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'm suggesting they didn't see her wearing black and white, but rather beige, but changed their minds on the outfit when black and white was suggested.
It isn't as if he said rainbow tights. If I witnessed someone walking who I see regularly, and I knew I saw her and her dog that morning and I kind of didn't recall what she was wearing - or I kind of thought it was cream pants - I could convince myself I remembered the outfit, but not the woman and dog, wrong.
I did not catch that you were suggesting that she was wearing beige pants on the walk. That would make the clothing be consistent with what she was found in, but then does call into question the veracity of the sightings of her walking the dog wearing black pants. In other words, it solves one problem that the defense has, but creates another one.
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 would trust these sightings more if anyone actually knew Laci and could be sure it was her. Most of them were at some distance. One was from up on a hill looking down into the park through trees, and at least one was from a moving car. I don't think any of the sightings were close enough to be sure it was her and not someone else who looked similar from a distance.
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?
I agree with the counter balance idea. Total speculation, but if I had a body with weights attached to it, I would put either the body or the weights overboard first. So either weights or body would be in the water and the other in the boat. That would provide some balance. If the body was up laying across the seats you could stand on the opposite side of the boat and gently slide the body in. He could have also had something heavy that he put in the boat to counterbalance. My mind is blanking, but there was a missing tire or something that was speculated to be used as an anchor for the body. It could have been used to counterbalance the boat. It would have been difficult, but not impossible for him to dump the body without capsizing the boat.
I think there are deeper areas in between. Remember though that we are assuming that Scott went exactly where he said he did, he could have gone anywhere in the Bay. Scott bought a boat with a fish finder, which shows how deep the water is. I thought this was an odd thing for Scott to want on a boat. I grew up in a hunting fishing community. The people I know with fish finders are those who go fishing several times a week, not those that go fishing a few times a year at best like Scott.
Interesting that you mention Brad Cooper. That's another case where I think that the husband was convicted on shaky grounds.
Shaky or otherwise, he confessed and took a deal. He was hooped after the CISCO router was found, and he knew it. Also, as with all criminals, even though he was brilliant with computers, he made the mistake of searching the body dump location through google maps shortly before the body was dumped.
Shaky or otherwise, he confessed and took a deal. He was hooped after the CISCO router was found, and he knew it. Also, as with all criminals, even though he was brilliant with computers, he made the mistake of searching the body dump location through google maps shortly before the body was dumped.
His first degree murder conviction was overturned and he took a deal which required him to plead guilty in order to get less time and avoid another trial. He was convicted, like Scott Peterson, on circumstantial evidence.
But I suppose this would be a conversation for another thread.
His first degree murder conviction was overturned and he took a deal which required him to plead guilty in order to get less time and avoid another trial. He was convicted, like Scott Peterson, on circumstantial evidence.
But I suppose this would be a conversation for another thread.
Indeed, he weighed the options and decided that pleading guilty gave a higher probability of being released from jail before he is dead. Did Scott have an opportunity to make a plea deal at some point?
His first degree murder conviction was overturned and he took a deal which required him to plead guilty in order to get less time and avoid another trial. He was convicted, like Scott Peterson, on circumstantial evidence.
But I suppose this would be a conversation for another thread.
The guy pleads guilty and you still question his guilt. I hope if I'm ever on trial your in the jury box.
I agree with the counter balance idea. Total speculation, but if I had a body with weights attached to it, I would put either the body or the weights overboard first. So either weights or body would be in the water and the other in the boat. That would provide some balance. If the body was up laying across the seats you could stand on the opposite side of the boat and gently slide the body in. He could have also had something heavy that he put in the boat to counterbalance. My mind is blanking, but there was a missing tire or something that was speculated to be used as an anchor for the body. It could have been used to counterbalance the boat. It would have been difficult, but not impossible for him to dump the body without capsizing the boat.
I think there are deeper areas in between. Remember though that we are assuming that Scott went exactly where he said he did, he could have gone anywhere in the Bay. Scott bought a boat with a fish finder, which shows how deep the water is. I thought this was an odd thing for Scott to want on a boat. I grew up in a hunting fishing community. The people I know with fish finders are those who go fishing several times a week, not those that go fishing a few times a year at best like Scott.
The first thing Scott did when he got back was put his clothes in the washing machine. ( not Lacis which was right next to washer just his clothes). Even though he didn't catch any fish.... makes me wonder if he got all wet and dirty dumping the body and also had to wash away evidence. That washing machine has always been strong evidence to me.
Wonder of Lacis black pants were found anywhere in the house. If she quickly changed they should be somewhere obvious
Remember though that we are assuming that Scott went exactly where he said he did, he could have gone anywhere in the Bay.
I think going to Brooks Island was part of establishing his alibi just as much as turning on Martha Stewart and searching on the computer for sunflower umbrellas and scarves that morning, which is why he recalled the trash/debris on the island and broken piers. Also, I don't think he had time to go much further.
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.
