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.
By taking the dog away from the home, and releasing the dog some distance away, Scott was staging that Laci was alive on Dec 24. The dog had to re-appear at some time after he left the house (and it did) to give the illusion that Laci took the dog for a walk on a leash. If the dog was on the street at the same time that Scott left, there would be no reason to believe Scott's lie that Laci walked the dog after he left because everyone would know that he pulled out of the driveway at the same time that the dog was wandering the street. No one would have looked in the park for Laci if it was known that the dog was abandoned on the street in front of their house when Scott was still at home.
The dog could've been on the streets or the states theory, dropped at a dumpster between the warehouse and home.
It were established during trial, Scott didn't return home after going to the warehouse, in other words, there's nothing to prove.
Of course returning and possibility of being seen would incriminate Peterson, I've already said as much in a previous post.
Scott put a lot of thought into the events surrounding his wife's disappearance. He kindly ensured that Laci saw her doctor and that Laci had a visit with her sister prior to her murder. When Scott invited Laci's half sister to join them for pizza, he learned that she had plans for the evening (assured that she wouldn't be looking for Laci that evening). Laci also placed a call to her mother the night she was murdered. Laci briefly spoke with her mom at 8:30 to confirm Dec 24 Christmas dinner plans, and to say that she was really tired (ensured that her mom wouldn't be calling for her that evening). Scott had all his ducks in a row to ensure that neither sister nor mom called Laci that night.
He did several things to stage that Laci was alive on Dec 24.
At 5:17 on Dec 24, he returned home from putting his family in the ocean, did some laundry (but not the laundry that needed to be done), ate pizza, and phoned his mother in law to state that Laci was "missing". Her car was at home, the dog was wearing a leash, and she was "missing". Who does that? This was before he had checked with friends and neighbours. Why would a man that spends the day fishing, and who arrives home to discover that his wife is not home, presume that she is "missing"? It's just like his statement to Amber Frey that his wife would be dead on Christmas day, and she was. Either Scott can read the future (other than his conviction for murder), or he used language indicating that he was aware of her impending murder because he is the murderer.
I'm going to assume that you meant Scott rather than Laci. Either way, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the lead detective is on record disagreeing with you. Scott was a suspect immediately, and after a few days, exclusively.
Police immediately knew that Laci did not voluntarily go "missing". They immediately started an investigation into her suspicious disappearance and, as always, they wanted to rule out the husband. They were never able to rule out the husband ... a very common story. Does that mean that he was a suspect? It means that he was a person of interest - per protocol - and that they had to rule him out. Instead, he became the prime suspect, and convicted murderer.
If the police thought she disappeared around the house, and Scott became a suspect (because of his lies and affairs if for no other reason) then it would be important to prove that he was not at the house. If he set the dog loose with his leash on, it was to make the police think that's where she disappeared from. Then it would be important for him to establish that he was not near that area when Laci went missing.
He has a witness and the cell phone record showing when he left home(both deliberate, remember?). A time-stamped receipt from the marina. He has no reason to place himself at the warehouse. More importantly, he has no reason to place himself there, on the computer for 30 minutes, while he has a dead body on his hands and a strict time schedule to meet. It just doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly
A murderer would probably not feel like they're taking much risk at all by placing themselves at the actual disposal site. Whomever weighted Laci and threw her into the bay had no reason to think that she would ever be seen again. They certainly never expected her to wash to shore.
You'll have to forgive me, but: are you out of your mind? No murderer would deliberately place himself at a disposal site where any number of witnesses could've seen him. Moreover, he wouldn't weigh the body down with the intent of keeping it in the exact same spot that said witnesses would place him; with anchors that uniquely match the one he kept in his boat. These would be the actions of someone TRYING to get caught. It defies all logic.
If the Prosecution theory is correct, he does have Laci's body in the truck. He's going to be focused on dumping the body. He has plans to dump her body in the Bay so he's looking at a drive of over an hour from Modesto. He must also realize that he's heading toward a densely populated area and there might be too many people around to dispose of a body. So he must be thinking that he might have to go to a Plan B if there's anybody else at the Berkeley Marina. In a densely population city like Berkeley, that's not going to be easy to find somewhere secluded enough to dump a body where it won't be discovered. Meanwhile, he must also be aware that rigor mortis is setting in. And he has to be back in Modesto before dinner or somebody in Laci's family is going to report both Scott and Laci are missing. Given that this is the situation, do you think he's going to be goofing around assembling a mortiser?
Laci's body and Conner's body were found on opposite shores of the inlet that leads from the bay to the Hoffman marsh, which is long and huge. Rydin road runs right alongside the Hoffman marsh and ends in a park (dog) that abuts the inlet.
Anybody could drive along Rydin road at night and dump a body into that marsh without being seen. Moreover, the water level in the marsh rose and fell with tides and storms. And Laci's body was found right after a huge storm hit the area. The following could easily have happened: the water level in the marsh rose significantly due to the storm, the tide went out and Laci's body was carried out towards the bay via the connecting channel and found along its shoreline by a dog walker. Soon thereafter, Conner's body was found on the inlet's opposite shore -- at the edge of the tidal surge.
Further, no one in LE ever testified that the Hoffman marsh was searched.
Why?
Why search a marsh when you are looking for a body that was allegedly submerged in the bay with four weights that were signed by Scott. (duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)
On their good days, key detectives in this case had a combined IQ level of frozen succotash. On their bad days, they were crooks and should have been imprisoned for destruction of evidence, evidence tampering and false representation and presentation of evidence at trial.
You'll have to forgive me, but: are you out of your mind? No murderer would deliberately place himself at a disposal site where any number of witnesses could've seen him. Moreover, he wouldn't weigh the body down with the intent of keeping it in the exact same spot that said witnesses would place him; with anchors that uniquely match the one he kept in his boat. These would be the actions of someone TRYING to get caught. It defies all logic.
(chuckle)
I trust you will support my proposed Constitutional Amendment that would require all potential jurors to first pass an applied logic test (pre voir dire) before they could be seated in the jury pool.
Thanks, CA4Now. The review IS interesting. I concur with the author. Nurture is the primary influence in how we turn out as adults. With the exception of those born with a mental disorder but I don't think Peterson is mentally ill. His detachment from the everything, especially the bodies were discovered, was horrible. He was so detached from it, it was frightening and really gave credence as to whether he could be responsible for their deaths. His demeanor along with the rest of the circumstantial evidence was the nail in the coffin. I'm still not convinced that Peterson's parents knew about this but they were protecting him, like most parents. I know his half-sister suspected him but not sure about his parents.
Contrary to what others say about the police zeroing in on him from the beginning. That is NOT true. Anyone and everyone that knew Laci was a person of interest, not a suspect. I remember that very well. It wasn't until Amber Frey came forward that things changed. He went from being just a POI to a real suspect in this.
According to Catherine Crier's book and the lame documentary based upon it, the police zeroed in on Scott in the very beginning. When a married woman goes missing, the husband is the first person of interest that needs to be eliminated.
He didn't go back home. He either let the dog out the back gate before he left the house that morning, or he took it with him and let it out somewhere close to home.
Sure. Another opportunity, at 10:00 in the morning, when everyone is awake and at home(Christmas Eve), for a witness to see him releasing a dog from his truck somewhere. Somewhere close enough that Scott must be certain the dog would find his way back from. Because if he's seen, or the dog gets lost, that foils his whole plan. Do you not see the stretch you're making?
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.
The review IS interesting. I concur with the author. Nurture is the primary influence in how we turn out as adults. With the exception of those born with a mental disorder but I don't think Peterson is mentally ill. His detachment from the everything, especially the bodies were discovered, was horrible. He was so detached from it, it was frightening and really gave credence as to whether he could be responsible for their deaths. His demeanor along with the rest of the circumstantial evidence was the nail in the coffin. I'm still not convinced that Peterson's parents knew about this but they were protecting him, like most parents. I know his half-sister suspected him but not sure about his parents. 