts in this case. This docuseries is getting under his skin.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:52 pm

lsmith510 wrote:Mark Smith, an investigator for the prosecution in this case is posting on A&E's Facebook page...and he posts lie after lie after lie. It is a perfect example of how the prosecution distorted the facts in this case. This docuseries is getting under his skin.


The point being?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:24 pm

lsmith510 wrote:Mark Smith, an investigator for the prosecution in this case is posting on A&E's Facebook page...and he posts lie after lie after lie. It is a perfect example of how the prosecution distorted the facts in this case. This docuseries is getting under his skin.

It would be helpful if you supplied some content, rather than simply rushing to your conclusion.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:35 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Mark Smith, an investigator for the prosecution in this case is posting on A&E's Facebook page...and he posts lie after lie after lie. It is a perfect example of how the prosecution distorted the facts in this case. This docuseries is getting under his skin.

It would be helpful if you supplied some content, rather than simply rushing to your conclusion.


Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.

Mark Smith is telling one lie after another over on the A&E page. He has good reason to be worried. If an evidentiary hearing is called for by the CASC, he would most likely be called to testify about Aponte. His name is one of the ones mentioned to Aponte as being the detective who came to Norco to interview Shawn Tenbrink.

From the DMNT: Lt. Aponte said a detective called him back and arrangements were made for the detective to interview [Shawn]. Lt. Aponte believes that it was after he spoke to the detective that he listened to the recorded conversation between [Shawn] and his brother [Adam Tenbrink}. To the best of his recollection, [Shawn/Adam] talked to [Adam/Shawn] about Laci Peterson missing and [Adam] mentioned that Laci happened to walk up while Steve Todd was doing the burglary and Todd made some type of verbal threat to Laci.

Lt. Aponte did not recall the name of the detective, however when asked about the names Craig Grogan, Al Brocchini, Mark Smith and Owens, Lt. Aponte said Grogan sounded familiar. Lt. Aponte said he recalls the names [blacked out] and Steve Todd from the recorded telephone conversation. The telephone call lasted about 3-4 minutes.

The detective from MPD came down to Norco [California] Rehabilitation Center and interviewed [Shawn] within the first couple of weeks from his first call to the MPD hotline.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:59 pm

jane wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Mark Smith, an investigator for the prosecution in this case is posting on A&E's Facebook page...and he posts lie after lie after lie. It is a perfect example of how the prosecution distorted the facts in this case. This docuseries is getting under his skin.

It would be helpful if you supplied some content, rather than simply rushing to your conclusion.


Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.

Mark Smith is telling one lie after another over on the A&E page. He has good reason to be worried. If an evidentiary hearing is called for by the CASC, he would most likely be called to testify about Aponte. His name is one of the ones mentioned to Aponte as being the detective who came to Norco to interview Shawn Tenbrink.

From the DMNT: Lt. Aponte said a detective called him back and arrangements were made for the detective to interview [Shawn]. Lt. Aponte believes that it was after he spoke to the detective that he listened to the recorded conversation between [Shawn] and his brother [Adam Tenbrink}. To the best of his recollection, [Shawn/Adam] talked to [Adam/Shawn] about Laci Peterson missing and [Adam] mentioned that Laci happened to walk up while Steve Todd was doing the burglary and Todd made some type of verbal threat to Laci.

Lt. Aponte did not recall the name of the detective, however when asked about the names Craig Grogan, Al Brocchini, Mark Smith and Owens, Lt. Aponte said Grogan sounded familiar. Lt. Aponte said he recalls the names [blacked out] and Steve Todd from the recorded telephone conversation. The telephone call lasted about 3-4 minutes.

The detective from MPD came down to Norco [California] Rehabilitation Center and interviewed [Shawn] within the first couple of weeks from his first call to the MPD hotline.


The fact of the matter and what you fail to recognize, is there is no foundation for any Todd evidence, in it most reasonable expression, it is 3rd party hearsay, lacking any evidentiary value. It is garbage evidence that is not supported by any other evidence. Your reliance on this as a pillar on the innocence side speaks to the strength of your argument. Todd/Pierce where in possession of the safe and the vehicle they used was a small Toyota, there is nothing to support your claims

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:29 pm

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Shawn Tenbrink has signed a declaration confirming the conversation he had with his brother and the content of that conversation. This declaration supports the information Aponte gave in his signed statement. If Adam Tenbrink takes the 5th Amendment when he is called to testify in an evidentiary hearing, the information from both Aponte and Shawn Tenbrink will be hearsay exceptions.

From the habeas:
>>>>>>>>
Lieutenant Xavier Aponte, recorded a phone call between Steven Todd’s friend, Adam Tenbrink, and Tenbrink’s brother, Shawn. Lt. Aponte immediately called the Modesto Police Department and informed it that Adam Tenbrink told his brother that Steven Todd admitted that Laci had seen him breaking into the Medina’s home. (Exhibit 28 [Hotline Telephone Log].)
Of course, if Steven Todd saw Laci alive while he was burglarizing the Medina home on December 24, 2002, then there is reasonable doubt as to Scott’s guilt. Scott left home to go fishing at 10:08 a.m. Todd’s burglary would have been committed after the Medinas left their home at 10:35 a.m.. Diana Jackson saw evidence of the burglary at 11:40 a.m. Thus, Todd would have seen Laci alive in Modesto more than an hour after Scott left the house.
>>>>>>>>>
41. Post-conviction counsel’s investigator, Jacqi Tully, attempted to interview both Adam Tenbrink and Steven Todd. (Exh. 32 [Declaration of Jacqi Tully] at HCP-000428-29.) At one point, Adam Tenbrink agreed to speak with Ms. Tully at a later date, but then refused to come to the door. (Id. at HCP-000429.) And when Ms. Tully spoke to Steven Todd over the telephone, he was angry and said, “Fuck Scott Peterson.” (Ibid.)
42. Ms. Tully was also able to contact Shawn Tenbrink, who has confirmed he was an inmate at CDC Norco in January 2003. (Exh. 34 [Declaration of Shawn Tenbrink].) Mr. Tenbrink confirmed having a phone conversation with his brother Adam, in which the latter told him he knew who burglarized the house across the street from the Petersons. (Ibid.) Adam indicated that Laci Peterson had seen Steven Todd commit the burglary. (Ibid.) Shawn could not recall whether Adam informed him that Todd had burglarized the house with other people. (Ibid.)
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:24 pm

jane wrote:Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.


This is what I've found, and Smith's replies to Hamilton do not look, to me, like "lies".

Laci's family refused to cooperate with this show since it was blatantly obvious it was going to be a slanted show.

It IS a slanted show, and I say that as someone who is convinced Scott was not properly convicted. How is this a lie?

George Barwood he did not delete anything from his report. That witness had been interview by another detective and the report was provided to the defense. But if you looked at the actual facts of the case you would know that instead of believing the media lies.

To put Smith's comment in context, Barwood was talking about omissions from a report about a Lacy-sighting at the warehouse on the 23rd.

What am I missing? I'd really appreciate it if you would spell out what those lies are supposed to have been rather than send me over there.....
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:46 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.


This is what I've found, and Smith's replies to Hamilton do not look, to me, like "lies".

Laci's family refused to cooperate with this show since it was blatantly obvious it was going to be a slanted show.

It IS a slanted show, and I say that as someone who is convinced Scott was not properly convicted. How is this a lie?

George Barwood he did not delete anything from his report. That witness had been interview by another detective and the report was provided to the defense. But if you looked at the actual facts of the case you would know that instead of believing the media lies.

To put Smith's comment in context, Barwood was talking about omissions from a report about a Lacy-sighting at the warehouse on the 23rd.

What am I missing? I'd really appreciate it if you would spell out what those lies are supposed to have been rather than send me over there.....


It will take me some time to go back through the 175 posts on that thread. But here's an example. I don't have time to explain to you in detail what the lies are; but you know the case well enough that you should be able to spot them. Mark Smith was an investigator for the DA. He's used to throwing this stuff out and having the media print it as absolute fact:

The Medina's left their house the morning of the 24th and returned in the late afternoon on the 26th. The first thing they noticed when they arrived at their house was they could see their handtruck in the front yard near the curb and their side gate was open. Once Mr. Medina went through the gate he could see his shed open and some yard tools out and could see the back door of his house kicked open. When the burglars were caught they almost immediately confessed to the burglary and by now knew about the missing women and denied any involvement. Steve Todd said he committed the burglary on the morning of the 26th. Once he found the safe he moved it to the front porch and hid it and then went and got his friend and they came back in the friends car and got it. When they came back they saw Ted Rowlands and his media truck down at the end of the road. Ted Rowlands was not in front of the Medina House as he claim in his A&E interview and you can see from his own video he is right where Steve Todd said he was.

Todd said when they got back to the house he used the handtruck to move the safe to the car (note white car, not van) put the safe in the front seat and then left the handtruck on the grass, exactly where Mr. Medina said he found it.

And here's the proof part, all the houses on the street were searched on December 25th by Modesto Police and Volunteers. They went door to door and knocked on doors and got permission to search the houses. If nobody answered they went into the backyards and looked around anyway. The Medina house was searched on the 25th. The back door had not been kicked in, the hand truck was not in the front lawn, and the shed in the backyard was not open. Why do you think even Geragos gave up on the burglars? Because he had all this evidence and knew they weren't involved.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:09 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.


This is what I've found, and Smith's replies to Hamilton do not look, to me, like "lies".

Laci's family refused to cooperate with this show since it was blatantly obvious it was going to be a slanted show.

It IS a slanted show, and I say that as someone who is convinced Scott was not properly convicted. How is this a lie?

George Barwood he did not delete anything from his report. That witness had been interview by another detective and the report was provided to the defense. But if you looked at the actual facts of the case you would know that instead of believing the media lies.

To put Smith's comment in context, Barwood was talking about omissions from a report about a Lacy-sighting at the warehouse on the 23rd.

What am I missing? I'd really appreciate it if you would spell out what those lies are supposed to have been rather than send me over there.....


GERAGOS: Now, the, specifically do you remember going out to the warehouse sometime in May of 2000 and 3?
BROCCHINI: I, I remember going back to the warehouse. I don't remember,
GERAGOS: Somebody named Smith that, to interview a gentleman named Smith? I mean the name is Greg Smith from Coldwell Banker?
BROCCHINI: Hang on a second. I do remember.
GERAGOS: I've got the page number, if it helps. 23978?
BROCCHINI: I've got it. Go ahead.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you get a call and go out to talk to a realtor, and I apologize, it looks like June, is it? What was the date?
BROCCHINI: It was June 29th --
GERAGOS: Okay.
BROCCHINI: is when I got the,
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you speak to Mr. Smith on the phone?
BROCCHINI: Can I review my report?
GERAGOS: Sure.
BROCCHINI: Okay. Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And then did you prepare a two-page report?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And the object of this two-page report was to summarize everything that you remember Mr. Smith telling you; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: Well, you threw the word "everything" in there, but, I don't think "everything" applies, but to summarize what we said.
GERAGOS: Okay. You took notes; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: I don't remember.
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you then dictate a report?
BROCCHINI: I dictated a report.
GERAGOS: Okay. And when you dictate that report, you then review it when it comes back to you; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: Make sure that what you dictated is contained in the report, obviously; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: I dictate it, I don't, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. I mean the, once you dictate it, then somebody else presents the report back to you and then you review it and make corrections, you give it back to them and then you print it, right?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: And just as a way of operating, when you're doing a report, when you're doing reports, you try to put all the information that you gathered, whichever side it can help, whether it's the prosecution side ultimately, or the defense side, correct?
BROCCHINI: I don't, yes. Not everything.
GERAGOS: Well, I, Mr. McAllister asked you that exact question that I just read, and you said Yes at the preliminary hearing. You want to read? And that's page 834 of the preliminary hearing transcript.
BROCCHINI: Can I?
GERAGOS: Yeah. I've got it yellow highlighted.
BROCCHINI: Yeah, I said yeah.
GERAGOS: Yeah. So when you were asked: And just as a way of operating when you're doing a report, when you're doing your reports, do you try to put out all the information you gather, whichever side it may seem to help, whether it's the prosecution's side ultimately, or the defense side? And your answer was Yeah?
BROCCHINI: Yeah.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, the report that you're looking at, is that the one that's Bate number stamped at the top 22776?
BROCCHINI: No.
GERAGOS: Yes?
BROCCHINI: No. I mean I don't know. Let me look at it.
GERAGOS: Is this the same report?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I have that report right there.
GERAGOS: Okay. You put that, press this on? MR. NALJIAN: No, no.
GERAGOS: This is the same, at least on my report there's a Bates number stamp that I just showed you 22776. This is the same report we're talking about, correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. The second page. And this is the report that you dictated regarding your phone conversation; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you, I'm going to play something. Tell me if this is your dictation, starting with right here where the "Smith said." Can you, do you have that report in front of you?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. <Portion of dictation tape played>
GERAGOS: Now, it appears that you dictated all of this information that's in the green box right here in the, would have, as it was being dictated. That was your voice, was it not?
BROCCHINI: I didn't understand one word on that thing.
GERAGOS: You didn't understand anything that was being dictated?
BROCCHINI: It was too loud or too distorted. I'd have to hear it again.
GERAGOS: Okay. You want, want me to play it one more time?
BROCCHINI: No.
GERAGOS: No. I bet you don't.
BROCCHINI: No, go ahead.
GERAGOS: This portion got excised from the police report, right?
BROCCHINI: Once they were outside...
GERAGOS: Let me show you one other thing. At some point you were directed to save your notes and your tapes to turn over to the defense and to stop destroying those things; is that correct?
BROCCHINI: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And I'm going to show you something that's Bates marked 26094. Is that, are those your notes?
BROCCHINI: Yes.
GERAGOS: What's the last entry there that's yellow highlighted?
BROCCHINI: "Laci used the restroom on 12/23. Peggy."
GERAGOS: Did that indicate to you, both your notes, the phone conversation and this information, that Laci had been at the warehouse on December 23rd?
BROCCHINI: That's documented in a police report.
GERAGOS: Yeah. In your police report?
BROCCHINI: No, in, in another police report.
GERAGOS: Did you, did you direct somebody to, when you dictated this, to excise this specific information about Laci using the restroom because she was at the warehouse on 12/23 and that wouldn't fit into your theory that she hadn't been there, hadn't seen the boat? Is that why you excised it?
BROCCHINI: No.
>>>>>>
GERAGOS: Okay. Did you think it was significant or would be important information to your report to have people know that Peggy O'Donnell saw Laci at the warehouse on 12/23? Did you think that's something that would be significant since there was a hair that got you excited on a pliers at the warehouse on 12, what was the date that that pliers was recovered with the hair?
BROCCHINI: The date it was recovered?
GERAGOS: Yeah.
BROCCHINI: Was one, two,
GERAGOS: 12/26?
BROCCHINI: 12/27. The date I saw it was February 11th.
GERAGOS: Okay. So,
BROCCHINI: And that was important information. I didn't know it was Peggy McDonald (sic) but I did know we had to send somebody out there to interview Peggy, and it was done.
GERAGOS: Oh, so after you got this information you sent somebody to interview Peggy?
BROCCHINI: No, I don't know when. I just know she was interviewed.
GERAGOS: You don't know when it was done because, until I brought it up, you didn't realize that you had excised it and somebody would catch it; isn't that correct?
BROCCHINI: I don't, I don't know.
GERAGOS: Can you tell me how that particular piece of information got excised out of your police report?
BROCCHINI: I excised it.
GERAGOS: You did it?
BROCCHINI: Yes, I did, if it's not in there and it's on that tape.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the hair that was found on 12/26, you got information that Laci, who was apparently at that warehouse three days before; is that correct? Isn't that the information that you had that was excised from your report?
BROCCHINI: I had information that Laci was at the shop on 12/24. I got that information on June 29th of oh three; that's correct.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transc ... -trial.htm
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:19 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.


This is what I've found, and Smith's replies to Hamilton do not look, to me, like "lies".

Laci's family refused to cooperate with this show since it was blatantly obvious it was going to be a slanted show.

It IS a slanted show, and I say that as someone who is convinced Scott was not properly convicted. How is this a lie?

George Barwood he did not delete anything from his report. That witness had been interview by another detective and the report was provided to the defense. But if you looked at the actual facts of the case you would know that instead of believing the media lies.

To put Smith's comment in context, Barwood was talking about omissions from a report about a Lacy-sighting at the warehouse on the 23rd.

What am I missing? I'd really appreciate it if you would spell out what those lies are supposed to have been rather than send me over there.....



So far I don't see it as slanted. At any rate, they are giving prosecution speakers their say. I think that it is the evidence rather than the show which is "slanted" toward the defense.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:30 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.


This is what I've found, and Smith's replies to Hamilton do not look, to me, like "lies".

Laci's family refused to cooperate with this show since it was blatantly obvious it was going to be a slanted show.

It IS a slanted show, and I say that as someone who is convinced Scott was not properly convicted. How is this a lie?

George Barwood he did not delete anything from his report. That witness had been interview by another detective and the report was provided to the defense. But if you looked at the actual facts of the case you would know that instead of believing the media lies.

To put Smith's comment in context, Barwood was talking about omissions from a report about a Lacy-sighting at the warehouse on the 23rd.

What am I missing? I'd really appreciate it if you would spell out what those lies are supposed to have been rather than send me over there.....


The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Mark Smith Not the press that twisted it, but the defense. Like their claim that they had the smoking gun because they knew Laci was alive the morning of the 24th! Only problem is the prosecution never claimed as fact she was killed on the 23rd. Some people surmised that is when it happened, but it was never stated as a fact.

Mark Smith Samantha Hamilton the burglary was investigated and they weren't involved. They even took polygraphs which they passed. The burglary happened the morning of the 26th, after this was already a major news story. That is a fact and that is why Geragos never brought it up because he even knew the burglars weren't involved.
>>>>
Steve Todd said he committed the burglary on the morning of the 26th. Once he found the safe he moved it to the front porch and hid it and then went and got his friend and they came back in the friends car and got it. When they came back they saw Ted Rowlands and his media truck down at the end of the road. Ted Rowlands was not in front of the Medina House as he claim in his A&E interview and you can see from his own video he is right where Steve Todd said he was.

And here's the proof part, all the houses on the street were searched on December 25th by Modesto Police and Volunteers. They went door to door and knocked on doors and got permission to search the houses. If nobody answered they went into the backyards and looked around anyway. The Medina house was searched on the 25th. The back door had not been kicked in, the hand truck was not in the front lawn, and the shed in the backyard was not open.

And contrary to what the defense will tell you, there is no evidence that Laci ever went into the warehouse or ever saw the boat. In fact even though there was a restroom in Scott's warehouse, she went to a neighboring warehouse to borrow theirs.

Mark Smith Samantha Hamilton the witness did not see the burglars. The witness claims she saw three guys near a van. She did not see them breaking into the house, she never saw them with a safe, and she never saw these three people doing anything wrong. Next week the defense is going to try and claim she saw them with the safe, but that will be a lie. She says she never saw a safe.

Mark Smith Samantha Hamilton her being on the computer that morning? Where is your evidence of that? Oh yeah, you saw it on A&E. You know the part A&E left out? Whoever was on that computer was only on it for five minutes. In that five minutes they checked the weather in San Jose, they may or may no have clicked on a pop up to a Sunflower Umbrella stand, and then they logged into Scott Peterson's email account and read an email that was a response to a golf bag Scott had on E-bay. Oh yeah, but that was Laci on the computer because you saw it on A&E so it must be true. No wonder you think he's innocent!

(In another post Mark Smith tells someone that San Jose is the bay area)

Linda Smith
Mark claims the prosecution never said Scott killed Laci on the 23rd. But if you read the prosecution's opening statement - he says Sharon Rocha was the last person to talk to Laci on the 23rd. And here's a quote "The 23rd is the last day that anyone other than Scott saw Laci alive". They TRIED to make the jury believe that Laci was found in the same clothing that Laci was wearing to the salon on the 23rd but that fell apart on cross examination. And their fetal biometrist expert testified Conner died on Dec. 23rd. Fortunately Scott's lawyers were able to contact the doctor that actually created/wrote the formula that the prosecution's expert used - and he says in the habeas that the prosecution's expert misused his formula - and that Conner's date of death was probably closer to January 3rd. Sorry Mark - the prosecution was definitely originally going with the 23rd.

It was NOT "Scott's" email that was accessed that morning. Karen Servas testified that she communicated with Laci via that email account. It was THEIR email account that was accessed that morning.

Mark (and the rest of the prosecution) contend that it was Scott on the computer that morning - pretending to be Laci. Even though Scott never told police that morning that Laci had been on the computer.
And even though that's the same computer that Scott researched "secret" boat purchases and the Berkeley marina and other places with boat ramps to put a BOAT in the water. Mark says someone "may or may not" have clicked on a sunflower motif umbrella stand. Not so fast Mark. It was the prosecution's computer expert that testified that whoever was on the computer - did indeed go to a Yahoo shopping site and viewed a Gap pro fleece scarf (coincidentally it was the prosecution in their opening statement that pointed out it was LACI that wore scarves) and a sunflower motif umbrella stand. They accessed a weather site. And yes - someone searched San Jose weather. San Jose is 50 miles from the area of the bay where Scott went. 80 miles from Modesto. But the testimony is that San Jose is the FIRST zip code put in. No one asks if there is a second one. First typically means there is a second. Maybe someone accidentally put in the wrong zip code the FIRST time?

Mark wants you to believe the burglary happened on the 26th. He claims that someone searched the Medina backyard on Dec. 25th....yet not one police officer testified to this. You would think - if the prosecution was trying to convince the jury that the burglary happened on the 26th - this would be a pretty big point. The truth is no one searched the Medina backyard. Why would anyone think Laci would be in the Medina's backyard on Dec. 25th? Mark also wants you to believe that the three men in the Medina's yard and behind a van the morning of the 24th had nothing to do with the burglary. Then why were they in the Medina's yard? There actually is a notation in one of the initial police reports that Diane Jackson said she saw three men with the safe. Now maybe it was a mistake on the police officer's part that took her information initially (or maybe not) - but Diane Jackson seeing the safe is not something the defense is pulling out of thin air. Safe or no safe - if they weren't there for the burglary - who were they? Mark says the burglars said they saw the media trucks. Not true. One said he saw media trucks. The one that said that he transported all of the stolen items except the safe ON HIS BICYCLE. And that he cased the Medina home in the middle of the day on the 25th (when the street was combing with volunteers and police looking for Laci) and decided the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. He says he decided the Medinas weren't home because there was only one car in the driveway and mail in the mailbox. But it was brought out at trial that the only mail that could have been seen in the Medina's secure mailbox was the outgoing mail - that was only there from about 10:00 AM on the 24th until 10:35-10:50-ish on the 24th when the mailman came by. The other burglar - the one that was sitting in the car, in the street, likely looking around to make sure that no one was watching them....said he didn't see any media trucks.

And these are all PRIME examples of the "evidence" in this entire case. They were all distortions of the truth by the police and the prosecution. Mark wants you to think it's the defense using all the "smoke and mirrors" to distort the facts....no.....this docuseries is the first time you are seeing the facts for what they really are.

Mark Smith Linda Fanzini Ferracane the three people in the van had nothing to do with a burglary and it's possible they were simply landscapers in the area.

Mark Smith Linda Smith on your landscapers, the men were never tracked down and Diane Jackson was very unsure of everything she said. What she was sure of is she never saw them with a safe.

Mark Smith Linda Smith are you even at all familiar with the San Francisco Bay? I can't keep stating the obvious here. The Bay is directly attached to the ocean. It has tides and huge currents. Of course the body was tied down. Nobody even disputes that.

Mark Smith Mike LeBlanc and check the transcripts for Venable. I think she was off since it was Christmas Eve and I believe she testified her van was parked out front. And it was a white van just like Diane Jackson originally thought she saw before changing to brown.

Mark Smith Mike LeBlanc that info in your link is correct. It was several days later before she even thought about it again. And in fact there was a van on the street that was white and belonged to the house next door. It's very possible what she saw was three guys walking down the street heading for the park and they happened to be by the neighbors van when she saw them. That street was used by lots of people walking since the dead end provided access to the park.

Linda Smith Yep - Mark Smith - Oh I am reading what you write. And if a man's life was not hanging in the balance here - what you are writing would be downright comical. But instead - it's infuriating. There are no huge currents in the bay. Currents yes - no huge currents. They were concentrating their search on where Scott said he had been. You yourself said it was a huge area. They didn't cover all of it. And they didn't go back and search areas twice. Laci's body had evidence of having been in a very shallow area where her clothing had time to completely dry out REPEATEDLY. There is no evidence that her body was weighted down....period. She definitely was not where they were looking - and they were looking where Scott had been that day.

Diane Jackson told police what she saw IMMEDIATELY upon hearing that there had been a burglary. The men she saw weren't some men walking down the street heading to the park. Talk about a blatant lie. Two of them were standing behind the van with one door open - the other was on the Medina lawn.

Mark Smith Linda, clearly you are being delusional. All anybody has to read is "no huge currents in the bay" and they can see you're just lying and grasping at straws. Two giant river systems empty into the bay and drain a majority of the state of California. All that water flows into the Bay and out the Golden Gate yet you claim there are no huge currents in the bay. Please talk to the captain of any ship who has come through the Bay and tell them about your no current theory and listen to them laugh. Even the USS Enterprise ran aground in the bay because of the currents. Sure those currents can push an aircraft carrier around, but not a body with no weights. Just delusional is the only way to respond.

Mark Smith Steven Kile the Martha Stuart Meringue issue was a mistake on the part of the prosecution, but only because the claim was made that Meringue was not mentioned on the show on the 24th, that it was from the show on the 23rd. Well as we all know it turns out that the word Meringue was mentioned ONE time on the 24th. But the show on the 23rd was most about meringue and they were making some meringue dish. It's been so long I forget that, but it was mentioned a lot on the 23rd and ONE time on the 24th. During the interview Scott mentioned they were watching the show and they were making something with meringue. Well in the show they weren't making anything with meringue is was mentioned as something to do with left over egg whites (I think). I'm going from distant memory here. But on the 23rd they were making something with meringue. So I'm still convinced he was talking about the show on the 23rd, but the detective who reviewed the show on the 24th should have paid closer attention to hear that ONE time the word was said.



Linda Smith More ignorance or lies from Mark Smith. Here's testimony from your team's expert on water movement in the bay. Currents are very weak in the shallow area of the bay:

CHENG: Well, since we're talking about San Francisco Bay, I'm referring to one of the papers we published in 1993, talking about tidal and currents in San Francisco Bay using the model. The model has been carefully calibrated based on hundreds of measurements and so forth here. So that now the model results can be considered reliable. As I say, the paper was published in the refereed, reviewed journal. That's now gone through close scrutiny of the quality of the work, and dependable results. And based on that particular paper, we came to the general conclusion that the magnitude of tidal current is generally
proportional to the water depth.
HARRIS: So then going on to the next slide. Is this kind of showing us --
CHENG: To further follow up that particular point here, as I say again, a snapshot. Remember now, tides are moving at every instance of time. Water rises and falls. This is just only a snapshot of tidal current distribution in the Central Bay. Here we show that now the current is strongest where the water is deepest right underneath the Golden Gate, this region here. We -- actually, if you look closely, marked shipping channels here, real larger vessels should follow those, travel through that region. Current is also very strong. And as they follow into the shallow area, current is very weak. When going to -- you can see, even to navigate in the chart here so a lighter color is a reflection of water depth. It is shallower in that area here than the water -- current there is very weak.
>>>>>>
HARRIS: When we were talking about the tides -- excuse me, talking about the currents. What you were telling us is that the deeper the water the faster the current?
CHENG: That is correct.
>>>>>>
CHENG: As I have actually said, the tidal current movement, without considering the wind, is directly proportionate to the water depths. In that particular area, the current seldomly exceeds twenty centimeters per second. Usually it's
wandering around five or ten centimeters per second. The tide coming in and out twenty centimeter per second, translating to, as I mentioned, fifty centimeter per second, translates to a common terminology, one knot. Twenty centimeters means that, 0.4 knots of current.
HARRIS: I guess, put it in the further lay person's language, is that a lot of movement, very little movement?
CHENG: Very little movement.


Linda Smith Mark Smith You're still convinced that Scott was talking about the Martha Stewart show on the 23rd - because they were only making meringue cookies with the leftover meringue for the last 10 minutes of the show on the 24th? That about says it all. Not surprised. I wonder what they were making with meringue on the 23rd? Because Scott said cookies - and it was cookies on the 24th.


(Another person pointed out to Mark that the white van belonging to Amie Krigbaum was a Sieman's van and had Sieman's written in neon green letters on it.)
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:50 pm

jane wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Mark Smith, an investigator for the prosecution in this case is posting on A&E's Facebook page...and he posts lie after lie after lie. It is a perfect example of how the prosecution distorted the facts in this case. This docuseries is getting under his skin.

It would be helpful if you supplied some content, rather than simply rushing to your conclusion.


Bill, if you would like to read Mark Smith's lies for yourself, here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/AETV/
Page down to the SP Video that says New Episode tonight. The posts are replies to Samantha Hamilton.

Mark Smith is telling one lie after another over on the A&E page. He has good reason to be worried.


To Jane

Hey Jane, even if some person comes out here and he wanted to spread the lies. Or it doesn't sound that way of him being worried that way. I can care less for the lies, even let face it! I cheat, I steal, I lied. Jane you got to understand I am latino heat of Eddie Guerrero style and just a reminder Here is that video one more time!!!

Watch on youtube.com


Let Mark Smith spread his lies even I know everyone want the truth. But they can't handle the truth as well. So in my own word. Just ignore them and don't go there even if Mark want to spread the lies, let him do it over and over and over again. I can care less of his lies!!!
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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:12 pm

HARRIS: And you were saying that it was approximately from 8:40 to 8:45 that the DELL laptop home 1 was being used?

WALL: That's correct.

HARRIS: And the last item on there that you talked about was this previous exhibit that's been marked as 186?

WALL: Yes.

HARRIS: And this was an e-mail that was accessed by the defendant?

WALL: That's correct.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:13 pm

GERAGOS: And after they get their five-day forecast, they then check, they get a scarf and umbrella stand. Maybe at that point they check the e-mail that they share with Scott Peterson, is that correct, is that a reasonable possibility as to what happened?

HARRIS: Objection, calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:52 am

Lydell Wall could have been asked by the prosecutor to do an analysis to determine who actually was using the computer. He was not asked to do that. Potentially exonerating evidence; and they don't bother to investigate.

GERAGOS: They shared a website. So if she was going to check e-mail, if Laci Peterson was going to check her e-mail or check slpet.1.Com, somebody did check that e-mail; is that correct?
WALL: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Nobody sent an e-mail at that point, correct?
WALL: That would have been in response to an e-mail being sent to that location to that computer where it was viewed.
GERAGOS: On the morning of the 24th did anybody send an e-mail that you could tell?
WALL: No.
GERAGOS: All you could tell is that somebody went through all those steps that I just said, checked the weather forecast, scarf, sunflower action, the umbrella stand, they checked the e-mail and then they're off; is that correct?
WALL: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And there's nothing that would indicate who the user was, whether it was Scott or Laci, unless you did the analysis that we talked about before the break, correct?
WALL: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And if you did the analysis that we talked about before the break you could make some pretty good educated guesses as to who was actually accessing that computer, correct?
WALL: Correct.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:46 am

^
Jane, Lydell Wall explained what and how the analysis is done. It is very simple. MG asked him more than once and Wall explained that email is the priority. That morning it was an email to and for SLP and that email was a continual one that began on November (P-186). The email was not for Laci. Laci had her own email address which was not accessed that morning.

Once again, MG should have called his own computer expert to do his analysis and testify his opinion.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:14 am

lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:10 pm

jane wrote:Lydell Wall could have been asked by the prosecutor to do an analysis to determine who actually was using the computer. He was not asked to do that. Potentially exonerating evidence; and they don't bother to investigate.

GERAGOS: They shared a website. So if she was going to check e-mail, if Laci Peterson was going to check her e-mail or check slpet.1.Com, somebody did check that e-mail; is that correct?
WALL: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Nobody sent an e-mail at that point, correct?
WALL: That would have been in response to an e-mail being sent to that location to that computer where it was viewed.
GERAGOS: On the morning of the 24th did anybody send an e-mail that you could tell?
WALL: No.
GERAGOS: All you could tell is that somebody went through all those steps that I just said, checked the weather forecast, scarf, sunflower action, the umbrella stand, they checked the e-mail and then they're off; is that correct?
WALL: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And there's nothing that would indicate who the user was, whether it was Scott or Laci, unless you did the analysis that we talked about before the break, correct?
WALL: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And if you did the analysis that we talked about before the break you could make some pretty good educated guesses as to who was actually accessing that computer, correct?
WALL: Correct.



And on the flip side Jane - IF it was Scott on the computer they could have proven that was Scott on the computer. But they chose not to? Does anyone believe that the prosecution didn't ask their own expert whether or not he could tell whether it was Laci or Scott on the computer?.....because I don't.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:14 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.


I think the prosecution knew that unless the docuseries was being done by someone with a guilty bias....that they would likely make themselves look bad. I mean look how the docuseries let Buehler, Steele, Gomez and Grace talk.....and they are just putting their feet into their mouths. There is too much truth to counter their nonsense - and they know it.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:53 am

lsmith510 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.


I think the prosecution knew that unless the docuseries was being done by someone with a guilty bias....that they would likely make themselves look bad. I mean look how the docuseries let Buehler, Steele, Gomez and Grace talk.....and they are just putting their feet into their mouths. There is too much truth to counter their nonsense - and they know it.


On the contrary, They were aware of the group that was producing it and knew their was no point in taking part, this series is not a search for truth, it is an emotional hijacking that is failing miserably, people are seeing it for exactly what it is. Even the general sentiment form the public (Those not entrenched) is that it is one sided. If you look at the A&E post it is basically 3 people You Jane and one other person pushing the innocence agenda, there are way more public comments about Scott's guilt and how bad the series is slanted. Enjoy the ripples in the water while it last, this series is doing nothing to help Scott's case, and when it is over you will realize the exact position Scott is still in.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:56 am

Introspectre wrote:^
Jane, Lydell Wall explained what and how the analysis is done. It is very simple. MG asked him more than once and Wall explained that email is the priority. That morning it was an email to and for SLP and that email was a continual one that began on November (P-186). The email was not for Laci. Laci had her own email address which was not accessed that morning.

Once again, MG should have called his own computer expert to do his analysis and testify his opinion.


The bigger issue is, Everywhere where Laci was reported to have actions, There is Scott with equal or better opportunity.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:47 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.


I think the prosecution knew that unless the docuseries was being done by someone with a guilty bias....that they would likely make themselves look bad. I mean look how the docuseries let Buehler, Steele, Gomez and Grace talk.....and they are just putting their feet into their mouths. There is too much truth to counter their nonsense - and they know it.


On the contrary, They were aware of the group that was producing it and knew their was no point in taking part, this series is not a search for truth, it is an emotional hijacking that is failing miserably, people are seeing it for exactly what it is. Even the general sentiment form the public (Those not entrenched) is that it is one sided. If you look at the A&E post it is basically 3 people You Jane and one other person pushing the innocence agenda, there are way more public comments about Scott's guilt and how bad the series is slanted. Enjoy the ripples in the water while it last, this series is doing nothing to help Scott's case, and when it is over you will realize the exact position Scott is still in.

Anon


Oh contraire Anonshy. The tide is turning. We've had an unprecedented amount of people joining the pro-Scott Facebook pages. We are seeing more people speak up in Scott's defense. More people are seeing this case for what it was - a travesty of justice. And it's much more than 3 people.....as usual you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth.

I'm going to ask this one more time.....it would be nice if SOMEONE could SPECIFICALLY tell me what evidence against Scott Peterson they would have liked to have seen in this show that you are not seeing. They have covered Amber, including the phone calls and the I lost my wife comment.....they even mistakenly reported that Scott called Amber during Laci's vigil.....they covered the boat.....the location of the bodies.....Scott's supposed lack of emotion.....his avoiding the media....the anchors.....him lying to Diane Sawyer about when he told the police about Amber.....interviews with detectives, Amber, JURORS, the media. Just because they are showing that these things may not have been what they seemed - or that now suddenly it doesn't seem to add up to much - or these people aren't coming off well - doesn't make it one sided. They asked the other side to participate and they refused....yet still gave Sharon Rocha a voice.....I think it's CLEAR in this docuseries that Laci's family are no longer supporting Scott. If I remember correctly one of the first things in episode one was an old interview with Sharon Rocha saying Scott is right where he belonged. SPECIFICALLY what are they leaving out?

An "emotional hijacking". Give me a break. For 15 years we have seen Sharon Rocha on television. The Petersons have remained silent for FIFTEEN YEARS - and now that they are speaking out and showing emotion it's an emotional hijacking? Wow. Biased much? Not enough emotion - too much emotion - make up your mind.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:41 am

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.


I think the prosecution knew that unless the docuseries was being done by someone with a guilty bias....that they would likely make themselves look bad. I mean look how the docuseries let Buehler, Steele, Gomez and Grace talk.....and they are just putting their feet into their mouths. There is too much truth to counter their nonsense - and they know it.


On the contrary, They were aware of the group that was producing it and knew their was no point in taking part, this series is not a search for truth, it is an emotional hijacking that is failing miserably, people are seeing it for exactly what it is. Even the general sentiment form the public (Those not entrenched) is that it is one sided. If you look at the A&E post it is basically 3 people You Jane and one other person pushing the innocence agenda, there are way more public comments about Scott's guilt and how bad the series is slanted. Enjoy the ripples in the water while it last, this series is doing nothing to help Scott's case, and when it is over you will realize the exact position Scott is still in.

Anon


Oh contraire Anonshy. The tide is turning. We've had an unprecedented amount of people joining the pro-Scott Facebook pages. We are seeing more people speak up in Scott's defense. More people are seeing this case for what it was - a travesty of justice. And it's much more than 3 people.....as usual you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth.

I'm going to ask this one more time.....it would be nice if SOMEONE could SPECIFICALLY tell me what evidence against Scott Peterson they would have liked to have seen in this show that you are not seeing. They have covered Amber, including the phone calls and the I lost my wife comment.....they even mistakenly reported that Scott called Amber during Laci's vigil.....they covered the boat.....the location of the bodies.....Scott's supposed lack of emotion.....his avoiding the media....the anchors.....him lying to Diane Sawyer about when he told the police about Amber.....interviews with detectives, Amber, JURORS, the media. Just because they are showing that these things may not have been what they seemed - or that now suddenly it doesn't seem to add up to much - or these people aren't coming off well - doesn't make it one sided. They asked the other side to participate and they refused....yet still gave Sharon Rocha a voice.....I think it's CLEAR in this docuseries that Laci's family are no longer supporting Scott. If I remember correctly one of the first things in episode one was an old interview with Sharon Rocha saying Scott is right where he belonged. SPECIFICALLY what are they leaving out?

An "emotional hijacking". Give me a break. For 15 years we have seen Sharon Rocha on television. The Petersons have remained silent for FIFTEEN YEARS - and now that they are speaking out and showing emotion it's an emotional hijacking? Wow. Biased much? Not enough emotion - too much emotion - make up your mind.



He did lie to the Media about Amber, he did not tell the police about her!

You cant see the forest for the tree, you have lost any/ all perspective, if you cant see it, I can't help you. I have yet to see one thing in this series that indicates Scott's innocence. Just because you have been silent for 15 years does not give your opinions any more weight. Do you notice it is always Scotts sister in law, crying and speaking on behalf of others. The continue to lie about the $10,000 dollars and the multiple cell phones and ID's. They are trying to re-write history and it will not work. If I go into a bank to take out $100 and the teller hands me $10,000, I think I would just re-deposit $9900, They were all covering for Scott as they continue to do to this day, and its sad that people like you buy into it hook line and sinker (no pun intended). An honest show would not let fluff-off lies carry the day.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:32 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Oh contraire Anonshy. The tide is turning. We've had an unprecedented amount of people joining the pro-Scott Facebook pages. We are seeing more people speak up in Scott's defense. More people are seeing this case for what it was - a travesty of justice. And it's much more than 3 people.....as usual you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth.

I'm going to ask this one more time.....it would be nice if SOMEONE could SPECIFICALLY tell me what evidence against Scott Peterson they would have liked to have seen in this show that you are not seeing. They have covered Amber, including the phone calls and the I lost my wife comment.....they even mistakenly reported that Scott called Amber during Laci's vigil.....they covered the boat.....the location of the bodies.....Scott's supposed lack of emotion.....his avoiding the media....the anchors.....him lying to Diane Sawyer about when he told the police about Amber.....interviews with detectives, Amber, JURORS, the media. Just because they are showing that these things may not have been what they seemed - or that now suddenly it doesn't seem to add up to much - or these people aren't coming off well - doesn't make it one sided. They asked the other side to participate and they refused....yet still gave Sharon Rocha a voice.....I think it's CLEAR in this docuseries that Laci's family are no longer supporting Scott. If I remember correctly one of the first things in episode one was an old interview with Sharon Rocha saying Scott is right where he belonged. SPECIFICALLY what are they leaving out?

An "emotional hijacking". Give me a break. For 15 years we have seen Sharon Rocha on television. The Petersons have remained silent for FIFTEEN YEARS - and now that they are speaking out and showing emotion it's an emotional hijacking? Wow. Biased much? Not enough emotion - too much emotion - make up your mind.



He did lie to the Media about Amber, he did not tell the police about her!

You cant see the forest for the tree, you have lost any/ all perspective, if you cant see it, I can't help you. I have yet to see one thing in this series that indicates Scott's innocence. Just because you have been silent for 15 years does not give your opinions any more weight. Do you notice it is always Scotts sister in law, crying and speaking on behalf of others. The continue to lie about the $10,000 dollars and the multiple cell phones and ID's. They are trying to re-write history and it will not work. If I go into a bank to take out $100 and the teller hands me $10,000, I think I would just re-deposit $9900, They were all covering for Scott as they continue to do to this day, and its sad that people like you buy into it hook line and sinker (no pun intended). An honest show would not let fluff-off lies carry the day.

Anon


To Ismith & Anon

Are we losing the tide or are we losing the faith of through the innocent project even first Ismith I am glad that Scott family supporting and going there way to keep the support even I know 15yrs in the making and I am thrill for them, in any count. But let not argue with the media even I know the media went to attack even that the way it is even I am no fan of media news either even yes it fake news and the world can sue me!!!

Wow Anon you want bring up about Scott lies into Amber and your saying he lied to the media and you proclaim he lied to them. I love it, even you explain that you want to re-write history of saying that it won't work. I know re-write history might work or never work. Who knows? The world never knows. But if you said I go into a bank and take out $100.00 and the bank teller hand me, 10,000.00 instead. It means the bank teller gave you more money even of being charge of fraud money and the bank teller give you a scam and what you do is ask? Bank why did you gave me 10.000.00. Maybe she being nice of unknown cause that your a nice man and maybe she make a huge mistake of unknown and she could had lose her job even then if you didn't said anything and walk away with 10,000.00 and you put 9,900 you will be left with 1,000 dollar and if then the CEO banker is trying to follow the basic of the money and some how the bank must ask one of the employe did you take money to a man that cash $100.00 and you gave him, 10,000.00 and if the employe said yes. He had no choice and fired that employe why? Because employe committed a crime of fraud scam into money and the guy got lucky even he should return the money, even it seem odd? Why are you talking about money and if you want to focus on this case and now you want to screw the case and focus on money scam instead!!!

Anon can play your games, even you don't want to play along even I beat you in every game and you never reply to me, because your afraid of me and I am the master mind to prove it you! But you did wanted a debate, and then you will explain that you can't understand this and I prove you wrong 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:10 am

ScifiTom wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Oh contraire Anonshy. The tide is turning. We've had an unprecedented amount of people joining the pro-Scott Facebook pages. We are seeing more people speak up in Scott's defense. More people are seeing this case for what it was - a travesty of justice. And it's much more than 3 people.....as usual you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth.

I'm going to ask this one more time.....it would be nice if SOMEONE could SPECIFICALLY tell me what evidence against Scott Peterson they would have liked to have seen in this show that you are not seeing. They have covered Amber, including the phone calls and the I lost my wife comment.....they even mistakenly reported that Scott called Amber during Laci's vigil.....they covered the boat.....the location of the bodies.....Scott's supposed lack of emotion.....his avoiding the media....the anchors.....him lying to Diane Sawyer about when he told the police about Amber.....interviews with detectives, Amber, JURORS, the media. Just because they are showing that these things may not have been what they seemed - or that now suddenly it doesn't seem to add up to much - or these people aren't coming off well - doesn't make it one sided. They asked the other side to participate and they refused....yet still gave Sharon Rocha a voice.....I think it's CLEAR in this docuseries that Laci's family are no longer supporting Scott. If I remember correctly one of the first things in episode one was an old interview with Sharon Rocha saying Scott is right where he belonged. SPECIFICALLY what are they leaving out?

An "emotional hijacking". Give me a break. For 15 years we have seen Sharon Rocha on television. The Petersons have remained silent for FIFTEEN YEARS - and now that they are speaking out and showing emotion it's an emotional hijacking? Wow. Biased much? Not enough emotion - too much emotion - make up your mind.



He did lie to the Media about Amber, he did not tell the police about her!

You cant see the forest for the tree, you have lost any/ all perspective, if you cant see it, I can't help you. I have yet to see one thing in this series that indicates Scott's innocence. Just because you have been silent for 15 years does not give your opinions any more weight. Do you notice it is always Scotts sister in law, crying and speaking on behalf of others. The continue to lie about the $10,000 dollars and the multiple cell phones and ID's. They are trying to re-write history and it will not work. If I go into a bank to take out $100 and the teller hands me $10,000, I think I would just re-deposit $9900, They were all covering for Scott as they continue to do to this day, and its sad that people like you buy into it hook line and sinker (no pun intended). An honest show would not let fluff-off lies carry the day.

Anon


To Ismith & Anon

Are we losing the tide or are we losing the faith of through the innocent project even first Ismith I am glad that Scott family supporting and going there way to keep the support even I know 15yrs in the making and I am thrill for them, in any count. But let not argue with the media even I know the media went to attack even that the way it is even I am no fan of media news either even yes it fake news and the world can sue me!!!

Wow Anon you want bring up about Scott lies into Amber and your saying he lied to the media and you proclaim he lied to them. I love it, even you explain that you want to re-write history of saying that it won't work. I know re-write history might work or never work. Who knows? The world never knows. But if you said I go into a bank and take out $100.00 and the bank teller hand me, 10,000.00 instead. It means the bank teller gave you more money even of being charge of fraud money and the bank teller give you a scam and what you do is ask? Bank why did you gave me 10.000.00. Maybe she being nice of unknown cause that your a nice man and maybe she make a huge mistake of unknown and she could had lose her job even then if you didn't said anything and walk away with 10,000.00 and you put 9,900 you will be left with 1,000 dollar and if then the CEO banker is trying to follow the basic of the money and some how the bank must ask one of the employe did you take money to a man that cash $100.00 and you gave him, 10,000.00 and if the employe said yes. He had no choice and fired that employe why? Because employe committed a crime of fraud scam into money and the guy got lucky even he should return the money, even it seem odd? Why are you talking about money and if you want to focus on this case and now you want to screw the case and focus on money scam instead!!!

Anon can play your games, even you don't want to play along even I beat you in every game and you never reply to me, because your afraid of me and I am the master mind to prove it you! But you did wanted a debate, and then you will explain that you can't understand this and I prove you wrong again!!!


You are right Tom, you beat me again, I am no match for you! and I am afraid of you.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:41 pm

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
On the contrary, They were aware of the group that was producing it and knew their was no point in taking part, this series is not a search for truth, it is an emotional hijacking that is failing miserably, people are seeing it for exactly what it is. Even the general sentiment form the public (Those not entrenched) is that it is one sided. If you look at the A&E post it is basically 3 people You Jane and one other person pushing the innocence agenda, there are way more public comments about Scott's guilt and how bad the series is slanted. Enjoy the ripples in the water while it last, this series is doing nothing to help Scott's case, and when it is over you will realize the exact position Scott is still in.

Anon


Oh contraire Anonshy. The tide is turning. We've had an unprecedented amount of people joining the pro-Scott Facebook pages. We are seeing more people speak up in Scott's defense. More people are seeing this case for what it was - a travesty of justice. And it's much more than 3 people.....as usual you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth.

I'm going to ask this one more time.....it would be nice if SOMEONE could SPECIFICALLY tell me what evidence against Scott Peterson they would have liked to have seen in this show that you are not seeing. They have covered Amber, including the phone calls and the I lost my wife comment.....they even mistakenly reported that Scott called Amber during Laci's vigil.....they covered the boat.....the location of the bodies.....Scott's supposed lack of emotion.....his avoiding the media....the anchors.....him lying to Diane Sawyer about when he told the police about Amber.....interviews with detectives, Amber, JURORS, the media. Just because they are showing that these things may not have been what they seemed - or that now suddenly it doesn't seem to add up to much - or these people aren't coming off well - doesn't make it one sided. They asked the other side to participate and they refused....yet still gave Sharon Rocha a voice.....I think it's CLEAR in this docuseries that Laci's family are no longer supporting Scott. If I remember correctly one of the first things in episode one was an old interview with Sharon Rocha saying Scott is right where he belonged. SPECIFICALLY what are they leaving out?

An "emotional hijacking". Give me a break. For 15 years we have seen Sharon Rocha on television. The Petersons have remained silent for FIFTEEN YEARS - and now that they are speaking out and showing emotion it's an emotional hijacking? Wow. Biased much? Not enough emotion - too much emotion - make up your mind.



He did lie to the Media about Amber, he did not tell the police about her!

You cant see the forest for the tree, you have lost any/ all perspective, if you cant see it, I can't help you. I have yet to see one thing in this series that indicates Scott's innocence. Just because you have been silent for 15 years does not give your opinions any more weight. Do you notice it is always Scotts sister in law, crying and speaking on behalf of others. The continue to lie about the $10,000 dollars and the multiple cell phones and ID's. They are trying to re-write history and it will not work. If I go into a bank to take out $100 and the teller hands me $10,000, I think I would just re-deposit $9900, They were all covering for Scott as they continue to do to this day, and its sad that people like you buy into it hook line and sinker (no pun intended). An honest show would not let fluff-off lies carry the day.

Anon


And you STILL need a reading comprehension lesson. In reference to your first sentence, go back and re-read what I wrote. Or don't, it really makes no difference to me.

As for the rest of your post, as usual you don't have your facts straight.

Oh and LOL - I don't need or want your "help".
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:56 pm

We should wait for the last two episodes.
I am still on the fence as to actual guilt but I do believe that the trial evidence did not meet a properly applied BARD standard and that there may be evidence that Laci was alive after he left.
A big problem for the defense her is the creation of a plausible alternate scenario under which the bodies wind up in the Bay.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:44 pm

erasmus44 wrote:We should wait for the last two episodes.
I am still on the fence as to actual guilt but I do believe that the trial evidence did not meet a properly applied BARD standard and that there may be evidence that Laci was alive after he left.
A big problem for the defense her is the creation of a plausible alternate scenario under which the bodies wind up in the Bay.

Agreed.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:54 pm

lsmith510 wrote: I don't need or want your "help.


To Ismith

Hey Ismith even saying: I don't need or want your help to Anon, is not going to work even I know the guy is playing a game even he said to me: Tom your right I am afraid of you and you beat me to it!!!

I know Anon only believe into guilt, even we don't need this even what we need is to focus on through the many support for Scott Peterson and even the guy is trying to proclaim to play along and I had deal with trolls all the time and I play games with them even I know a lot of trolls and some of the trolls hate me, even I know so many, even I can go back in my pass tense time zone of one of my worst troll I ever had even I got sick and tired of her and I lost it and some how Aol company kick me off through of what I said to her and I went to far even I knew she got me of my anger and I need to cool my anger. But changing my name to an Aol new name. I caught back to her and I beat her back again in that game, even every since 2012 they close the aol message forum and change it into Aol Answer and we never see each other even until last Summer of 2016. My friend Cindy found her and I was shock even I always had guts if she did find me and I warn her millions of time I warn her and I took granted even I knew that she would go after me, all the time. But she never did even I sometimes my other friends in here thinks that Jackie came back and I disagree why? Because I knew it not Jackie, even I knew my troll and the troll name was Kate I had beat her millions of time and I prove it, even I know Anon want to play even he saying the word to trix me and I know what he doing, even when we get a freedom of his innocent in some way we will win and after we win. Anon will be stun and we won and it over and he have to learn it to respect 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:56 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
On the contrary, They were aware of the group that was producing it and knew their was no point in taking part, this series is not a search for truth, it is an emotional hijacking that is failing miserably, people are seeing it for exactly what it is. Even the general sentiment form the public (Those not entrenched) is that it is one sided. If you look at the A&E post it is basically 3 people You Jane and one other person pushing the innocence agenda, there are way more public comments about Scott's guilt and how bad the series is slanted. Enjoy the ripples in the water while it last, this series is doing nothing to help Scott's case, and when it is over you will realize the exact position Scott is still in.

Anon


Oh contraire Anonshy. The tide is turning. We've had an unprecedented amount of people joining the pro-Scott Facebook pages. We are seeing more people speak up in Scott's defense. More people are seeing this case for what it was - a travesty of justice. And it's much more than 3 people.....as usual you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth.

I'm going to ask this one more time.....it would be nice if SOMEONE could SPECIFICALLY tell me what evidence against Scott Peterson they would have liked to have seen in this show that you are not seeing. They have covered Amber, including the phone calls and the I lost my wife comment.....they even mistakenly reported that Scott called Amber during Laci's vigil.....they covered the boat.....the location of the bodies.....Scott's supposed lack of emotion.....his avoiding the media....the anchors.....him lying to Diane Sawyer about when he told the police about Amber.....interviews with detectives, Amber, JURORS, the media. Just because they are showing that these things may not have been what they seemed - or that now suddenly it doesn't seem to add up to much - or these people aren't coming off well - doesn't make it one sided. They asked the other side to participate and they refused....yet still gave Sharon Rocha a voice.....I think it's CLEAR in this docuseries that Laci's family are no longer supporting Scott. If I remember correctly one of the first things in episode one was an old interview with Sharon Rocha saying Scott is right where he belonged. SPECIFICALLY what are they leaving out?

An "emotional hijacking". Give me a break. For 15 years we have seen Sharon Rocha on television. The Petersons have remained silent for FIFTEEN YEARS - and now that they are speaking out and showing emotion it's an emotional hijacking? Wow. Biased much? Not enough emotion - too much emotion - make up your mind.



He did lie to the Media about Amber, he did not tell the police about her!

You cant see the forest for the tree, you have lost any/ all perspective, if you cant see it, I can't help you. I have yet to see one thing in this series that indicates Scott's innocence. Just because you have been silent for 15 years does not give your opinions any more weight. Do you notice it is always Scotts sister in law, crying and speaking on behalf of others. The continue to lie about the $10,000 dollars and the multiple cell phones and ID's. They are trying to re-write history and it will not work. If I go into a bank to take out $100 and the teller hands me $10,000, I think I would just re-deposit $9900, They were all covering for Scott as they continue to do to this day, and its sad that people like you buy into it hook line and sinker (no pun intended). An honest show would not let fluff-off lies carry the day.

Anon


And you STILL need a reading comprehension lesson. In reference to your first sentence, go back and re-read what I wrote. Or don't, it really makes no difference to me.

As for the rest of your post, as usual you don't have your facts straight.

Oh and LOL - I don't need or want your "help".


Forest for the trees. I have all my facts straight, the issue is your judgement of what constitutes a fact

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:19 pm

The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:13 am

Interview of Scott with Jodi Hernandez on Jan 26, 2003. This was a fair interview IIRC:

https://youtu.be/R5-FFx1LNMU
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:24 am

Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Episode 5 tonight - 90 minutes 10-11:30 pm ET

https://www.facebook.com/AETV/videos/10155577003889799/
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:21 am

anonshy wrote:
Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon

I am one who is mildly sympathetic with the Petersons, given that at the time of the trial their voice was completely drowned out by the Nancy Grace's of the world.

So this is where I sit.

I agree with you on a couple of things, Anon. As far as the documentary is concerned, there could at least be a similar effort to get the "other side" of the argument as vigourously represented. Also, although I am neither a seasoned judge nor a lawyer of any kind, I do appreciate that a habeas appeal is a different animal and follows differing rules than an evidentiary trial. That's about all I can say about that that is remotely intelligent, and will leave it up to you to judge if that sentence I just typed is even intelligent.

But with all that said, I'm stuck. Perhaps in confirmation bias, but stuck nonetheless. When the prosecution closed their case, on summation they admitted they did not know how she died, where she died, or when she died. Aside from a single hair-strand in those pliers, there is not a stick of tangible evidence. Geragos was entirely correct when he held up the case-file to the jury and said this, that in the case file you'll find nothing which ties Scott forensically to the crime.

Is he a jerk? A mammoth cad? A liar of the first order? 2 1/2 out of three is not bad.

But that's where I'm at. It'll do you no good calling me an ignoramus or wonder if I have reading comprehension issues. All that could possible be true. But it does not help me get unstuck.

Even though I am mildly prone to accept what I see/hear in the documentary, the obvious lack of the opposing point of view means a warning flag should go up. (Some say that is because there actually IS NO reasonable opposing point of view. Simply asserting that also does not help me where I'm stuck.)
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:53 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon

I am one who is mildly sympathetic with the Petersons, given that at the time of the trial their voice was completely drowned out by the Nancy Grace's of the world.

So this is where I sit.

I agree with you on a couple of things, Anon. As far as the documentary is concerned, there could at least be a similar effort to get the "other side" of the argument as vigourously represented. Also, although I am neither a seasoned judge nor a lawyer of any kind, I do appreciate that a habeas appeal is a different animal and follows differing rules than an evidentiary trial. That's about all I can say about that that is remotely intelligent, and will leave it up to you to judge if that sentence I just typed is even intelligent.

But with all that said, I'm stuck. Perhaps in confirmation bias, but stuck nonetheless. When the prosecution closed their case, on summation they admitted they did not know how she died, where she died, or when she died. Aside from a single hair-strand in those pliers, there is not a stick of tangible evidence. Geragos was entirely correct when he held up the case-file to the jury and said this, that in the case file you'll find nothing which ties Scott forensically to the crime.

Is he a jerk? A mammoth cad? A liar of the first order? 2 1/2 out of three is not bad.

But that's where I'm at. It'll do you no good calling me an ignoramus or wonder if I have reading comprehension issues. All that could possible be true. But it does not help me get unstuck.

Even though I am mildly prone to accept what I see/hear in the documentary, the obvious lack of the opposing point of view means a warning flag should go up. (Some say that is because there actually IS NO reasonable opposing point of view. Simply asserting that also does not help me where I'm stuck.)


Are you familiar with the religious belief of "Argument by Design", With teleological arguments - circumstantial cases are based on the lack of direct evidence and these cases are fought and won every day. There is no one else who could have authored this crime. Opportunity, Access, Potential Motive all point to one and only one person. When you look at this crime and ask 5W's, you may not like the answers but there is a valid answer for all. There is nothing in the boundaries of reason that would point to any other person. When you consider the evidence, the condition of the bodies and the extremely improbable actions required for anyone other than Scott, puts things back into perspective. I'm sick of all this Burglary nonsense all based on completely groundless 4th level hearsay. The miss-match in the reported vehicles Corolla to Van. The circular failed reasoning of the 3rd strike rule as a motive to murder. the complete lack of any need to Kidnap Laci, just drag her in the house and kill her!, the complete lack of any evidence Laci was abducted in front of her house. The detailed plan to preserve, and plant bodies hundreds of miles away, by drug dealers who could barely afford gas. There is less evidence to support a burglary than there is for Scott! If you look at the condition of the bodies and the conditions that led to their deterioration, it is completely in-line with Laci being drugged/strangled,wrapped and duck-tapped in plastic, driven to the marina in the boat, place in the lowest part of the boat and covered by a blanket, dumped in the bay with cement and nylon ropes to weigh her down. The plastic eventually pulls away, animals feed and tidal action removes Laci's limbs, after months in the water laci's torso can no longer hold the baby and he is expelled, with different masses the bodies are subjet to different forces in the water column, a larger than normal storm finds both bodies washed up on shore in the same general area where Scott dumped them on December 24th.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:49 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.


The public heard nothing but the "other side" for the past 15 years, until now. I don't recall the "other side" making any effort to include other points of view. I also don't recall any complaints about it on this board (except from people associated with SII).
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:51 pm

anonshy wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon

I am one who is mildly sympathetic with the Petersons, given that at the time of the trial their voice was completely drowned out by the Nancy Grace's of the world.

So this is where I sit.

I agree with you on a couple of things, Anon. As far as the documentary is concerned, there could at least be a similar effort to get the "other side" of the argument as vigourously represented. Also, although I am neither a seasoned judge nor a lawyer of any kind, I do appreciate that a habeas appeal is a different animal and follows differing rules than an evidentiary trial. That's about all I can say about that that is remotely intelligent, and will leave it up to you to judge if that sentence I just typed is even intelligent.

But with all that said, I'm stuck. Perhaps in confirmation bias, but stuck nonetheless. When the prosecution closed their case, on summation they admitted they did not know how she died, where she died, or when she died. Aside from a single hair-strand in those pliers, there is not a stick of tangible evidence. Geragos was entirely correct when he held up the case-file to the jury and said this, that in the case file you'll find nothing which ties Scott forensically to the crime.

Is he a jerk? A mammoth cad? A liar of the first order? 2 1/2 out of three is not bad.

But that's where I'm at. It'll do you no good calling me an ignoramus or wonder if I have reading comprehension issues. All that could possible be true. But it does not help me get unstuck.

Even though I am mildly prone to accept what I see/hear in the documentary, the obvious lack of the opposing point of view means a warning flag should go up. (Some say that is because there actually IS NO reasonable opposing point of view. Simply asserting that also does not help me where I'm stuck.)


Are you familiar with the religious belief of "Argument by Design", With teleological arguments - circumstantial cases are based on the lack of direct evidence and these cases are fought and won every day. There is no one else who could have authored this crime. Opportunity, Access, Potential Motive all point to one and only one person. When you look at this crime and ask 5W's, you may not like the answers but there is a valid answer for all. There is nothing in the boundaries of reason that would point to any other person. When you consider the evidence, the condition of the bodies and the extremely improbable actions required for anyone other than Scott, puts things back into perspective. I'm sick of all this Burglary nonsense all based on completely groundless 4th level hearsay. The miss-match in the reported vehicles Corolla to Van. The circular failed reasoning of the 3rd strike rule as a motive to murder. the complete lack of any need to Kidnap Laci, just drag her in the house and kill her!, the complete lack of any evidence Laci was abducted in front of her house. The detailed plan to preserve, and plant bodies hundreds of miles away, by drug dealers who could barely afford gas. There is less evidence to support a burglary than there is for Scott! If you look at the condition of the bodies and the conditions that led to their deterioration, it is completely in-line with Laci being drugged/strangled,wrapped and duck-tapped in plastic, driven to the marina in the boat, place in the lowest part of the boat and covered by a blanket, dumped in the bay with cement and nylon ropes to weigh her down. The plastic eventually pulls away, animals feed and tidal action removes Laci's limbs, after months in the water laci's torso can no longer hold the baby and he is expelled, with different masses the bodies are subjet to different forces in the water column, a larger than normal storm finds both bodies washed up on shore in the same general area where Scott dumped them on December 24th.

Anon
You appear to have a dog in the race, Anonshy.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:02 pm

jane wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:The following are Mark Smith's posts as well as my responses. I've included my responses to him instead of having to explain how he lied:

Thanks for the obvious and detailed work you put into this. I will read and try my best to digest.

I wish the "other side" (ie. the prosecution and sundry) could have found it within themselves to have more fully participated in the documentary. It would be easier to have put all this into context.


The public heard nothing but the "other side" for the past 15 years, until now. I don't recall the "other side" making any effort to include other points of view. I also don't recall any complaints about it on this board (except from people associated with SII).


We are talking about a show that is currently running, not what has or has not happened in the last 15 years. I also do not recall any other series on the subject? Scott's story was heard in the court room by a panel of his peers and they found him guilty, many of the Peterson's testified in the trial and the sentencing phase, don't come on here crying that they were not heard. Scott was also afforded the opportunity to testify in his own defense he declined to do so. And what do we get from this rag of a show, Phone calls between Scott and his Dad telling horse jokes, emotion based opinions from Scott's family they are held to no standard and go uncontested. Just like your arguments for innocence, this show is filled speculation that goes unchallenged as fact. Based on what I have seen and given the current status of Scott's legal position, you better plan on sticking around this forum for a long time, Scott is not going anywhere.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:03 pm

anonshy wrote:
Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon


Some of these issues were addressed at trial. Here's the explanation for the money Scott had in his possession when he was arrested:

When Scott was arrested he had over $14,000 cash with him. Following is the series of events that lead to Scott having so much cash with him. This was testified to in court and bank records confirm it to be true. Most of these exhibits were not made public because they contain personal banking information.

Scott's mom, Jackie, was going to loan John the money to buy out Scott. (Scott's interest in the Dodge Dakota) John was then going to take over the payments.

On April 8, 2003, Jackie went to Bank of America to withdraw $10,000 from an old account she rarely used. She did not know her account number, so she gave them her social security number to look it up. Unbeknownst to Jackie, she was listed on Scott and Laci's checking account as well. (Jackie had opened that account with Scott in 1991. Scott added Laci when they were married and never removed his mother.) The bank gave Jackie $10,000 from Scott's checking account. The withdrawal receipt was entered as Exhibit D8Y1.

Jackie paid Scott $8000 cash for his equity in the Dodge pick up. She paid him cash so he could better negotiate while shopping for a car.

On April 12, 2003, Scott purchased a Mercedes from Michael Griffin. He paid him with 36 $100 bills. Scott had $4400 left of the $8000 his mother had given him.

Scott discovers the $10,000 withdrawal from his bank account. He sees the withdrawal ticket signed by his mom and calls her.

Jackie then goes to Washington Mutual on April 17th and withdraws $10,000 cash out of her account. She gives the money to Scott that day to replace the money she took out of his account. She paid him in cash so that the bank would not put a hold on the funds. Scott now has roughly $14,400 in cash.

Scott is arrested the morning of April 18th . He had yet to deposit the money his mother had given him the day before.

Scott also had some "foreign currency" with him when he was arrested. The 2 bills were photographed with other items and entered as People's Exhibit 293-29. One bill is worth 50 pesos and the other is worth 20 pesos. This is roughly worth $6.40 US. This is not an unreasonable amount of pocket change for someone who had recently returned from Mexico. This exhibit is sealed due to a personal check shown in the photo.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:05 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon

I am one who is mildly sympathetic with the Petersons, given that at the time of the trial their voice was completely drowned out by the Nancy Grace's of the world.

So this is where I sit.

I agree with you on a couple of things, Anon. As far as the documentary is concerned, there could at least be a similar effort to get the "other side" of the argument as vigourously represented. Also, although I am neither a seasoned judge nor a lawyer of any kind, I do appreciate that a habeas appeal is a different animal and follows differing rules than an evidentiary trial. That's about all I can say about that that is remotely intelligent, and will leave it up to you to judge if that sentence I just typed is even intelligent.

But with all that said, I'm stuck. Perhaps in confirmation bias, but stuck nonetheless. When the prosecution closed their case, on summation they admitted they did not know how she died, where she died, or when she died. Aside from a single hair-strand in those pliers, there is not a stick of tangible evidence. Geragos was entirely correct when he held up the case-file to the jury and said this, that in the case file you'll find nothing which ties Scott forensically to the crime.

Is he a jerk? A mammoth cad? A liar of the first order? 2 1/2 out of three is not bad.

But that's where I'm at. It'll do you no good calling me an ignoramus or wonder if I have reading comprehension issues. All that could possible be true. But it does not help me get unstuck.

Even though I am mildly prone to accept what I see/hear in the documentary, the obvious lack of the opposing point of view means a warning flag should go up. (Some say that is because there actually IS NO reasonable opposing point of view. Simply asserting that also does not help me where I'm stuck.)


Are you familiar with the religious belief of "Argument by Design", With teleological arguments - circumstantial cases are based on the lack of direct evidence and these cases are fought and won every day. There is no one else who could have authored this crime. Opportunity, Access, Potential Motive all point to one and only one person. When you look at this crime and ask 5W's, you may not like the answers but there is a valid answer for all. There is nothing in the boundaries of reason that would point to any other person. When you consider the evidence, the condition of the bodies and the extremely improbable actions required for anyone other than Scott, puts things back into perspective. I'm sick of all this Burglary nonsense all based on completely groundless 4th level hearsay. The miss-match in the reported vehicles Corolla to Van. The circular failed reasoning of the 3rd strike rule as a motive to murder. the complete lack of any need to Kidnap Laci, just drag her in the house and kill her!, the complete lack of any evidence Laci was abducted in front of her house. The detailed plan to preserve, and plant bodies hundreds of miles away, by drug dealers who could barely afford gas. There is less evidence to support a burglary than there is for Scott! If you look at the condition of the bodies and the conditions that led to their deterioration, it is completely in-line with Laci being drugged/strangled,wrapped and duck-tapped in plastic, driven to the marina in the boat, place in the lowest part of the boat and covered by a blanket, dumped in the bay with cement and nylon ropes to weigh her down. The plastic eventually pulls away, animals feed and tidal action removes Laci's limbs, after months in the water laci's torso can no longer hold the baby and he is expelled, with different masses the bodies are subjet to different forces in the water column, a larger than normal storm finds both bodies washed up on shore in the same general area where Scott dumped them on December 24th.

Anon
You appear to have a dog in the race, Anonshy.


No that is you jane! - these are the supportable facts. You will never write a paragraph like that supporting Scotts Innocence, you would get laughed of the site

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:07 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Introspectre wrote:The A&E docuseries is dishing out disinformation from SLP's lawyers, which leads to misinformation from SLP's supporters.


The problem as I see it is: SP Supporters take every argument from the Appeal and Habeas and assume they are facts. In reality they are just arguments. Lawyers can argue anything they want, they tend to pile up arguments, even very weak ones to create more volume which they hope will have a cumulative effect of adding weight. Seasoned Judges, see right through these tactics, they do not operate on speculation as a foundation and give great credence to verdicts arrived at by juries. This series is basically Peterson's Lawyers presenting a list of issues and the producers going through them with mostly emotional and biased opinions by the Peterson's and their paid investigators. The opinions that the Peterson's give are not challenged in any way. Jackie says she somehow withdrew $10,000 unwittingly, well that must be true. Scott had other peoples ID so he could cheat the golf coarse and get a discount, Peterson's say so - it must be true. There is no counter argument presented to rebut anything the Peterson's say, this is why it is a waste of time to watch.

Anon


Some of these issues were addressed at trial. Here's the explanation for the money Scott had in his possession when he was arrested:

When Scott was arrested he had over $14,000 cash with him. Following is the series of events that lead to Scott having so much cash with him. This was testified to in court and bank records confirm it to be true. Most of these exhibits were not made public because they contain personal banking information.

Scott's mom, Jackie, was going to loan John the money to buy out Scott. (Scott's interest in the Dodge Dakota) John was then going to take over the payments.

On April 8, 2003, Jackie went to Bank of America to withdraw $10,000 from an old account she rarely used. She did not know her account number, so she gave them her social security number to look it up. Unbeknownst to Jackie, she was listed on Scott and Laci's checking account as well. (Jackie had opened that account with Scott in 1991. Scott added Laci when they were married and never removed his mother.) The bank gave Jackie $10,000 from Scott's checking account. The withdrawal receipt was entered as Exhibit D8Y1.

Jackie paid Scott $8000 cash for his equity in the Dodge pick up. She paid him cash so he could better negotiate while shopping for a car.

On April 12, 2003, Scott purchased a Mercedes from Michael Griffin. He paid him with 36 $100 bills. Scott had $4400 left of the $8000 his mother had given him.

Scott discovers the $10,000 withdrawal from his bank account. He sees the withdrawal ticket signed by his mom and calls her.

Jackie then goes to Washington Mutual on April 17th and withdraws $10,000 cash out of her account. She gives the money to Scott that day to replace the money she took out of his account. She paid him in cash so that the bank would not put a hold on the funds. Scott now has roughly $14,400 in cash.

Scott is arrested the morning of April 18th . He had yet to deposit the money his mother had given him the day before.

Scott also had some "foreign currency" with him when he was arrested. The 2 bills were photographed with other items and entered as People's Exhibit 293-29. One bill is worth 50 pesos and the other is worth 20 pesos. This is roughly worth $6.40 US. This is not an unreasonable amount of pocket change for someone who had recently returned from Mexico. This exhibit is sealed due to a personal check shown in the photo.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html


I have some ocean front property for sale in Arizona, are you interested?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:14 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:I am one who is mildly sympathetic with the Petersons, given that at the time of the trial their voice was completely drowned out by the Nancy Grace's of the world.

So this is where I sit.

I agree with you on a couple of things, Anon. As far as the documentary is concerned, there could at least be a similar effort to get the "other side" of the argument as vigourously represented. Also, although I am neither a seasoned judge nor a lawyer of any kind, I do appreciate that a habeas appeal is a different animal and follows differing rules than an evidentiary trial. That's about all I can say about that that is remotely intelligent, and will leave it up to you to judge if that sentence I just typed is even intelligent.

But with all that said, I'm stuck. Perhaps in confirmation bias, but stuck nonetheless. When the prosecution closed their case, on summation they admitted they did not know how she died, where she died, or when she died. Aside from a single hair-strand in those pliers, there is not a stick of tangible evidence. Geragos was entirely correct when he held up the case-file to the jury and said this, that in the case file you'll find nothing which ties Scott forensically to the crime.

Is he a jerk? A mammoth cad? A liar of the first order? 2 1/2 out of three is not bad.

But that's where I'm at. It'll do you no good calling me an ignoramus or wonder if I have reading comprehension issues. All that could possible be true. But it does not help me get unstuck.

Even though I am mildly prone to accept what I see/hear in the documentary, the obvious lack of the opposing point of view means a warning flag should go up. (Some say that is because there actually IS NO reasonable opposing point of view. Simply asserting that also does not help me where I'm stuck.)


Are you familiar with the religious belief of "Argument by Design", With teleological arguments - circumstantial cases are based on the lack of direct evidence and these cases are fought and won every day. There is no one else who could have authored this crime. Opportunity, Access, Potential Motive all point to one and only one person. When you look at this crime and ask 5W's, you may not like the answers but there is a valid answer for all. There is nothing in the boundaries of reason that would point to any other person. When you consider the evidence, the condition of the bodies and the extremely improbable actions required for anyone other than Scott, puts things back into perspective. I'm sick of all this Burglary nonsense all based on completely groundless 4th level hearsay. The miss-match in the reported vehicles Corolla to Van. The circular failed reasoning of the 3rd strike rule as a motive to murder. the complete lack of any need to Kidnap Laci, just drag her in the house and kill her!, the complete lack of any evidence Laci was abducted in front of her house. The detailed plan to preserve, and plant bodies hundreds of miles away, by drug dealers who could barely afford gas. There is less evidence to support a burglary than there is for Scott! If you look at the condition of the bodies and the conditions that led to their deterioration, it is completely in-line with Laci being drugged/strangled,wrapped and duck-tapped in plastic, driven to the marina in the boat, place in the lowest part of the boat and covered by a blanket, dumped in the bay with cement and nylon ropes to weigh her down. The plastic eventually pulls away, animals feed and tidal action removes Laci's limbs, after months in the water laci's torso can no longer hold the baby and he is expelled, with different masses the bodies are subjet to different forces in the water column, a larger than normal storm finds both bodies washed up on shore in the same general area where Scott dumped them on December 24th.

Anon
You appear to have a dog in the race, Anonshy.


No that is you jane! - these are the supportable facts. You will never write a paragraph like that supporting Scotts Innocence, you would get laughed of the site

Anon


I'll be saving my comments for people who have a sincere interest in the truth about this case. That would not include you.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:11 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:I am one who is mildly sympathetic with the Petersons, given that at the time of the trial their voice was completely drowned out by the Nancy Grace's of the world.

So this is where I sit.

I agree with you on a couple of things, Anon. As far as the documentary is concerned, there could at least be a similar effort to get the "other side" of the argument as vigourously represented. Also, although I am neither a seasoned judge nor a lawyer of any kind, I do appreciate that a habeas appeal is a different animal and follows differing rules than an evidentiary trial. That's about all I can say about that that is remotely intelligent, and will leave it up to you to judge if that sentence I just typed is even intelligent.

But with all that said, I'm stuck. Perhaps in confirmation bias, but stuck nonetheless. When the prosecution closed their case, on summation they admitted they did not know how she died, where she died, or when she died. Aside from a single hair-strand in those pliers, there is not a stick of tangible evidence. Geragos was entirely correct when he held up the case-file to the jury and said this, that in the case file you'll find nothing which ties Scott forensically to the crime.

Is he a jerk? A mammoth cad? A liar of the first order? 2 1/2 out of three is not bad.

But that's where I'm at. It'll do you no good calling me an ignoramus or wonder if I have reading comprehension issues. All that could possible be true. But it does not help me get unstuck.

Even though I am mildly prone to accept what I see/hear in the documentary, the obvious lack of the opposing point of view means a warning flag should go up. (Some say that is because there actually IS NO reasonable opposing point of view. Simply asserting that also does not help me where I'm stuck.)


Are you familiar with the religious belief of "Argument by Design", With teleological arguments - circumstantial cases are based on the lack of direct evidence and these cases are fought and won every day. There is no one else who could have authored this crime. Opportunity, Access, Potential Motive all point to one and only one person. When you look at this crime and ask 5W's, you may not like the answers but there is a valid answer for all. There is nothing in the boundaries of reason that would point to any other person. When you consider the evidence, the condition of the bodies and the extremely improbable actions required for anyone other than Scott, puts things back into perspective. I'm sick of all this Burglary nonsense all based on completely groundless 4th level hearsay. The miss-match in the reported vehicles Corolla to Van. The circular failed reasoning of the 3rd strike rule as a motive to murder. the complete lack of any need to Kidnap Laci, just drag her in the house and kill her!, the complete lack of any evidence Laci was abducted in front of her house. The detailed plan to preserve, and plant bodies hundreds of miles away, by drug dealers who could barely afford gas. There is less evidence to support a burglary than there is for Scott! If you look at the condition of the bodies and the conditions that led to their deterioration, it is completely in-line with Laci being drugged/strangled,wrapped and duck-tapped in plastic, driven to the marina in the boat, place in the lowest part of the boat and covered by a blanket, dumped in the bay with cement and nylon ropes to weigh her down. The plastic eventually pulls away, animals feed and tidal action removes Laci's limbs, after months in the water laci's torso can no longer hold the baby and he is expelled, with different masses the bodies are subjet to different forces in the water column, a larger than normal storm finds both bodies washed up on shore in the same general area where Scott dumped them on December 24th.

Anon
You appear to have a dog in the race, Anonshy.


No that is you jane! - these are the supportable facts. You will never write a paragraph like that supporting Scotts Innocence, you would get laughed of the site

Anon


I'll be saving my comments for people who have a sincere interest in the truth about this case. That would not include you.


Jane, you are only interested in one truth, the problem with your truth is its roots are in fantasy.

I dare you to put yourself out on the line like I did up-post and state for the record exactly what your theory is! It changes every day, so please enlighten the group

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:30 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, I didn't watch last night episode even I went to bed at 10pm and instead. I am going to wait until it on demand channel and I will watch it tonight, even I want to enjoy it and I hope it a good one and talk to you soon 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:15 am

Link to full Episode 5 - The Murder of Laci Peterson - The Verdict

http://www.aetv.com/shows/the-murder-of ... d=42179475
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:02 am

It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:19 am

erasmus44 wrote:It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??

In watching episode 5, I was the closest I've ever been to holding my nose and voting with the guilter-jurors - mainly on this point.

Episode 5 was flirting with the thesis that the guilt-minded jurors had "gerrymandered" things by essentially getting rid of innocence-jurors; even getting rid of the foreman during deliberations, and replacing him with Strawberry Shortcake. I'm not sure the documentary proved "gerrymandering", but they certainly made the jurors, who had unduly and unseemly celebrated their decision, look very bad.

Still, eramsus44, your challenge is a good one. It's probably this issue alone that would push me over to the dark side. I just hope I could do it "on the facts", rather than avoid doing it simply by disliking the company I'd have to keep.

BTW - Episode Six will cover the the alternate scenario. The burglars were not rocket scientists, but if that theory has any traction, despite the risks - dumping into the Bay was actually the only thing they could have done, to divert suspicion. Dumping anywhere else would have cleared Scott, so they had to risk it. (I'm not saying this is what happened.....)
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:55 am

erasmus44 wrote:It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??


For me its not just how the bodies got into the bay, it is about their condition, it tells a story in itself!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:18 pm

Bill Williams wrote:In watching episode 5, I was the closest I've ever been to holding my nose and voting with the guilter-jurors - mainly on this point.

Episode 5 was flirting with the thesis that the guilt-minded jurors had "gerrymandered" things by essentially getting rid of innocence-jurors; even getting rid of the foreman during deliberations, and replacing him with Strawberry Shortcake. I'm not sure the documentary proved "gerrymandering", but they certainly made the jurors, who had unduly and unseemly celebrated their decision, look very bad.

Still, eramsus44, your challenge is a good one. It's probably this issue alone that would push me over to the dark side. I just hope I could do it "on the facts", rather than avoid doing it simply by disliking the company I'd have to keep.

BTW - Episode Six will cover the the alternate scenario. The burglars were not rocket scientists, but if that theory has any traction, despite the risks - dumping into the Bay was actually the only thing they could have done, to divert suspicion. Dumping anywhere else would have cleared Scott, so they had to risk it. (I'm not saying this is what happened.....)


Bill, are you saying that you support what Guinasso did to get rid of the pro-innocence jurors?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:22 pm

anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??


For me its not just how the bodies got into the bay, it is about their condition, it tells a story in itself!

Anon



What story does it tell? - How long they were in the water? Whether they were weighted down? etc.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:19 pm

jane wrote:Bill, are you saying that you support what Guinasso did to get rid of the pro-innocence jurors?

Nope. This is perhaps, though, a subject where it would have been nice to hear from "the other side".

The documentary made the jurors look bad an corrupt. That may have been true , except the documentary gave no voice to "the other side".
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:58 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:Bill, are you saying that you support what Guinasso did to get rid of the pro-innocence jurors?

Nope. This is perhaps, though, a subject where it would have been nice to hear from "the other side".

The documentary made the jurors look bad an corrupt. That may have been true , except the documentary gave no voice to "the other side".


To Bill

Image

Don't tell me what happen. I haven't watch it yet. I am going to watch it tomorrow afternoon even I never got a chance to watch it last night or today. I was to busy and I am going to watch it tomorrow. I need some silence in the movie 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:38 pm

ScifiTom wrote:To Bill

Image

Don't tell me what happen. I haven't watch it yet. I am going to watch it tomorrow afternoon even I never got a chance to watch it last night or today. I was to busy and I am going to watch it tomorrow. I need some silence in the movie right now!!!

To Tom:

ABC TV is doing 2 hours on Scott Peterson tomorrow (Thurs Sept 14). Not sure the angle they are taking.... but Scott is the flavour of the week.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:21 am

erasmus44 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??


For me its not just how the bodies got into the bay, it is about their condition, it tells a story in itself!

Anon



What story does it tell? - How long they were in the water? Whether they were weighted down? etc.


I'm not here to tell you what to think, just to note that you have to account for the condition of the bodies.
- The difference in decomposition - would that have happened if Connor was apart from Laci and born alive?
- Adipocere, the conditions in which it forms and the time it takes - Lack of condition on Connor
- Lack of Animal feeding on Connor and the abundance on Laci

Theses are just things to consider when piecing together your theory, how these things occured and what efforts would have been taken to get these results.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:31 am

Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:Bill, are you saying that you support what Guinasso did to get rid of the pro-innocence jurors?

Nope. This is perhaps, though, a subject where it would have been nice to hear from "the other side".

The documentary made the jurors look bad an corrupt. That may have been true , except the documentary gave no voice to "the other side".


Another example of the one-side nature of the series is the potrayal of the Boat Tests done by the defence. They were excluded for very good reason
1- The boat that they used in the video was not the same boat Scott had used
2 - The video speaks for itself - the actor is obvious in his attempts to sink the boat, makes no effort to distribute his weigh.
3 - There is no mention that the Judge provided the opportunity for the Defense to conduct a proper experiment using the correct boat, and have both the Defense and prosecution present during the testing - The defense declined the invitation.

In the series we just hear Garagos Lament and chastise the judge, but in reality, the Judge made the right decision, none of these things made it into the episode. This is just one of many examples where the series expresses only one side of the argument.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:40 am

Bill Williams wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To Bill

Image

Don't tell me what happen. I haven't watch it yet. I am going to watch it tomorrow afternoon even I never got a chance to watch it last night or today. I was to busy and I am going to watch it tomorrow. I need some silence in the movie right now!!!

To Tom:

ABC TV is doing 2 hours on Scott Peterson tomorrow (Thurs Sept 14). Not sure the angle they are taking.... but Scott is the flavour of the week.


To Bill

Thanks Bill, and first I am going to watch episode 5 around 12pm and I will watch this tonight as well, and I haven't see it yet. But I will catch up and remember no talking in the movie. So please excuse me, I got a movie ticket to watch!!!

Image :popcorn:
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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:22 am

anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??


For me its not just how the bodies got into the bay, it is about their condition, it tells a story in itself!

Anon



What story does it tell? - How long they were in the water? Whether they were weighted down? etc.


I'm not here to tell you what to think, just to note that you have to account for the condition of the bodies.
- The difference in decomposition - would that have happened if Connor was apart from Laci and born alive?
- Adipocere, the conditions in which it forms and the time it takes - Lack of condition on Connor
- Lack of Animal feeding on Connor and the abundance on Laci

Theses are just things to consider when piecing together your theory, how these things occured and what efforts would have been taken to get these results.

Anon



So does that suggest Conor was either ejected long after Laci was submerged or was actually born on dry land and then put in the water at a later time than Laci?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:12 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:It is time for the advocates of innocence and/or reasonable doubt to start developing alternate scenarios as to how the bodies got into the Bay.
1. Laci confronted the burglars. There was a struggle and she fell and hit her head and died. They threw her in the trunk of their car and buried her somewhere. When they heard about the case and the suspicion of Scott, they dug her up and drove to the Bay and put the bodies in the Bay (with cement weights??). There are problems with this but it is not impossible. They took a risk going to the Bay with the body but the burglars were not rocket scientists. Because the bodies were in the water a long time you have to include a scenario of them weighting down the bodies (why would they do this?).
2. Anybody else have any ideas??


For me its not just how the bodies got into the bay, it is about their condition, it tells a story in itself!

Anon



What story does it tell? - How long they were in the water? Whether they were weighted down? etc.


I'm not here to tell you what to think, just to note that you have to account for the condition of the bodies.
- The difference in decomposition - would that have happened if Connor was apart from Laci and born alive?
- Adipocere, the conditions in which it forms and the time it takes - Lack of condition on Connor
- Lack of Animal feeding on Connor and the abundance on Laci

Theses are just things to consider when piecing together your theory, how these things occured and what efforts would have been taken to get these results.

Anon



So does that suggest Conor was either ejected long after Laci was submerged or was actually born on dry land and then put in the water at a later time than Laci?


You can draw your own conclusion this, Connor was very badly degraded subject to a long submersion but intact and lacking animal feeding.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:50 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, I just finish watching episode 5 of the Verdict and in my own words. I truly think 3 of the jurors were on drugs and I am saying it of those 3 jurors were aholic beer love and they love the smell of beer and I am not a beer lover even I am against it and some of those evil nasty words. I'm sorry that was wrong to say 100%

Image

What do I drink? I will be glad to tell you what I drink in real life form, and here is my drink against beer!!!

Image

But with Juror number 8 was like a yelling blah, blah, blah man even sure ok he yells. I admit that I would yell too, even I cheat, steal & lied. But if I was a juror into Scott Peterson case I would be like juror number 1 and why? Because I would vote not guilty and those 3 jurories were drunk as hell and yes they can sue me? I want it and I can care less. I truly think those are the sickness of health to those 3 jurors and in the end I love it, of Scott Peterson mother and Laci mother killed the jurors and how? Because they never wanted death. They wanted peace and if they did believe Scott innocent, it would change a lot of things. But in my own words. I truly think that Chris on the defense team was right all along and he really prove his own point of view and with the boat it was to weak even I can't be so sure of picking up a human body even the Prosecutor wrote the word weak on each ocean of land and isn't that odd jurors. Why did you go with guilt even only juror one went with not guilty and it took them 5 days and 1/2 half even we would had a hung jury, and prove to the world that Scott would had been found not guilty after all. Beside I am not a beer lover and never will be in a million years!!!

I know people drink beer for a reason and they love it, even would you want your friend to be drunk and drive a car and what if she get charge of drunk driving and that has happen a lot of time even I am against drinking beer even I won't drive, and it wrong in any way term aka crystal clear and people can hate me as long as they want too and I can care less if they want to sue me of there whiny crappy stories, even the media cause the guilt and I blame those 3 jurors of guilt with bad habbitt of drunken ways and it my final answer and yes sue 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: 4684
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:36 pm

I'm not here to tell you what to think, just to note that you have to account for the condition of the bodies.
- The difference in decomposition - would that have happened if Connor was apart from Laci and born alive?
- Adipocere, the conditions in which it forms and the time it takes - Lack of condition on Connor
- Lack of Animal feeding on Connor and the abundance on Laci

Theses are just things to consider when piecing together your theory, how these things occured and what efforts would have been taken to get these results.

Anon[/quote]



So does that suggest Conor was either ejected long after Laci was submerged or was actually born on dry land and then put in the water at a later time than Laci?[/quote]

You can draw your own conclusion this, Connor was very badly degraded subject to a long submersion but intact and lacking animal feeding.

Anon[/quote]


I understand that I can draw my own conclusion but I think it is important to have a dialogue on exactly what scenarios might have led to this result. It creates issues for both the guilt and innocence theories but it is important to spell them out and assess them.
I did this with the Servas testimony which had been regarded as contradicting later sitings of Laci and I think I developed a pretty good theory of how everything Servas said could be true but Laci could well have been out there walking the dog after Servas left.
I think we really have to do the same thing with the cadaver evidence.
In the Knox case, various advocates made a big deal out of the turning off of the cell phones and the call Amanda made to her mother. I reasoned these things through and, I think, demonstrated that, if anything, they were evidence of innocence rather than guilt because they really didn't make sense in a guilt scenario.
We have to carefully try to do the same thing with the cadaver evidence.
So - is the cadaver evidence really consistent with a scenario in which Scott throws Laci into the Bay on 12/24???
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:52 am

erasmus44 wrote:I'm not here to tell you what to think, just to note that you have to account for the condition of the bodies.
- The difference in decomposition - would that have happened if Connor was apart from Laci and born alive?
- Adipocere, the conditions in which it forms and the time it takes - Lack of condition on Connor
- Lack of Animal feeding on Connor and the abundance on Laci

Theses are just things to consider when piecing together your theory, how these things occured and what efforts would have been taken to get these results.

Anon




So does that suggest Conor was either ejected long after Laci was submerged or was actually born on dry land and then put in the water at a later time than Laci?[/quote]

You can draw your own conclusion this, Connor was very badly degraded subject to a long submersion but intact and lacking animal feeding.

Anon[/quote]


I understand that I can draw my own conclusion but I think it is important to have a dialogue on exactly what scenarios might have led to this result. It creates issues for both the guilt and innocence theories but it is important to spell them out and assess them.
I did this with the Servas testimony which had been regarded as contradicting later sitings of Laci and I think I developed a pretty good theory of how everything Servas said could be true but Laci could well have been out there walking the dog after Servas left.
I think we really have to do the same thing with the cadaver evidence.
In the Knox case, various advocates made a big deal out of the turning off of the cell phones and the call Amanda made to her mother. I reasoned these things through and, I think, demonstrated that, if anything, they were evidence of innocence rather than guilt because they really didn't make sense in a guilt scenario.
We have to carefully try to do the same thing with the cadaver evidence.
So - is the cadaver evidence really consistent with a scenario in which Scott throws Laci into the Bay on 12/24???[/quote]

I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm just trying not to be heavy handed and force my opinion on others. I think it is great that you go through things and form your own theory / Opinions.

The Adipocure "Grave Wax" is a condition where skin is transformed to a waxy/substance. This procedure requires a lack of Oxygen, Submersion in cool water & at least a few months to produce. Laci's remains had this condition. Connor was badly degraded but intact, he was also submerged for a long period of time, his skin had Grave Wax but little animal feeding, which is consistent with him being in the womb, submerged for the 4 months they were missing.

"The transformation of fats into adipocere occurs best in an environment that has high levels of moisture and an absence of oxygen, such at the bottom of a lake, and it can occur with both embalmed and untreated bodies. Adipocere formation begins within a month of death, and, in the absence of air, it can persist for centuries. An exposed, infested body or a body in a warm environment is unlikely to form deposits of adipocere.

Corpses of women, infants and overweight persons are particularly prone to adipocere transformation because they contain more body fat."

So how does this fit into the Guilty / Innocent Theories?

For innocence, it is a bit of a stumbling block. How would 2 low end burglars maintain an oxygen free submerged environment? In essence the Burglary theory is based on an abduction, a live birth, Death, Dismemberment, transportation of bodies and dumping the 2 corpses into the bay without any weights to hold them down on or around the time the bodies were discovered. If you look at the efforts that would go into this theory, it allocates these actions to Todd/Pierce:
- Abducting Laci from in front of her house without leaving a trace of evidence
- Transporting and keeping Laci at a secondary location until Connor is born
- Killing both Connor and Laci
- Removal of Laci's Head, Arms and Legs
- Preserving the bodies in a wet / Oxygen free environment for 3.5 months
- Transporting the Bodies to the bay without disturbing the remains in a way
- Wile Tod was in and out of jail and without anyone witnessing any of these activities
- All of these murderous efforts under the motivation of concealing a petty Theft
** There are even more efforts required, but these would be the main ones

For Guilt, the conditions of the bodies fit the theory of the crime, Strangulation, transport of the bodies to the bay and deposited with weights into the ocean, Connor being protected inside his mother until degradation / tidal / Storm forces see him released, same forces free Laci from her moorings, due to difference in mass the bodies float in different directions but wash up on shore in the same general area. Actions Scott would have to take:
- Strangle his wife in their home where there would be no witnesses
- Roll Laci in an airtight tarp or plastic
- Put Laci in the truck
- Pickup the boat from the warehouse
- At some point in a secluded area move the body to the boat and conceal the body
- Launch the boat
- Dump the weighted bodies
- Go Home

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:54 pm

This looks like it suggests Scott's guilt.
Laci's body must have been in the water a long time.
Thus, it would have to have been put in the water early in the investigation when they were searching the Bay. This would be risky for other perps because they might have been spotted dumping the body.
The body would also have to have been weighted down - why would other perps do this? Wouldn't they want the body to be discovered ASAP leading to an abandonment of all other lines of investigation?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:01 pm

Facts:

Conner:
No adipocere on Conner's body.
No signs of animal feeding on Conner's body.
Conner's skin intact with exception of laceration across chest.

Laci:

1. Missing head and limbs were consistent with normal disarticulation with the exception of the neck which was cut off between the 6th and 7th vertebrae.

"Disappearance of body parts followed the general sequence: bones of the hands and wrists, bones of the feet and ankles, and the mandible and cranium. The lower legs, forearms, and upper arms are the next units to separate from the body" (Haglund, WD.  Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments.  Abstract.) 

As noted by Haglund, the "less flexible joints such as those of the vertebral column, with their complex interlocking nature and ligamentous bindings," are the last to disarticulate.  In Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, the authors state:  "Finally, there is disarticulation of the entire skeleton with the exception of the vertebral column"


2. There were fractures to the 5th and 6th ribs and a portion of the 9th rib was missing at the same level as the opening in the pregnant uterus through which the baby came out.

3. Adipocere forms in a cold, moist, oxygen deficient conditions. The adipocere on Laci's body was in the breast fat covered by the bra, on the buttocks, and below the waist in areas covered by clothing.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:43 pm

jane wrote:Facts:

Conner:
No adipocere on Conner's body.
No signs of animal feeding on Conner's body.
Conner's skin intact with exception of laceration across chest.

Laci:

1. Missing head and limbs were consistent with normal disarticulation with the exception of the neck which was cut off between the 6th and 7th vertebrae.

"Disappearance of body parts followed the general sequence: bones of the hands and wrists, bones of the feet and ankles, and the mandible and cranium. The lower legs, forearms, and upper arms are the next units to separate from the body" (Haglund, WD.  Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments.  Abstract.) 

As noted by Haglund, the "less flexible joints such as those of the vertebral column, with their complex interlocking nature and ligamentous bindings," are the last to disarticulate.  In Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, the authors state:  "Finally, there is disarticulation of the entire skeleton with the exception of the vertebral column"


2. There were fractures to the 5th and 6th ribs and a portion of the 9th rib was missing at the same level as the opening in the pregnant uterus through which the baby came out.



So what kinds of scenarios does this evidence best fit into?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:53 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Facts:

Conner:
No adipocere on Conner's body.
No signs of animal feeding on Conner's body.
Conner's skin intact with exception of laceration across chest.

Laci:

1. Missing head and limbs were consistent with normal disarticulation with the exception of the neck which was cut off between the 6th and 7th vertebrae.

"Disappearance of body parts followed the general sequence: bones of the hands and wrists, bones of the feet and ankles, and the mandible and cranium. The lower legs, forearms, and upper arms are the next units to separate from the body" (Haglund, WD.  Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments.  Abstract.) 

As noted by Haglund, the "less flexible joints such as those of the vertebral column, with their complex interlocking nature and ligamentous bindings," are the last to disarticulate.  In Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, the authors state:  "Finally, there is disarticulation of the entire skeleton with the exception of the vertebral column"


2. There were fractures to the 5th and 6th ribs and a portion of the 9th rib was missing at the same level as the opening in the pregnant uterus through which the baby came out.



So what kinds of scenarios does this evidence best fit into?


I am no longer proposing scenarios. I'll leave that up to you. I will provide facts from time to time.

Here's another fact I added to my previous post:

3. Adipocere forms in a cold, moist, oxygen deficient conditions. The adipocere on Laci's body was in the breast fat covered by the bra, on the buttocks, and below the waist in areas covered by clothing.
jane
 
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:31 am

The two-hour ABC special on Scott Peterson took the line that he was guilty and obviously guilty.

At the end, though, they revealed that juror "Strawberry Shortcake" had lied on her juror-form, that she did not report that she was a single mom and had once had a complaint against her former partner's grlfriend, when S.S. herself had been pregnant.

The cops put their own initial suspicions into context. One said that he'd suspected Scott from the start, but not to the extent that he was sure Scott had been guilty, or to the extent that he was not open to other suspects.

The show, though, actually made a better case than the A&E special, that the reason why Scott had shunned the cameras in the first few days of the search, was that he wanted to avoid Amber Frey getting sight of him. Obviously that wasn't going to work, but it is an explanation for that bizarre behaviour on his part.
    “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: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:02 pm

The condition of the cadavers is very confusing. I guess that the condition could be explained by some other cold, moist oxygen deficient situation (a freezer, covered under wrapping in a moist area??) and then we have Conor's condition which is very inconsistent with Laci's.
Any estimate as to how long they would have to be in a cold moist oxygen deprived condition? That might give us a handle to get a grip on when the bodies went in the water.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:32 pm

erasmus44 wrote:The condition of the cadavers is very confusing. I guess that the condition could be explained by some other cold, moist oxygen deficient situation (a freezer, covered under wrapping in a moist area??) and then we have Conor's condition which is very inconsistent with Laci's.
Any estimate as to how long they would have to be in a cold moist oxygen deprived condition? That might give us a handle to get a grip on when the bodies went in the water.


From the testimony of Alison Galloway, the forensic anthropologist:

GALLOWAY: Minimum of -- a minimum of three months, and then a maximum of six months. That was based upon the presence of still red tissue deep in the muscles.
HARRIS: Let me go back through this. So from looking at the adipocere, you come up, in your experience as a forensic anthropologist of a range of three to six --
GALLOWAY: Three to six months.
HARRIS: And you indicated, that there is still some -- did you say redness?
GALLOWAY: There is sill some redness. It's hemoglobin present.
HARRIS: And where was this present at?
GALLOWAY: This is present very deep in the muscle tissues. So it's well protected from the marine environment.
HARRIS: So after you conduct this examination of Laci Peterson, what do you ultimately conclude and share with the Contra Costa Coroner's Office as to how long Miss Peterson had been in the marine environment?
GALLOWAY: My conclusion was, Miss Peterson had been in the water from three to six months.
HARRIS: Did you also look at the -- as you described it, Individual B, the remains of Conner Peterson

*************
GERAGOS: And that's -- and that produced an average for you of -- I believe in your report, you wrote that that gave you an age assessment, using the Sherwood, that placed Conner at 35 to 36 weeks; is that correct?
GALLOWAY: 33 to 38 weeks once what I gave the interval.
GERAGOS: Looks like what you did was, if I understand correct, you took those three measurements. And the three measurements, once again, were 35.6, 35.1, 36.3. You averaged those three, came to 35 to 36, right?
GALLOWAY: Yes.
GERAGOS: And then you just threw an -- I won't say just threw. You put a two-week variation on it; is that correct?
GALLOWAY: Yes. That is out of the study. They said one standard error on this was two weeks. Two standard errors includes 95 percent of the population as four weeks plus or minus.
GERAGOS: So if I understand correctly, when you actual did the measurements the baby came back at all three measurements a -- between 35 to 36. And then when you came to your conclusion, what you did is, you put a two-week window or kind of a cushion on either side of the 35 to 36?
GALLOWAY: That's actually the protocol for the study.
GERAGOS: So am I correct, you went this -- 35 to 36 on the measurements?
GALLOWAY: Yes.
GERAGOS: Put two weeks on 36 to get you to 38, put two weeks on the 35 to get you to 33?
GALLOWAY: That's correct.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:41 pm

So the bodies were found on April 13 and 14. They probably had not been out of the water for very long when they were found or they would have been found earlier.
So this suggests that Laci went in the Bay (or into some other cold moist oxygen deprived environment) no later than January 13.
By January 13, I assume it was widely known that the police were looking at Scott on the theory that he dumped Laci in the Bay.
But it was also the case that it would have been risky to go to the Bay and dump the body because of the search efforts being undertaken.
And then you have the issue of weighting down the body. Why would other perps do this? Why not just put the bodies in the Bay so they could be discovered and immediately focus the whole case on Scott rather than run the risk that the weighting down of the bodies would mean they would never be discovered?
It seems to be very hard to come up with a scenario of an alternate perp dumping Laci in the Bay, weighted down, prior to January 13.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:03 am

erasmus44 wrote:So the bodies were found on April 13 and 14. They probably had not been out of the water for very long when they were found or they would have been found earlier.
So this suggests that Laci went in the Bay (or into some other cold moist oxygen deprived environment) no later than January 13.
By January 13, I assume it was widely known that the police were looking at Scott on the theory that he dumped Laci in the Bay.
But it was also the case that it would have been risky to go to the Bay and dump the body because of the search efforts being undertaken.
And then you have the issue of weighting down the body. Why would other perps do this? Why not just put the bodies in the Bay so they could be discovered and immediately focus the whole case on Scott rather than run the risk that the weighting down of the bodies would mean they would never be discovered?
It seems to be very hard to come up with a scenario of an alternate perp dumping Laci in the Bay, weighted down, prior to January 13.


Dates of the bay searches before the bodies were found: December 28, 30; Jan 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 18, 24, 28; Feb 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 20, 21, 23, 26; March 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 29

The searches took place during daylight hours.

Comment by Jon Nordby, a director of the AAFS: "I would be puzzled by the fact that the mother would be in such an advanced state of decay and the baby would be more well-preserved and have that tape," agrees Nordby. "I would start to suspect that the two didn't go in the water together."
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:42 am

erasmus44 wrote:This looks like it suggests Scott's guilt.
Laci's body must have been in the water a long time.
Thus, it would have to have been put in the water early in the investigation when they were searching the Bay. This would be risky for other perps because they might have been spotted dumping the body.
The body would also have to have been weighted down - why would other perps do this? Wouldn't they want the body to be discovered ASAP leading to an abandonment of all other lines of investigation?


Rational thoughts would cast great doubt on petty criminals engaging in these types of behaviour. They would not be worried about framing Scott, and taking the chance of carting bodies around in the trunk in the location the police were monitoring



Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:44 am

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Facts:

Conner:
No adipocere on Conner's body.
No signs of animal feeding on Conner's body.
Conner's skin intact with exception of laceration across chest.

Laci:

1. Missing head and limbs were consistent with normal disarticulation with the exception of the neck which was cut off between the 6th and 7th vertebrae.

"Disappearance of body parts followed the general sequence: bones of the hands and wrists, bones of the feet and ankles, and the mandible and cranium. The lower legs, forearms, and upper arms are the next units to separate from the body" (Haglund, WD.  Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments.  Abstract.) 

As noted by Haglund, the "less flexible joints such as those of the vertebral column, with their complex interlocking nature and ligamentous bindings," are the last to disarticulate.  In Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, the authors state:  "Finally, there is disarticulation of the entire skeleton with the exception of the vertebral column"


2. There were fractures to the 5th and 6th ribs and a portion of the 9th rib was missing at the same level as the opening in the pregnant uterus through which the baby came out.



So what kinds of scenarios does this evidence best fit into?


I am no longer proposing scenarios. I'll leave that up to you. I will provide facts from time to time.

Here's another fact I added to my previous post:

3. Adipocere forms in a cold, moist, oxygen deficient conditions. The adipocere on Laci's body was in the breast fat covered by the bra, on the buttocks, and below the waist in areas covered by clothing.
jane
 


We all know why your not proposing theories, that is very obvious, if your not here to discuss and debate then get lost!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:47 am

erasmus44 wrote:The condition of the cadavers is very confusing. I guess that the condition could be explained by some other cold, moist oxygen deficient situation (a freezer, covered under wrapping in a moist area??) and then we have Conor's condition which is very inconsistent with Laci's.
Any estimate as to how long they would have to be in a cold moist oxygen deprived condition? That might give us a handle to get a grip on when the bodies went in the water.


Freezer would not allow for grave wax and would have delayed decomposition

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:50 am

jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Facts:

Conner:
No adipocere on Conner's body.
No signs of animal feeding on Conner's body.
Conner's skin intact with exception of laceration across chest.

Laci:

1. Missing head and limbs were consistent with normal disarticulation with the exception of the neck which was cut off between the 6th and 7th vertebrae.

"Disappearance of body parts followed the general sequence: bones of the hands and wrists, bones of the feet and ankles, and the mandible and cranium. The lower legs, forearms, and upper arms are the next units to separate from the body" (Haglund, WD.  Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments.  Abstract.) 

As noted by Haglund, the "less flexible joints such as those of the vertebral column, with their complex interlocking nature and ligamentous bindings," are the last to disarticulate.  In Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, the authors state:  "Finally, there is disarticulation of the entire skeleton with the exception of the vertebral column"


2. There were fractures to the 5th and 6th ribs and a portion of the 9th rib was missing at the same level as the opening in the pregnant uterus through which the baby came out.



So what kinds of scenarios does this evidence best fit into?


I am no longer proposing scenarios. I'll leave that up to you. I will provide facts from time to time.

Here's another fact I added to my previous post:

3. Adipocere forms in a cold, moist, oxygen deficient conditions. The adipocere on Laci's body was in the breast fat covered by the bra, on the buttocks, and below the waist in areas covered by clothing.
jane
 


On a secondary note, the bra and clothing were the only areas were skin remained, the rest was eaten away, so this is the exact reason adipocre is only in those locations, it requires skin!
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
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 2 guests