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.
Anyone with any knowledge of how to handle a small boat would dump a heavy object over the front or rear edge, just as a person is taught to get into a boat from the water by climbing into it from one end rather than from the side. If the boat was as large as has been stated dumping something the weight of a human body would be no problem.
Oh my gosh, that's right. I recall this from summer camp days taking the row boats out. To keep it from tipping, we had to enter from the front of the boat and keep center of gravity low. The next person had to wait until the first was seated toward the back and centered. Only one person could stand at a time. Once seated, we took our oars in hand.
Last edited by ohyesidid; 10-02-2017 at 10:03 PM..
On the day that Laci was last seen alive, she went grocery shopping.
Scott took Laci to the doctor. Then Scott had a haircut, and they picked up pizza for dinner with plans to watch a movie.
Do we know what else she needed to shop for on the 24th, as per Scott's claim of her things to do?
What items were missing that she didn't get on the 23rd?
What was Scott's demeanor at the doctor appointment? Did he seem to be a loving, supportive husband and expectant father?
Were all the events of the 23rd part of his plan to keep up his image?
I'm curious - what do you think about his decision to drive so far to go fishing on the day that his wife was most likely in the boat or the back of his truck? Any thoughts on why he chose a water grave, and why he did not choose a closer place to test his boat?
I raised this question earlier in this thread with an opinion that it just didn't seem plausible to me to go that distance, round-trip, for about an hour on the water. I received at least one reply suggesting long drives for short fishing excursions were common. I thought it still seemed very inefficient and a lot of effort for scant sporting pleasure.
"The Spanish originally named the island Isla de Carmen---eerily, the name of a famous, if fictional, woman who was murdered by her lover."
"For many years early in the twentieth century, the island was quarried for stone used for, among other things, constructing one of the cell blocks at San Quentin, the prison that houses California's Death Row."
"And the island provides a curtain of security, blocking the view of any prying eyes from the nearby Richmond Shore."
"Heather Hailey was out on the island Christmas Eve Afternoon...when she suddenly noticed a small aluminum boat close to shore. 'The windward side of the island is pretty much riddled with rocks and boulders...It's too rough because it's shallow in there and catches the current bad. Fishermen don't go over there.'"
Do we know what else she needed to shop for on the 24th, as per Scott's claim of her things to do?
What items were missing that she didn't get on the 23rd?
That's exactly it. That's exactly how I form my opinions about possible guilt or evidence in a serious felony. (with one caveat - I'm not looking for something that doesn't "make sense". Nothing about Scott "makes sense". I'm looking for something that doesn't seem physically possible).
Others look at the umbrella of evidence, and determine it certainly looks like it forms a pattern information that indicates guilt. The way you'd choose to buy a new car. Research it, and in general get very good reviews, good resale value, the car is attractive, and a fair price, good to go! That's the car for me!n In my observation, that's the same method many people use to decide their opinion in a murder case.
When someone is declaring their innocence in a murder where there is no direct evidence - only circumstantial - I do what you're saying. I examine each piece until I can come up with a piece that makes it clear he's guilty, or makes it clear he's innocent. And in this case, I can't come up with either. A defining piece that indicates guilt, or innocence.
Yes, in general, signs point to guilt. Some of it's very troubling, for sure. The body washed up in the bay is the most troubling.
But troubling on the side of innocence is my belief that it's not possible to push a weighed down 150 pound woman over the side of a boat like that without tipping it. I've spent some time in junky little john boats, and I'm struggling with the physics of doing that. Also, there is NO evidence - no one saw him, there's no blood or death evidence of any kind.
There's not even a motive, from my perspective. Scott wasn't in love with Amber, in act listening to those tapes he found her boring and even a little irritating. She was a sexual conquest he was trying to keep secret from his wife.
My question - WHY hasn't anyone from a news show, or People magazine, or the defense, taken a boat just like that one out in the bay and tried to dump a body with weights? I'd honestly like to see if it could be done.
That is the thing that has bugged me from day one. I don't think it's possible for a six foot tall man weighing 190 lbs to throw a 153 lb body that has been weighted down over the side of that 14 foot boat without capsizing. If it is possible, it would be very easy for the prosecution (or anybody) to produce a video showing it. Until I see that, I won't believe it. If it's impossible for Scott to have thrown Lacy's body overboard, the prosecution theory of how this crime went down is also impossible. My rule in life is that if something can't happen, then it didn't happen.
That is the thing that has bugged me from day one. I don't think it's possible for a six foot tall man weighing 190 lbs to throw a 153 lb body that has been weighted down over the side of that 14 foot boat without capsizing. If it is possible, it would be very easy for the prosecution (or anybody) to produce a video showing it. Until I see that, I won't believe it. If it's impossible for Scott to have thrown Lacy's body overboard, the prosecution theory of how this crime went down is also impossible. My rule in life is that if something can't happen, then it didn't happen.
This isn't just any body, this was a short pregnant woman where the bulk of the weight was in the middle of her body. The row boat was built to transportation goods, and it seems logical that even heavy objects could be transported and removed from the row boat.
To suggest that because we can't figure out how to toss something off a row boat without tipping the boat, it can't happen is like saying that because we can't figure out how to land a spaceship on the moon, it can't happen. However, we know that a spaceship can land on the moon regardless of whether we can figure out how to do it.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,639 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
This isn't just any body, this was a short pregnant woman where the bulk of the weight was in the middle of her body. The row boat was built to transportation goods, and it seems logical that even heavy objects could be transported and removed from the row boat.
To suggest that because we can't figure out how to toss something off a row boat without tipping the boat, it can't happen is like saying that because we can't figure out how to land a spaceship on the moon, it can't happen. However, we know that a spaceship can land on the moon regardless of whether we can figure out how to do it.
I know the spaceship landed on the moon. I don't know that Scott Peterson was able to drop Laci, weighted, out of that boat.
Your analogy presupposes we know he did it.
We don't know, and I'm curious to know if it could in fact be done - and it's a lot easier to test than someone inventing a space ship!
Edited to add: I do think it's probably been tried, and whoever was trying it didn't get the results they wanted. Either the defense tried it and they were able to dump a similar weight object, or the prosecution tried it and they weren't able. So yeah. We're not going to hear about it.
I know the spaceship landed on the moon. I don't know that Scott Peterson was able to drop Laci, weighted, out of that boat.
Your analogy presupposes we know he did it.
We don't know, and I'm curious to know if it could in fact be done - and it's a lot easier to test than someone inventing a space ship!
Edited to add: I do think it's probably been tried, and whoever was trying it didn't get the results they wanted. Either the defense tried it and they were able to dump a similar weight object, or the prosecution tried it and they weren't able. So yeah. We're not going to hear about it.
We have a fourteen foot long row boat with a motor. We have a short woman with a heavy center of gravity in the middle of her body. Her limbs and head were disconnected over a period of four months at the bottom of the ocean, so it makes sense that her limbs and head were weighted.
Essentially we have one hundred and twenty pounds body mass, some limbs, and some concrete weights. I would put the weights in the water first - off the end of the row boat. Then I would take an oar or something similar and flip the body into the water. I don't see why that would tip the boat. It might also explain the cut across her abdomen - perhaps from sliding across the motor.
I see no reason to think along the same lines as Geragos as his objective was to demonstrate how not to toss a body off a row boat.
I raised this question earlier in this thread with an opinion that it just didn't seem plausible to me to go that distance, round-trip, for about an hour on the water. I received at least one reply suggesting long drives for short fishing excursions were common. I thought it still seemed very inefficient and a lot of effort for scant sporting pleasure.
I grew up camping and fishing with my family. I will say that some people might drive a relatively long distance for a short period of time fishing if they are fishing for something specific. Two things that a fisher person would definitely pay attention to though are:
1) the time of the day. Fish usually bite certain times of the day, for example we mostly fish for trout and they bite around 9 am in the morning and dinnertime. It's usually just a waste of time to fish during the rest of the day.
2) bait, Different fish like to bite on different things. IMHO fisher people feel strongly about the type of bait they use (worms, lures etc...) If you are fishing for a specific fish you would definitely make sure to have the right bait.
Scott claimed to be fishing for sturgeon, but was going at a weird time of day and didn't have proper gear or bait for sturgeon.
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.
