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.
The color meant nothing? Several pages back in this thread, the big hoopla was over witnesses and Scott himself saying that when Laci went out for her walk that morning, she was wearing black pants. Now you're saying the color meant nothing. And still, not a peep about the reason why Scott would make several trips to the bay after the 24th, using rented cars. smh
I guess you and I will both be waiting for answers. But I'm pretty sure nothing presented to you will alter your opinion and really, that's all it is. An opinion as to whether Scott is innocent. Using a "scott is innocent" website for your information makes about as much sense as me using a "justice for laci" website for mine. You can't change my mind and I can't change yours so I guess we call it a draw and be done with it.
It's been enjoyable, though. I'm always interested in knowing the opinions of others. Best to you in your quest for . . . I was going to say truth but in my opinion, the truth has already been found. See ya 'round the board.
Truth though, isn't a matter of opinion. Either it's supported by fact and therefore true, or it isn't. The facts clearly illustrate that the State's theory is not possible. Your opinion is based on conjecture and speculation, in spite of the facts. That isn't a draw. With regard to the truth, it's not even a contest.
Actually, Scott was in fact quite honest throughout the investigation. Everything he told the detectives was shown to be true, and documented as such, with the lone exception being his relationship with Amber Frye.Wrong again. It had everything to do with whether or not these were the same pants that Laci was wearing the previous evening. The testimony clearly supports that they were not.
The Medina burglars kidnapping a pregnant Laci and disposing of her body is a very plausible scenario, in my opinion, and makes a great deal of sense. It includes motive, means, and opportunity. More importantly, the lack of a plausible alternative scenario does not make Scott guilty by default. You have yet to explain how the State's theory, which you seem to accept, is physically possible. It isn't.
And again, you have yet to offer an evidence-based motive for Scott killing Laci.You've not asked me a single question that has gone unanswered. Regardless, as has been stated already, questions are just that; questions. They are not evidence. It would be unwise and unfair to assume they have no reasonable explanation and form a presumption of guilt from them. I regret to tell ya Mars, I appreciated your earlier contributions to the thread, but your posts have increasingly come to resemble those of Leineke, and sound more like an episode of Nancy Grace. You've posted several myths. They've been refuted with clear facts from the case reports and/or trial testimony. Your response has been to simply repeat them, with an apparent belief that doing so will somehow make them true. It will not.
-Nowhere in the transcript is there support for your claim(myth) that the twine was simply looped around Conner's body.
-Nowhere in the transcript is there support for your claim(myth) that Scott attempted to flee.
-Nowhere in the transcript is there support for your claim(myth) that Scott was simply another "person of interest", equally suspected with everyone else in Laci's life.
-Nowhere in the transcript is there support for your claim(myth) that several anchors were made.
-Nowhere in the transcript is there support for your claim(myth) that Laci had been in the water since late December.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. If I were to scour the thread, I'm sure I could cite several more.Having some evidence, either physical or circumstantial, would not only have been nice, but legally necessary to effect a conviction. Tragically, the State's case lacked any evidence at all. In fact, the bulk of what they presented pointed to Scott's innocence. That your opinion remains unchanged only reveals your inability/unwillingness to view the facts (facts!) objectively.
Scott lied to everyone. For example, he told the public that it was "too painful" to go into Conner's bedroom. In reality, he'd been in and out of the room numerous times as he turned it into a storage room.
The burglars could not have committed the burglary prior to 10:30AM on Dec 24th, and there is no evidence that Laci was alive after the night of Dec 23.
Trail testimony is one source of information, but it is by no means the only source. The earnest effort to disparage all sources other than the Scott is Innocent website and trial transcripts is obvious. The insistence that all trial evidence that resulted in guilt must be posted on this forum before the verdict can be respected is loud and clear.
Evidence that Scott Peterson eluded police the day he was arrested comes from the police and was linked via video. It cannot be disputed. Evidence that Laci was in the Bay for four months can be seen in the absences of her remains (her missing head and limbs). Scott's employee
About those anchors:
"Scott Peterson lied when he told his brother-in-law he turned homemade anchors into cement for his driveway, a prosecution expert suggested Wednesday at his capital murder trial.
Petrographer Robert O'Neill, who specializes in the analysis of cement and concrete, said concrete debris from the driveway at Peterson's Modesto, Calif., home had a different composition than the single anchor police recovered from his fishing boat.
Laci Peterson's brother, Brent Rocha, testified in June that when he confronted Peterson about reports that he had cement and concrete in his warehouse, the defendant acknowledged manufacturing multiple anchors.
Rocha said he pointed out to Peterson that only one anchor was found.
"He said, 'Well, I used the rest of the cement for my driveway,'" Rocha testified."
Truth though, isn't a matter of opinion. Either it's supported by fact and therefore true, or it isn't. The facts clearly illustrate that the State's theory is not possible. Your opinion is based on conjecture and speculation, in spite of the facts. That isn't a draw. With regard to the truth, it's not even a contest.
Reasonably, there are many sources for the facts regarding the conviction of Scott Peterson. Some may choose to rely on the Scott is Innocent website, while others will include a wide number of sources.
. And still, not a peep about the reason why Scott would make several trips to the bay after the 24th, using rented cars. smh
This is the only thing I've been able to find in researching Peterson Rental cars. EDITED:
rentals appear to be between 1/2 to 1/29 Scroll to the last invoice
Reasonably, there are many sources for the facts regarding the conviction of Scott Peterson. Some may choose to rely on the Scott is Innocent website, while others will include a wide number of sources.
Still Hung up on Scott is Innocent or PWC Consulting web...sigh.
Transcripts, exhibit photos were trial testimony, simple as that.
Laci Peterson's brother, Brent Rocha, testified in June that when he confronted Peterson about reports that he had cement and concrete in his warehouse, the defendant acknowledged manufacturing multiple anchors.
Rocha said he pointed out to Peterson that only one anchor was found.
"He said, 'Well, I used the rest of the cement for my driveway,'" Rocha testified."
No secondhand recap...Brent and Scott phone call http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207B-2.htm
207 B: Phone call between Brent Rocha and Scott, January 16
B-1: graphic to go with B-2 (not available)
B-2: Brent Rocha with Scott, January 16, 2003
Gergaros wanted to do a visual for the jury. Purchased the identical boat, dummy body, anchors for demonstartion to jurors, to show the difficulty involved. Denied by Judge.
No secondhand recap...Brent and Scott phone call People's Exhibit 207B-2 & Defendant's Exhibit 5V
207 B: Phone call between Brent Rocha and Scott, January 16
B-1: graphic to go with B-2 (not available)
B-2: Brent Rocha with Scott, January 16, 2003
Gergaros wanted to do a visual for the jury. Purchased the identical boat, dummy body, anchors for demonstartion to jurors, to show the difficulty involved. Denied by Judge.
This is what Brent Rocha testified to when questioned about the anchor.
"HARRIS: Did you ever talk to him and kind of ask him about some concrete or cement that was at his shop? ROCHA: Yeah, again, it was in one of those articles. They [the article] talked about cement anchors. I said, Well, what's the deal with that. Because this, this is the first I've heard of it. He said, Oh, yeah, the police asked me about it. I said, I'm all, Oh, they already asked you about this stuff? He said, Yeah, and I told them, you know, I used it to make anchors. And I think his response was
to me, I go, There was only one anchor? He said, Well, I used the rest of the cement for my driveway.
Brent's question to Scott clearly establishes that Scott did not tell Brent (or anyone else) that he made "anchors". Because instead of Brent then asking Scott how many anchors he made, Brent questioned Scott by asking this question: There was only one anchor?
Obviously, Brent's immediate question back to Scott reflects what Scott had actually said; i.e. an anchor (not anchors).
Brent's question does not in any way reflect that Scott told him he had made "anchors".
Rather, it reflects what Scott told everyone; i.e., that he had made but one anchor.
This is what Brent Rocha testified to when questioned about the anchor.
Brent's question to Scott clearly establishes that Scott did not tell Brent (or anyone else) that he made "anchors". Because instead of Brent then asking Scott how many anchors he made, Brent questioned Scott by asking this question: There was only one anchor?
Obviously, Brent's immediate question back to Scott reflects what Scott had actually said; i.e. an anchor (not anchors).
Brent's question does not in any way reflect that Scott told him he had made "anchors".
Rather, it reflects what Scott told everyone; i.e., that he had made but one anchor.
HTH
Are you saying the two anchors exhibits were not Petersons?
Brent ROCHA: Because I mean look the article says there’s blood spots on the kitchen floor, blood spots in your truck, I think. Um..it talks about the woman whoever called the Modesto Police, uh..it talks about a large life insurance policy. Uh..and then they talk about cement in your uh…shop that’s used for uh…I don’t know anchors or something.
Scott PETERSON: Yeah, I made a boat anchor with some cement and then I put some in the driveway here, yeah.
Brent ROCHA: So they’re just piecing all this together?
Scott PETERSON: Piecing together.
Brent ROCHA: Circumstantial?
Scott PETERSON: Well, I mean there’s the cement, yeah. The police has asked me a lot about that.
Brent ROCHA: Okay. So they’ve already asked you about this stuff?
Scott PETERSON: What’s that?
Brent ROCHA: The police has already asked you about this stuff?
Scott PETERSON: Oh, yeah, yeah. And I’ve never heard about these blood spots or anything like that. Um...you can look on…you know, when they served the warrant here?
Brent ROCHA: Yeah.
Scott PETERSON: And they give you an itemized list of everything?
Brent ROCHA: Um-hum.
Are you saying the two anchors exhibits were not Petersons?
Brent ROCHA: Because I mean look the article says there’s blood spots on the kitchen floor, blood spots in your truck, I think. Um..it talks about the woman whoever called the Modesto Police, uh..it talks about a large life insurance policy. Uh..and then they talk about cement in your uh…shop that’s used for uh…I don’t know anchors or something.
Scott PETERSON: Yeah, I made a boat anchor with some cement and then I put some in the driveway here, yeah.
Brent ROCHA: So they’re just piecing all this together?
Scott PETERSON: Piecing together.
Brent ROCHA: Circumstantial?
Scott PETERSON: Well, I mean there’s the cement, yeah. The police has asked me a lot about that.
Brent ROCHA: Okay. So they’ve already asked you about this stuff?
Scott PETERSON: What’s that?
Brent ROCHA: The police has already asked you about this stuff?
Scott PETERSON: Oh, yeah, yeah. And I’ve never heard about these blood spots or anything like that. Um...you can look on…you know, when they served the warrant here?
Brent ROCHA: Yeah.
Scott PETERSON: And they give you an itemized list of everything?
Brent ROCHA: Um-hum.
I don't know what the numbers are of the two anchor exhibits that mentioned. You would have to give me those number.
What I was explaining is that Scott made just one anchor, and he never told LE he made more than one anchor nor anyone else, including Brent -- as espoused in the post you responded to.
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.
And still, not a peep about the reason why Scott would make several trips to the bay after the 24th, using rented cars. smh 
See ya 'round the board. 
