Scott Peterson - on death row in California - this was a weird one (case, husband)

[MissTerri]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I think there are two different situations here. If you were to ask someone to describe someone they've only seen just that once, that's one thing. For example, when there is a missing teen and some people who don't know that teen say well I saw that girl at Jack in the Box yesterday. That's one thing, and it's not very reliable at all.

BUT. If there's someone you see all the time, and you would certainly recognize them and their dog because you see them with regularity and recognize them from the missing persons photo, I think it's highly likely you've got a credible sighting.

Regardless of whether the clothing description is correct. You are aware of the person, and can recognize them on sight.

I see regulars walking in my neighborhood, or running, or walking dogs, and they are regulars. I could say yes I saw him yesterday afternoon, but not be able to tell what the person was wearing.

Maybe it's my skill set. I recognize people I see often, and don't notice their outfits unless they are extremely unusual. Maybe you're different - maybe you see the outfit first and not the general "over all" person you recognize.

I am like this as well. There are many people in my neighborhood who I don't know by name and who I've never spoken to but I see them walking by or with their dogs regularly enough that if I saw their face on a missing poster I would know exactly who they were. I recognize their dogs as well. I highly doubt I'd recall what they were wearing though.

When I think back on today, I interacted with many people and I can't recall what any of them were wearing.

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I think there are two different situations here. If you were to ask someone to describe someone they've only seen just that once, that's one thing. For example, when there is a missing teen and some people who don't know that teen say well I saw that girl at Jack in the Box yesterday. That's one thing, and it's not very reliable at all.

BUT. If there's someone you see all the time, and you would certainly recognize them and their dog because you see them with regularity and recognize them from the missing persons photo, I think it's highly likely you've got a credible sighting.

Regardless of whether the clothing description is correct. You are aware of the person, and can recognize them on sight.

I see regulars walking in my neighborhood, or running, or walking dogs, and they are regulars. I could say yes I saw him yesterday afternoon, but not be able to tell what the person was wearing.

Maybe it's my skill set. I recognize people I see often, and don't notice their outfits unless they are extremely unusual. Maybe you're different - maybe you see the outfit first and not the general "over all" person you recognize.

We do have information from a neighbor who did pay that kind of attention to Laci. She reported that Laci opened her curtains every single morning. The day that her step-father reported her missing, the neighbor reported that Laci's curtains were not opened.

[ohyesidid]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

We do have information from a neighbor who did pay that kind of attention to Laci. She reported that Laci opened her curtains every single morning. The day that her step-father reported her missing, the neighbor reported that Laci's curtains were not opened.

I remember this. Scott didn't think of everything.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

We do have information from a neighbor who did pay that kind of attention to Laci. She reported that Laci opened her curtains every single morning. The day that her step-father reported her missing, the neighbor reported that Laci's curtains were not opened.

Kinda not smart to open curtains when your moving a dead body around

[ohyesidid]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I think it could have happened when the body was pushed over the side of the boat...the body was weighted so you have to add an additional 40 lbs to the body weight. That would create a lot of pressure to the edge of the boat.

I was thinking the edge of the boat too. With concrete weights and Conner in there, her body could have been so stressed at the point of being "heaved" (good descriptive term I just read in another post) over, which likely resulted in rib fractures.

This gets me thinking again about how Scott could have used counter weight to stabilize the boat. If he set Laci's body on the edge of the boat and strategically shifted his own body weight to the other side, could you envision him just using his feet/legs to push her overboard while simultaneously shifting back to the middle of the boat once she cleared the edge? How difficult would this be to do with weights attached?

In the last A&E episode (6), Janey Peterson remarks to the SPA team that the water at Brooks Island was too shallow for dumping a body. How deep were waters at the midpoint between Berkeley Marina and Brooks Island?

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

We do have information from a neighbor who did pay that kind of attention to Laci. She reported that Laci opened her curtains every single morning. The day that her step-father reported her missing, the neighbor reported that Laci's curtains were not opened.

I think I've seen you mention a couple times that her stepfather reported her missing, which would lead me to think you are considering that significant.

I don't consider that significant. I still don't think he's necessarily innocent - have no way to know, it's truly too confusing - but I don't think the fact that she was reported missing by Ron Grantski is significant.

Laci was independent, and she and her husband were very independent of each other. I doubt she would have reported him missing if the situation were reversed, under the circumstances in which he stated he realized she was missing.

In his story, he came home from a fishing trip in the late afternoon to find her gone, and her car was still there, and the dog was in the backyard with a leash on. Of all the varieties of things that could have happened to her, something violent and criminal are about the last on my list. She could have been walking and ran into a neighbor who needed something . . . anything. Someone to briefly watch her child. Someone to help out with some other christmas eve thing. A neighbor with another dog wanted to walk with her but McKenzie kept aggressing. The possibilities are limitless.

So Scott, having been gone all afternoon called Laci's mother, who is very very close to Laci, to get a bead on where Laci might be, it's kind of a mystery. He says "Laci is missing". Sharon becomes terrified and has her boyfriend call police, as some women of a certain age do. They have their men do things like this, rather than themselves. It's kind of a dependent couple thing to do. The woman asks her guy to interact with the police in this situation of family need.

I don't see that points the finger at Scott, do you, in this instance?

(I'm not saying he's not guilty, I'm saying so much of what we thing points to guilt doesn't).

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

We do have information from a neighbor who did pay that kind of attention to Laci. She reported that Laci opened her curtains every single morning. The day that her step-father reported her missing, the neighbor reported that Laci's curtains were not opened.

Again, I don't know what to make of that. Her family states she doesn't have drapes, she has blinds (which would explain why Scott said they often left the drapes "down". Sounded like an odd statement, except they are blinds, which would be "down or up").

At any rate, according to Laci's family, these are not visible from the street so they are implying the neighbor could not have noticed that. So yeah. What at first glance seems quite significant - it does - becomes questionable when Laci's family wonders how the witness could have made that observation.

http://www.inreview.com/topic-lastpost-5785.htm

[Finper]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Again, I don't know what to make of that. Her family states she doesn't have drapes, she has blinds (which would explain why Scott said they often left the drapes "down". Sounded like an odd statement, except they are blinds, which would be "down or up").

At any rate, according to Laci's family, these are not visible from the street so they are implying the neighbor could not have noticed that. So yeah. What at first glance seems quite significant - it does - becomes questionable when Laci's family wonders how the witness could have made that observation.

http://www.inreview.com/topic-lastpost-5785.htm

There's 2 big windows facing the street from what looks like a bedroom. They have Roman blinds on the pic which go up/down and both blinds are down in the pic.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Finper

There's 2 big windows facing the street from what looks like a bedroom. They have Roman blinds on the pic which go up/down and both blinds are down in the pic.

How do you account for the statements made by Laci's family? I'm truly curious. This case is just a big confusing pile of facts that dispute each other.

[LLCNYC]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I think I've seen you mention a couple times that her stepfather reported her missing, which would lead me to think you are considering that significant.

I don't consider that significant. I still don't think he's necessarily innocent - have no way to know, it's truly too confusing - but I don't think the fact that she was reported missing by Ron Grantski is significant.

Laci was independent, and she and her husband were very independent of each other. I doubt she would have reported him missing if the situation were reversed, under the circumstances in which he stated he realized she was missing.

In his story, he came home from a fishing trip in the late afternoon to find her gone, and her car was still there, and the dog was in the backyard with a leash on. Of all the varieties of things that could have happened to her, something violent and criminal are about the last on my list. She could have been walking and ran into a neighbor who needed something . . . anything. Someone to briefly watch her child. Someone to help out with some other christmas eve thing. A neighbor with another dog wanted to walk with her but McKenzie kept aggressing. The possibilities are limitless.

So Scott, having been gone all afternoon called Laci's mother, who is very very close to Laci, to get a bead on where Laci might be, it's kind of a mystery. He says "Laci is missing". Sharon becomes terrified and has her boyfriend call police, as some women of a certain age do. They have their men do things like this, rather than themselves. It's kind of a dependent couple thing to do. The woman asks her guy to interact with the police in this situation of family need.

I don't see that points the finger at Scott, do you, in this instance?

(I'm not saying he's not guilty, I'm saying so much of what we thing points to guilt doesn't).

Or......maybe she is too upset/frantic to call the police? Ya know...considering her pregnant daughter is missing and all...

Oh and that POS is guilty as sin. Just coincidentally fishing and then his entire "family" washes ashore IN THE SAME area, months later. Please. Not to mention the whole Amber thing...Don't need to be a rocket scientist.