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.
I never said it was not Laci's hair, only that test results concluded that could not be said. Though neither did test results state it was not Laci's hair nor conclude that it could not have been Laci's hair.
Moreover, neither did any test result conclude that it "matched" Laci's hair.
The prosecutor, Distaso, attempted several times to falsely portray the test results as having found a "match" to Laci's hair. Judge Delucchi would have no part of it, and he forced Distaso to admit to the jury that it was not a "match" every time that Distaso falsely stated what test results said.
Let's pretend the hair was an exact match, especially the hair found in the rusted pliers. What would that prove? Scott and Laci lived together. It would be surprising if Laci's hair couldn't be found on Scott's clothes or in his car or anywhere he had been.
And what would a strand of Laci's hair in the rusted pliers prove? How does a strand of Laci's hair in a pair of pliers fit into the Prosecution theory of how the murder went down?
Let's pretend the hair was an exact match, especially the hair found in the rusted pliers. What would that prove? Scott and Laci lived together. It would be surprising if Laci's hair couldn't be found on Scott's clothes or in his car or anywhere he had been.
And what would a strand of Laci's hair in the rusted pliers prove? How does a strand of Laci's hair in a pair of pliers fit into the Prosecution theory of how the murder went down?
It doesn't prove anything. But you have to understand that this case had such a tremendous dearth of highly reliable inculpatory evidence that LE was scraping to find anything that might have put Laci in the boat, which of course they would claim was after Scott killed her. And to go with the hair in the rusted pliers, they then invented four mythical handmade anchors for their asinine storyline.
The best thing that LE and the prosecution had going for them was the fact that the crimetainment media had done a fabulous job of demonizing Scott and poisoning the jury pool. And in the end, that carried the day -- just as it did in Dr. Sam Sheppard's first murder trial.
I'll rephrase my original request: please cite the highly reliable evidence that you maintain proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would note the source of the following statement that you made in your post: "His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction."
This case has always interested me immensely, so let me take a shot at it:
Couldn't we say that Amber Frey's testimony was highly reliable? She testified that Scott told her that this would be his first Christmas without his wife. If Scott, in fact, told her that, how would he know that Laci wouldn't turn up alive before Christmas, unless he killed her himself? Or knew who did?
This case has always interested me immensely, so let me take a shot at it:
Couldn't we say that Amber Frey's testimony was highly reliable? She testified that Scott told her that this would be his first Christmas without his wife. If Scott, in fact, told her that, how would he know that Laci wouldn't turn up alive before Christmas, unless he killed her himself? Or knew who did?
Judge Delucchi told the prosecutor: "I don't
17 see any pre-offense statement that indicates any intent,
18 plan, motive or design that he [Scott] may have uttered."
(see post #465 in this thread)
In order to clear the path for a possible affair, it's well known that some men have told a woman that their wife died when the truth is that she is very much alive. That is a bald faced lie that some men will use to help clear the way for an affair.
This case had many fascinating aspects, one of which is that another married man also had fed Amber that very same lie, even though Amber was a friend of his wife.
Amazingly, when she was under cross examination, Amber testified as follows:
5 Q. Okay. Now, there is another specific spot in the
6 tapes that were played where there is talk about where you
7 are talking to Scott about a Dave -- and I don't know how to
8 pronounce his last name. Is it Ghirardelli?
9 A. Giardinelli.
10 Q. Giardinelli. Is this a friend of yours?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You are getting mad at Scott because he's told you
13 that his wife was dead, correct? You recounted this story to
14 Scott?
15 A. I shared that story with Scott in early December.
16 Q. And Dave Giardinelli?
17 A. Giardinelli.
18 Q. Told you in December that -- this is somebody you
19 have known for how long?
20 A. For some time, I guess.
21 Q. Couple of years at least, right?
22 A. Prior to that an acquaintance that I would see out
23 and about with his wife.
24 Q. Right. And you knew his wife as well, right?
25 A. She was a friend of mine.
26 Q. Okay. And you saw him at a bar somewhere in
15207
1 December; is that correct?
2 A. No, that's not correct.
3 Q. Didn't you say you had met him at a bar, you ran
4 into him at a bar?
5 A. Not in December.
6 Q. Did you run into him in a bar at some point?
7 A. I was out with some friends. I ran into him at a
8 rib house.
9 Q. In the bar of the rib house?
10 A. No. It was outside.
11 Q. Okay. And did he tell you at that point when you
12 ran into him that his wife had died?
13 A. Would you like me to explain the story --
14 Q. I'm asking you --
15 A. -- of how it came about?
16 Q. I'm asking you the question.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And then after he told you that, some time
19 shortly thereafter -- his wife is a twin, correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Okay. And you ran into this, what you thought was
22 the twin sister of the wife who had died, at a carwash,
23 right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And when you said something to her, you realized
26 that it wasn't the twin sister, it was really the wife,
15208
1 right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, at that point, you realized that Dave G --
4 since I can't pronounce his last name --
5 THE COURT: Giardinelli.
6 MR. GERAGOS: Is that some kind of an ethnic
7 connection there that I should know about?
8 Q. That Dave G had been lying to you about his wife
9 being dead, correct? He lied to you about it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. You told that to Scott?
12 A. Yes.
You guys have fun trying to prove his innocence. Scott planned this for weeks. I think this guy is wicked smart but completely void of human emotion.
In a number of ways, his innocence has already been shown to you, but you've chosen to keep only the pieces of the puzzle that fit your theory, and discard the rest. You were given pointed questions about Scott's timeline on the 24th and his internet usage which, to date, you have ignored. Neither you nor anyone else have offered any physically possible explanation for the twine knotted tightly around Conner's body. That fact alone exonerates him.
I find it interesting that you would consider him "wicked smart", though. According to what you believe, (1)he purchased a "secret boat" but kept it at his own warehouse while leaving a full trail of documents in his own name. (2)He invited his sister-in-law to his home on the same night he intended to kill someone there. (3)He dumped a dead body in the Bay and then immediately offered law enforcement proof that he had just left there. (4)He planned this caper for weeks but then got confused about whether his alibi was supposed to be golfing or fishing. (5)He apparently thought an aging, bright red Mercedes would be the ideal vehicle to use in order to go hide out in Mexico... The list is endless. None of which would strike me as terribly bright if he had actually committed this crime.
In a number of ways, his innocence has already been shown to you, but you've chosen to keep only the pieces of the puzzle that fit your theory, and discard the rest. You were given pointed questions about Scott's timeline on the 24th and his internet usage which, to date, you have ignored. Neither you nor anyone else have offered any physically possible explanation for the twine knotted tightly around Conner's body. That fact alone exonerates him.
I find it interesting that you would consider him "wicked smart", though. According to what you believe, (1)he purchased a "secret boat" but kept it at his own warehouse while leaving a full trail of documents in his own name. (2)He invited his sister-in-law to his home on the same night he intended to kill someone there. (3)He dumped a dead body in the Bay and then immediately offered law enforcement proof that he had just left there. (4)He planned this caper for weeks but then got confused about whether his alibi was supposed to be golfing or fishing. (5)He apparently thought an aging, bright red Mercedes would be the ideal vehicle to use in order to go hide out in Mexico... The list is endless. None of which would strike me as terribly bright if he had actually committed this crime.
You are absolutely correct, the list is near endless. I could easily list a hundred or more facts that work against Scott allegedly being the person who killed Laci, but I am going to pick-up on a just few points you mentioned and add to them.
First, the fact that Scott immediately and without reservation told LE that he had taken his new boat to the bay to fish earlier that day is what is known as: a statement that is against self-interest -- when X marks the spot that is not something that fits any where inside the template of actions of a premeditated murderer. Moreover, such statements are considered exculpatory evidence, not inculpatory.
[To drive 90 miles away that day and then immediately lead LE right to the place where you allegedly submerged the body with signature submerging weights would be outlandishly absurd. Yet supposedly, this was the best premeditated murder plan (planned and deliberated) Scott could come up with. People really need to get a grip.]
Second, there were actions performed by Scott that very few people know about.
A) Shortly before Xmas Eve, Scott bought a mortiser, so he build a table top. It was delivered to the warehouse a few days before Xmas Eve.
B) Now, allegedly, Scott went to the warehouse on the morning of Xmas Eve with Laci's body somewhere in his truck. And while he was in the warehouse with Laci's dead body allegedly ripening in his truck, he went on the web and looked up assembly instructions for the mortiser. Then he physically assembled the mortiser.
C) Unsatisfied that Laci's body had ripened enough for him, Scott then called to check his business voicemail at 10:08AM after which he sent his boss an Xmas email.
Scott's motive was that he didn't want to have to pay alimony and child support. He just wanted her gone. He said that he was "hoping for infertility". There is no way that that statement can come off as a joke. It didn't appear that he loved Laci. I think that was pretty plain to see for anyone who cared to look carefully. Laci's own mother probably knew this in her own heart. Scott seemed like the type of person who really couldn't love anyone.
I'm not saying that there was enough evidence to convict him and give him the death penalty, I'm just saying that he seems guilty as hell.
Also, he wasn't that successful in his career. You better believe that he could have used that 250K insurance money. He was bored with her, bored with the suburban life she had talked him into. He was the only one that had motive as I see it. In his interview with Dianne Sawyer, you could see in his face that he didn't love Laci or want to be with Laci. Doesn't mean that he killed her though. I think that it's more of all the pieces adding up together and the fact that he was the ONLY one that had motive.
What happened to the story of the satanic murders that were happening around the time of her disappearance? The theory that they took Laci and murdered her was discredited, right?
Wudge: "B) Now, allegedly, Scott went to the warehouse on the morning of Xmas Eve with Laci's body somewhere in his truck. And while he was in the warehouse with Laci's dead body allegedly ripening in his truck, he went on the web and looked up assembly instructions for the mortiser. Then he physically assembled the mortiser."
Was it said that he both looked up the instructions and physically assembled the mortise on that same day that they said he had Laci's body in his truck?
I don't know whether he was guilty or not, but I've wondered about his lack of empathy, noncommittal attitude, and ability to lie without compunction. This book review is interesting about how he was raised, and his mother's possible role in the development of his antisocial traits. Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson | Bookreporter.com
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.
