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.
1. How did the DIL of the man in the tan van, who was cruising the neighborhood during the morning Laci disappeared come into possession of a diamond encrusted Croton watch described similarly to one that was missing from Laci's jewelry? The DIL pawned it several days after Laci went missing, and somehow by the time the defense located this transaction at the pawn shop, the watch itself was missing from the pawn shop and couldn't be recovered. When they caught up with man with the tan van, seen by several to be driving slowly around the neighborhood, he claimed to have landscaping jobs in the neighborhood although he couldn't point to where, and they also had no landscaping equipment.
2. I'd like to see someone in Scott Peterson's medium-fit build, with his zero boating experience, manage to maneuver a weighted body up and over the side of that little boat without capsizing it during the fairly rough water/wind conditions. Testimony at trial indicated the boat had a "143 pound side-stability", and Laci weighed more than 10 pounds over that, and there were weights attached to her. It might be possible; i've got some experience in small boats, and I'd sure like to see it.
3. I'd like to have a reckoning where it's admitted that the two men who burglarized the house across from the Peterson's did so during the hours Laci went missing, and not in fact, days later. Whether or not they had anything to do with her disappearance, they were there, committing the crime during the time frame Laci disappeared.
Anyway. There's lots of circumstantial evidence that points to Scott's very likely guilt; I'd just like to see these questions answered.
I remember the story of the "tan van" and the burglars and if I recall, the two were arrested. It's been so many years, I never bothered to follow up on it but just found something very interesting.
A tip that came in to the police during the investigation that was lost for years has now surfaced. Interesting. As I read it correctly, there were four men and not just two. Also interesting. It also appears that Peterson's sister hired a PI to do some sleuthing on it. I don't know what the results are as I really don't follow this story much but you present some pretty good questions.
As for Scott being of medium build. I don't consider a man who is 6' tall weighing 200 lbs a medium sized man. (that's what he weighed at the time) That's pretty substantial and he could very well do as you said he couldn't - push a body over the side of a boat. It's possible to do so we're not going to be able to come to any resolution on that one.
I don't know about the missing watch. When the case was moved to San Mateo County, we didn't receive too much information. It was transferred by our DA's office to that jurisdiction. Thank goodness, too. What a zoo the courthouse was during that time.
Too bad it wasn't able to be located. Kind of makes me wonder if it's really a true story or just more theory.
The one thing I will certainly agree with you on is that since the evidence against him was all circumstantial and that's what he was convicted on, I absolutely feel that he should not be sentenced to death. I've stood by that long before the Peterson case. If you can't prove it 100%, you can't undo an execution so LWOP is the best option.
I'm anxious to see if this PI comes up with any more evidence to present to the judge. She can then decide if it's enough to warrant a new trial. If not, I suspect (not sure, just speculating here) that his sentence will be reduced to LWOP.
You must be a true crime buff, Clara. I used to enjoy trying to solve mysteries, too. After retiring from the criminal justice system, I just didn't care to hear or read about it anymore, though. Too many years of dealing with really horrible stuff but it will be interesting to see how this turns out, won't it?
1. How did the DIL of the man in the tan van, who was cruising the neighborhood during the morning Laci disappeared come into possession of a diamond encrusted Croton watch described similarly to one that was missing from Laci's jewelry? The DIL pawned it several days after Laci went missing, and somehow by the time the defense located this transaction at the pawn shop, the watch itself was missing from the pawn shop and couldn't be recovered. When they caught up with man with the tan van, seen by several to be driving slowly around the neighborhood, he claimed to have landscaping jobs in the neighborhood although he couldn't point to where, and they also had no landscaping equipment.
2. I'd like to see someone in Scott Peterson's medium-fit build, with his zero boating experience, manage to maneuver a weighted body up and over the side of that little boat without capsizing it during the fairly rough water/wind conditions. Testimony at trial indicated the boat had a "143 pound side-stability", and Laci weighed more than 10 pounds over that, and there were weights attached to her. It might be possible; i've got some experience in small boats, and I'd sure like to see it.
3. I'd like to have a reckoning where it's admitted that the two men who burglarized the house across from the Peterson's did so during the hours Laci went missing, and not in fact, days later. Whether or not they had anything to do with her disappearance, they were there, committing the crime during the time frame Laci disappeared.
Anyway. There's lots of circumstantial evidence that points to Scott's very likely guilt; I'd just like to see these questions answered.
I'll give you an answer here that might make some sense.
Maybe Scott didn't kill her himself. I think he hired people to do it. Perhaps the burglarly across the street was planned as part of the crime as a way to throw off suspicion. Then Peterson has them also take one of Laci's jewelry pieces, to make it look like the 'burglars' were the killers. That would be an answer to both # 1 and # 2 above. Bottom line is, innocent people don't pack their things, bleach their hair, carry fake ID, and make a run for Mexico. Just like with OJ. Do innocent people make a run for it in a White Bronco and threaten suicide before surrendering? OJ was the guiltiest SOB I ever saw in my life, his DNA was all over everything.... the floor, the knife, Nicole's clothes, Ron's clothes, the gloves, and on and on. Slam dunk case. Of course, the "jury" saw it differently, just because Mark Fuhrman said a few bad words that were caught on tape.
Last edited by BeerGeek40; 06-30-2021 at 05:18 AM..
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,631 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50655
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
I'll give you an answer here that might make some sense.
Maybe Scott didn't kill her himself. I think he hired people to do it. Perhaps the burglarly across the street was planned as part of the crime as a way to throw off suspicion. Then Peterson has them also take one of Laci's jewelry pieces, to make it look like the 'burglars' were the killers. That would be an answer to both # 1 and # 2 above. Bottom line is, innocent people don't pack their things, bleach their hair, carry fake ID, and make a run for Mexico. Just like with OJ. Do innocent people make a run for it in a White Bronco and threaten suicide before surrendering? OJ was the guiltiest SOB I ever saw in my life, his DNA was all over everything.... the floor, the knife, Nicole's clothes, Ron's clothes, the gloves, and on and on. Slam dunk case. Of course, the "jury" saw it differently, just because Mark Fuhrman said a few bad words that were caught on tape.
The burglars across the street weren't the ones who ended up with a watch similar to Laci's.
The fact that you're all over the map, only sure of ONE thing here, that Scott Peterson is guilty whether he did it himself, or hired someone else to do it, illuminates the fact that there is more than enough reasonable doubt.
You start with the conclusion that Scott Peterson killed his wife, and then you're willing to work backwards in all directions, accepting a variety of different plots, so long as it leads to the conclusion that Peterson is guilty.
And that is exactly what the jury did, IMHO. They took a good look at him, noting that he's an insincere charmer, and concluded he was guilty regardless of any real proof.
People who are hounded by the public and police OFTEN run, change their appearance, change their behavior, pack their cars, etc. Even if they're innocent. People who have been vilified on social media or news media for being involved in something that has attracted the public's attention often go underground and go into panic mode. Even ROYALTY or celebrities do that, if they're under public pressure.
I don't know that he's innocent either, but I work differently. I look at all the facts and think, "is there anyway possible he's not guilty?"
Yes, there is. There are LOTS of ways Laci could have been killed, that don't involve Peterson when you look at everything presented to the jury.
The burglars across the street weren't the ones who ended up with a watch similar to Laci's.
The fact that you're all over the map, only sure of ONE thing here, that Scott Peterson is guilty whether he did it himself, or hired someone else to do it, illuminates the fact that there is more than enough reasonable doubt.
You start with the conclusion that Scott Peterson killed his wife, and then you're willing to work backwards in all directions, accepting a variety of different plots, so long as it leads to the conclusion that Peterson is guilty.
And that is exactly what the jury did, IMHO. They took a good look at him, noting that he's an insincere charmer, and concluded he was guilty regardless of any real proof.
People who are hounded by the public and police OFTEN run, change their appearance, change their behavior, pack their cars, etc. Even if they're innocent. People who have been vilified on social media or news media for being involved in something that has attracted the public's attention often go underground and go into panic mode. Even ROYALTY or celebrities do that, if they're under public pressure.
I don't know that he's innocent either, but I work differently. I look at all the facts and think, "is there anyway possible he's not guilty?"
Yes, there is. There are LOTS of ways Laci could have been killed, that don't involve Peterson when you look at everything presented to the jury.
Why do you want to see this guy out of jail so badly? And sorry.... the fact that he was on the run to a foreign country was about the strongest evidence of guilt that existed. Innocent people don't run.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,631 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50655
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
Why do you want to see this guy out of jail so badly? And sorry.... the fact that he was on the run to a foreign country was about the strongest evidence of guilt that existed. Innocent people don't run.
I don't want him released.
I want to see another trial.
Running, when it's obvious he's the target of the investigation, isn't an admission of guilt. Innocent people DO run.
Innocent people also accept plea bargains even though they are innocent. Innocent people also confess to crimes they didn't commit, just to get a less harsh sentence.
Sometimes, what we THINK innocent people look like, is not what they look like at all. Many expect someone to keep coming to the mic, denying guilt, standing there in front of jeering crowds strongly declaring their innocence, and taking lie detector tests. That's not what innocence usually looks like.
Innocence looks like the Atlanta Bomber accused guy. They usually just stand there like a deer in the headlights and look confused, and cower and hide.
The guilty are the ones who stand there and shake their fists and go on and on about how we need to find the REAL killer out there, and cry crocodile tears for the deceased.
Anyway, we'll know soon enough whether he is awarded a new trial.
1. How did the DIL of the man in the tan van, who was cruising the neighborhood during the morning Laci disappeared come into possession of a diamond encrusted Croton watch described similarly to one that was missing from Laci's jewelry? The DIL pawned it several days after Laci went missing, and somehow by the time the defense located this transaction at the pawn shop, the watch itself was missing from the pawn shop and couldn't be recovered. When they caught up with man with the tan van, seen by several to be driving slowly around the neighborhood, he claimed to have landscaping jobs in the neighborhood although he couldn't point to where, and they also had no landscaping equipment.
2. I'd like to see someone in Scott Peterson's medium-fit build, with his zero boating experience, manage to maneuver a weighted body up and over the side of that little boat without capsizing it during the fairly rough water/wind conditions. Testimony at trial indicated the boat had a "143 pound side-stability", and Laci weighed more than 10 pounds over that, and there were weights attached to her. It might be possible; i've got some experience in small boats, and I'd sure like to see it.
3. I'd like to have a reckoning where it's admitted that the two men who burglarized the house across from the Peterson's did so during the hours Laci went missing, and not in fact, days later. Whether or not they had anything to do with her disappearance, they were there, committing the crime during the time frame Laci disappeared.
Anyway. There's lots of circumstantial evidence that points to Scott's very likely guilt; I'd just like to see these questions answered.
I agree. I’d also like to take into consideration the numerous eye witnesses who saw Laci walking her dog after she was supposedly dead the morning of the burglary.
I agree. I’d also like to take into consideration the numerous eye witnesses who saw Laci walking her dog after she was supposedly dead the morning of the burglary.
The Aponte tip is also interesting.
I always wondered why the defense did not call any of these people....wasn't there something like 24 people? Although Laci was found with tan pants not black like Scott had said she was wearing.
I always wondered why the defense did not call any of these people....wasn't there something like 24 people? Although Laci was found with tan pants not black like Scott had said she was wearing.
Looks like an Alford Plea in the making considering that Peterson's application for a writ of habeas corpus is under review.
(It is being reported that that Peterson's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus contains “new forensic and eyewitness evidence of innocence.” which is code for the whole prosecution gets sh*t canned because Member States are prohibited by the UN Charter from imposing the death penalty upon the peoples, hence the the Justice of the CA Supreme Court wrote that their ruling only overturned the sentence, not the conviction. But they are fixing to get learned so don't be surprised if the Justices grant the Writ and order a new trial and therein enters the Alford Plea.
In an Alford Plea, the defendant basically signs a plea agreement acknowledging that their is sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and walks out of prison with time served.
Looks like an Alford Plea in the making considering that Peterson's application for a writ of habeas corpus is under review.
(It is being reported that that Peterson's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus contains “new forensic and eyewitness evidence of innocence.” which is code for the whole prosecution gets sh*t canned because Member States are prohibited by the UN Charter from imposing the death penalty upon the peoples, hence the the Justice of the CA Supreme Court wrote that their ruling only overturned the sentence, not the conviction. But they are fixing to get learned so don't be surprised if the Justices grant the Writ and order a new trial and therein enters the Alford Plea.
In an Alford Plea, the defendant basically signs a plea agreement acknowledging that their is sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and walks out of prison with time served.
It seems like the Alfold Plea is more common today that say, 30 years ago. ?
Would this mean the Peterson could get out one day b/c of a lesser sentence?
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.
