Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In his notes that were missed while scanning and not presented to the jury he does. Plus the gate was open that day so don't you think Mackenzie would have come out to protect the yard as per his usual behavior?
I do not believe the gate was open after Karen Servas closed it. When you say "his notes," I assume you are actually referring to Officer Callahan's notes of what Graybill told him? If so, I see that as being an error in how Officer Callahan received information from Graybill, and that he what he actually heard Graybill say was what he said during trial, which was that OTHER times the gate had been open and McKenzie had barked.
I will yield to this though...what a mess by the Modesto PD, Prosecution, and Defense. Do I think it amounts to an unfair trial because Graybill says he was waiting to be asked specific questions after he already inserted many other details? No.
I believe he's guilty but this whole case that put Scott in jail is based on maybe's.
Ok, I've seen your framework for what you refer to as reasonable doubt. Now, how about your version of, "If he's guilty..."? If he killed Laci, how would you reconcile the discrepancies of everything from Amy Rocha on the 23rd, to Graybill at 10:30 AM+, and even to three (3) dark-skinned (Hispanic or Asian) men with a dolly by a van at 11:40 AM?
Switch from Defense to Prosecution for a moment and take a jab at this.
Then you have to reconcile Amie Krigbaum who insists she knows all the distinctive barks of the neighbors' dogs, including McKenzie. She claims to have heard McKenzie as early as 10:30. I have doubted this but am now reconsidering.
If Graybill did not see an open gate at the Peterson house, as per the absence of this fact in his testimony, and he arrives, McKenzie barks which is what Amie Krigbaum hears, then Karen Servas' time still applies, but McKenzie IS there and Laci is not.
What is the Defense theory on how the leash got on McKenzie and the gate was opened before 10:18? Would Laci leave the gate open with McKenzie free to roam while she ran inside to powder her nose? That would be a real stretch.
I agree that we have to consider what all of the witnesses have reported.
Graybill's notes show that the gate was open and the dog did not bark on that day.
The dog was said to have been out on numerous occasions. Maybe the gate didn't latch properly or maybe Laci and Scott were careless. It's very plausible to me that she could have leashed up the dog before running back inside to use the bathroom or grab a drink of water.
I will yield to this though...what a mess by the Modesto PD, Prosecution, and Defense. Do I think it amounts to an unfair trial because Graybill says he was waiting to be asked specific questions after he already inserted many other details? No.
It was a mess for so many reasons. I do think the mess warrants a second look. Not just because of Graybill but due to a number of issues.
Especially when you take into the consideration the numerous sightings of Laci and her dog in her neighborhood during the time after Servas returned the dog to the yard.
None of those witnesses saw Laci and McKenzie. They saw another pregnant or heavy-set woman walking a dog which looked similar, and they overlaid the details of Laci's disappearance which were brought out in the news onto their own personal experiences.
You have to alter numerous details to make this fit an innocent theory, i.e. what she was wearing, timelines, the burglary, van sightings (when there were probably just as many vans as pregnant women in the area), why the dog was found roaming with a leash before and still had a leash after, and Graybill not testifying fully to what he saw or heard.
With all these variations, I almost hope Peterson gets a new trial. It sure would be worthwhile to watch.
None of those witnesses saw Laci and McKenzie. They saw another pregnant or heavy-set woman walking a dog which looked similar, and they overlaid the details of Laci's disappearance which were brought out in the news onto their own personal experiences.
Totally disagree.
Quote:
You have to alter numerous details to make this fit an innocent theory, i.e. what she was wearing, timelines, the burglary, van sightings (when there were probably just as many vans as pregnant women in the area), why the dog was found roaming with a leash before and still had a leash after, and Graybill not testifying fully to what he saw or heard.
With all these variations, I almost hope Peterson gets a new trial. It sure would be worthwhile to watch.
They all reported a very pregnant women matching Laci's description wearing a white blouse and black pants walking a golden retriever in the area where Laci lives and disappeared from. How people can so easily discount all of those sightings defies reason.
No matter what you think of Scott Peterson, he deserves a fair trial.
-Lt. Aponte facilitated a conversation between a MPD detective and Shawn Tenbrink. Tenbrink denied any knowledge about Laci's disappearance and wasn't very cooperative.
-Defense investigator Jensen located Adam Tenbrink who told him that he and Todd were friends and that Todd approached him (Adam) on the evening of Dec. 24, 2002 about participating in a burglary.
-Defense investigator Jensen made notes about the tip in June 25, 2004 (the trial began June 1, 2004)
If "reasonable doubt" theorists think the information received from suspects, Todd and Pearce, about when they committed the burglary, should be thrown out, then it doesn't make sense to place any weight on information coming from A. Tenbrink.
In fact, it should feel like a punch in the gut to read, "Todd approached him on the evening of Dec. 24 about participating in a burglary," which was after Laci went missing.
The question of the burglary having any connection to Laci's disappearance should be put to rest.
Last edited by ohyesidid; 09-20-2017 at 02:10 PM..
I thought it was interesting on the A&E show that Scotts dad said when he visits him Scott doesn't want to talk about the case. People that are innocent are always trying to find a way to get a retrial. Just made me wonder....
Reminds me of when Sharon Rocha confronted Scott about a possible change in Laci's due date, or when Scott repeatedly told Amber Frey there were things he couldn't comment on, or when he buttoned up following difficult questions during media interviews. When he was caught either being inconsistent or lying, he would shut up and turn off.
If "reasonable doubt" theorists think the information received from suspects, Todd and Pearce, about when they committed the burglary, should be thrown out, then it doesn't make sense to place any weight on information coming from S. Tenbrink.
In fact, it should feel like a punch in the gut to read, "Todd approached him on the evening of Dec. 24 about participating in a burglary," which was after Laci went missing.
The question of the burglary having any connection to Laci's disappearance should be put to rest.
This doesn't make sense. Of course the police should not have just taken the burglars' word that they robbed the place on the 26th and not on the 24th. A witness, Diane Jackson called 911 to report a burglary in process at the Medina home after seeing men with a safe in the front yard on the 24th. The neighborhood was swarming with both police and media on the 26th and you really find it believable that the men burglarized he Medina home on that day because that's what they told police?
Where are you getting the following quote from "Todd approached him on the evening of Dec. 24 about participating in a burglary," which was after Laci went missing. That's not an official quote from any source you know.
This however is:
Quote:
I listened to this recording and heard Adam Tenbrink tell Shawn Tenbrink something about the Laci Peterson case. Adam said he was told by someone, presumably Steven Todd as his name was mentioned during the call, that Laci Peterson had seen Todd and others committing a burglary in the neighborhood……………
*
After watching the latest A&E special, I think there needs to be a new trial which should include all the evidence that wasn't brought forth in the first one. Too much information about witness sightings and seeing possibly Laci with two men by that van. And Diane Jackson's statement that was never admitted into court.
That recorded phone call that's now missing. That's bothers me, too. It bothers me that the police believe some crook that says they burglarized the home on the 26th and then report it to the news. There is no way with all the news media on the street that they could have done that. Cable crime shows like Nancy Grace didn't help matters, either.
Which felons should not be believed? Todd and Pearce who say they robbed the Medina home on the 26th? Adam Tenbrink who said Todd approached him on Christmas Eve about participating in a burglary?
I'd like a new trial, too. I think the Prosecution would still prevail but with more clarity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
