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.
Well, wait a minute. If you agree Laci went for a walk and was seen by witnesses, then Scott can not be guilty, no matter what she was wearing. You can't have it both ways.
No witnesses testified to seeing Laci that morning, in black pants or otherwise. The simplest explanation is that she changed her pants after Scott left and before she went for a walk. Why does this not make sense?
I don't believe that. I thought I was clear that the defense wants everyone to believe that. So basically, the defense wants people to believe:
1) When Scott left Laci was wearing black pants and a white top. She was going to mop the floor then take the dog for a walk.
2) Several people saw Laci that day walking the dog
3) Laci was abducted while walking the dog
4) The neighbor saw the dog running loose and put her back in the yard
The only one of those things that I personally believe is that the neighbor found the dog running loose and put her back in the yard. The defense and Scott supporters want you to believe all of that though. This does not jive with what she was found wearing, which is beige pants. Are you saying that the explanation is that Laci changed into beige pants before she went for the dog walk? This doesn't make sense because no one reported seeing her wearing beige pants and walking the dog. So in that case either Scott is lying or the witnesses are lying, but Scott supporters want you to believe both Scott's account and the witnesses that saw her walking the dog. I genuinely would like an answer to the clothing discrepancy that makes sense. To me that is a major detail pointing to his guilt.
It's a little weird how easily people will discount the witnesses who claim to have seen Laci walking the dog that day, dismiss the eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the burglars that day but believe with 100% confidence that the time that the neighbor claims to have put the dog in the yard to be accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The time that Servas found the dog was documented based on phone records and a receipt that she had for an errand that she ran that morning. It may be a few minutes off, but it has to be pretty accurate given the phone records and receipt. That is why the time the dog was found is one of the hard and fast times in the timeline.
Did the witnesses know Scott had stated she was wearing black pants at the time they called in their tip, or did they not have information about her outfit and many said she was wearing black pants without being prompted?
The witnesses knew before they came forward that Laci was supposed to have last been seen wearing black pants and a white shirt, it was broadcast in the missing persons report and the news stories about her disappearance.
I am leaning toward Scott putting the leash on McKenzie in the backyard, leaving the gate open, and driving away.
That is exactly what I think too. If McKenzie had been found in the yard, he hoped that people would have assumed she returned on her own. McKenzie probably stayed around the yard for a little while then wandered out into the yard and street where Servas found her. I think this because of the short time frame from when he actually left home (10:08) and when Servas found McKenzie (10:18), and because if Laci was abducted near the park and McKenzie walked all the way home, it would have been odd that no one saw her until she got right in front of the house.
I don't know what this website is - I found it by googling Karen Servas time stamped receipt.
It's a really interesting read, if it's reliable information.
Among the details:
Karen Servas changed two different time frames significantly that she initially gave the police
Austin's Christmas store where the receipt was generated apparently produced receipts the next year that were 49 minutes "off" (the first chance an investigator had to check the accuracy of Mr. Austin's machines)
The cell towers that were used to state that Scott was still at home at 10:08 had faulty location pings for him during calls made from his front yard that evening, with police present and able to verify the time of the calls and the location - and the cell tower location information was incorrect. Making it entirely possible that he did in fact leave home at 9:30 am instead of the ping location that made it appear to be after 10 a.m.
Servas' timeline was also backed up by phone records. She originally said she found the dog around 10:30, then after reviewing the receipt time stamp and phone records of a phone call, the time was adjusted to 10:18.
Even if you want to believe that the cell tower evidence is inaccurate, Scott said that Martha Stewart was talking about meringue. It wasn't a segment about meringue, but rather a side comment that was made. That comment was made around 9:45 am, meaning that Scott had to be at the house at that time, thus he couldn't have left at 9:30 am as he claimed.
This is the last response from the court to Scott Peterson on his habeas appeal.
It has about 150 pages, the court basically smokes Scotts claims throughout except on two things, no matter how you look at it, Richele Nice kind of lied to get on the jury, the court even says her borrowing money from another jury member in the book is hearsay. Why hearsay, cause it's in a book, that she helped write.
They also comment that they can't confirm she wrote all the letters to Scott, 28 of them, even though she admitted writing letters to Scott, but I guess circumstantial evidence only works on murderers.
It's mostly saying that his defense didn't do enough to help him out in terms of expert witnesses, and those that saw Laci on the 24th.
The 2nd issue is the robbery, we know it didn't happen on the 26th, the court isn't even sure when, although they stick with the 26th which we already know is false. But it is written that even if it happened on the 24th, it was after Servas put the dog in the backyard, pretty much saying Laci was already dead.
My issue with that is the police and the court only give credence to Servas timeline, no one else's, this lady must be perfect in life, just like Scott Peterson was up until December 24th, 2002.
I've read Scott's appeal and the state's response. Here is my take on the points that you bring up:
-It's hearsay because it is an out of court statement. Definition of hearsay: [h]earsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted therein". A statement in a book is an out of court statement. If the defense had interviewed her and gotten her to repeat this statement under oath, that would not be considered hearsay.
-The way that I read this section, the state isn't saying that she didn't write the letters. What they are saying is that there are certain rules to admitting evidence into court. Items such as letters, photos, and audio tapes must be authenticated. The defense included these letters with no authentication. They could have authenticated them by having Scott submit an affidavit that they are letters that he received, but they didn't do that. The state is saying that the letters should be excluded from consideration, because the defense did not follow proper rules of evidence in including them with the appeal.
-About the witnesses who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog on the 24th. They are saying that Geragos was careful in choosing his words during the opening statement. The state contends that it was a trial strategy to not call the witnesses directly, but rather to elicit the information on cross-examination of the state's witnesses. By getting this information in through cross-examination of the detectives, the witnesses themselves were not subject to cross examination. In other words, the defense got the information that was reported by the eye witnesses in without having to risk that the eye witnesses would fall apart on cross examination.
-The Medina's timeline on when they left home is given credibility because it is backed up by phone records. Servas' timeline is given weight because it is backed up by a time stamped receipt and phone records.
The 2nd issue is the robbery, we know it didn't happen on the 26th, the court isn't even sure when, although they stick with the 26th which we already know is false. But it is written that even if it happened on the 24th, it was after Servas put the dog in the backyard, pretty much saying Laci was already dead.
I initially doubted the 26th for the same reasons you mentioned, namely that it seemed preposterous burglars could have pulled this off with so much of a media presence.
I've now reconsidered since the burglars mention seeing the media and news trucks, and since I recognize the possibility of, not necessarily them going unnoticed, but not attracting inordinate attention if they boldly exited the Medina residence through the front door as if they lived there.
I initially doubted the 26th for the same reasons you mentioned, namely that it seemed preposterous burglars could have pulled this off with so much of a media presence.
I've now reconsidered since the burglars mention seeing the media and news trucks, and since I recognize the possibility of, not necessarily them going unnoticed, but not attracting inordinate attention if they boldly exited the Medina residence through the front door as if they lived there.
I'd go with that except for the reporter who said if anyone was near that house on the 26th,he would of seen them and shoved a camera in their face, plus the safe, I've seen dimensions at 2'x3', but I haven't seen the weight of the safe, which means it weighs anywhere from 20lbs to 170lbs. A little more or less, of course but if it's over 100lbs, that sucker is drawing major attention being carried out.
If you believe Scott planned to kill Laci on the 23rd, then you have to accept that Scott invited Laci's sister to their home on the very same evening he intended to kill her. Does that make sense to you?
I do accept that. Amy declined Scott's invitation since she had plans to meet a friend from out of town, but Sharon Rocha wondered if he already knew of Amy's plans because of overhearing her when she already mentioned them.
I don't think if Amy had accepted the invitation for pizza, it would have gotten in the way of his plan to kill Laci at all. It's not like he was inviting Amy over to stay the night. It was just pizza, and would have been a convenient prelude to the alibi he was building which was to suggest everything was fine and normal.
I've read Scott's appeal and the state's response. Here is my take on the points that you bring up:
-It's hearsay because it is an out of court statement. Definition of hearsay: [h]earsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted therein". A statement in a book is an out of court statement. If the defense had interviewed her and gotten her to repeat this statement under oath, that would not be considered hearsay.
Would it change the courts decision on the matter if the defense interviewed her now under oath?
I get why she borrowed the money, her job wasn't paying her and her kids and her with staying with her mom, knowing this trial could last a long time, most prospective jurors wouldn't do it because they couldn't afford it. Was she just doing her civic duty? .,,, I haven't seen anyone that has said that about her, heck she even wrote to Scott on how it changed her life, even though she could of gotten out of jury duty from the start. She was there to make a name for herself and make money IMHO.
-The way that I read this section, the state isn't saying that she didn't write the letters. What they are saying is that there are certain rules to admitting evidence into court. Items such as letters, photos, and audio tapes must be authenticated. The defense included these letters with no authentication. They could have authenticated them by having Scott submit an affidavit that they are letters that he received, but they didn't do that. The state is saying that the letters should be excluded from consideration, because the defense did not follow proper rules of evidence in including them with the appeal.
That's fine except if we're going by rules, Richele lied about her court issue, the court in the appeal basically said that " as a juror it's not her fault if she doesn't understand everything". Now did her issue pertain to anything about the case, nope, but she still lied to get on the jury.
-About the witnesses who supposedly saw Laci walking the dog on the 24th. They are saying that Geragos was careful in choosing his words during the opening statement. The state contends that it was a trial strategy to not call the witnesses directly, but rather to elicit the information on cross-examination of the state's witnesses. By getting this information in through cross-examination of the detectives, the witnesses themselves were not subject to cross examination. In other words, the defense got the information that was reported by the eye witnesses in without having to risk that the eye witnesses would fall apart on cross examination.
Agree, and a funny one about the witness who claims he didn't see her face, he actually did see her face, Brocchini, blew him off and was supposed to fax him a picture of her but didn't, he saw Laci's picture on tv a few days later and then knew who he saw wasn't Laci Peterson. He said he didn't force the issue of police misconduct because it wasn't Laci, but he wasn't happy with Brocchini at all.
-The Medina's timeline on when they left home is given credibility because it is backed up by phone records. Servas' timeline is given weight because it is backed up by a time stamped receipt and phone records.
It has been proven when it comes to time, Servas is unreliable. My writing is in your quote, no chance I can fix that mess I made, sorry.
Also on hearsay, which this entire case is based on, no one saw Scott kill Laci, no one saw Scott put her in the boat, no one saw her getting dumped in the Bay. Heck, no one knows, how, when, or where she was even killed.
I would love to know how many people get put on death row or a percentage of them, for really not much or zero evidence.
Scott Peterson is Dexter, maybe better cause he dumped a body during the day.
Last edited by James420; 09-18-2017 at 01:30 AM..
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.
