>>Since they had a short marriage, he may not have even been stuck with any spousal support.<<
I dsisagree. With a brand new baby, Laci would have gotten the house and Snotty would have gotten the mortgage. She'd probably be given some spousal/family support for at least 6 months (prolly much longer) to be with the new baby. If there were joint debts and a lien on her vehicle those would have gone to Snott and she would have kept the goodies.
>>Laci was a substitute teacher so the court would impute income to her anyway. <<
Out of the dozens of divorce cases I personally know of, not ONE ever imputed income to a woman. Not even when the woman was a college graduate and already established in a high wage earning profession such as a surgical nurse.
Family court would be especially reluctant to impute income to any mother even when the children are grown or nearly grown. This is all the more true when the mother in question is a brand new mother. Family court is one of the most PC institutions in this country. Keep in mind that most family court judges are elected.
>>Of course, he would have had to have paid some child support, but a decent family law attorney would have kept the amount reasonable. <<
I disagree again. In almost (if not all) states, CS is set per statute on some sort of formula based almost always on the income of the male. The best lawyer in the world would have a very hard time getting the court to deviate from the formula.
Snott and his mistress on the side would have been living on "love" as he'd have been stripped of every penny he owned in a divorce.
The prosecution hopefully has covered this divorce-money aspect as a possible motive. Personally I find it more believable than Snott finding it impossible to live without his mistress.
>>Instead he's paying Mark Geragos NOW.<<
Wrong again. Whacky Jackie and Lee are paying Geragos. And since they raised Snotty to be the sociopathic creep he is today, perhaps that's only just and fair.
Defense: Conner may have been born alive
By GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: November 14, 2003, 12:26:00 PM PST
12:26 p.m., PST: Scott Peterson's defense attorney raised the prospect this morning that Conner Peterson was born alive before he was killed.
If true, the allegation would cast serious doubt on whether Scott Peterson was involved in the disappearance and deaths of his wife and their son.
Testimony this morning in Peterson's preliminary hearing on double-murder charges also included disputes over a paint transfer on his fishing boat and discussion of more witnesses who thought they may have seen his pregnant wife, Laci, walking their dog Christmas Eve morning.
Attorney Mark Geragos used words such as "full-term infant" and "speculation that the baby was 38 to 39 weeks old" while questioning Modesto police Detective Phil Owen, who attended two autopsies on the remains of Laci Peterson.
"Was it indicated in the autopsy that the baby may have been born alive?" Geragos asked Owen. Judge Al Girolami ordered the entire exchange stricken from the court record when it was determined that Owen had not attended autopsies on the remains of Conner Peterson.
Scott Peterson, 31, faces the death penalty if convicted of murdering his wife and unborn son. He was dressed in a tan suit and light blue shirt this morning.
Laci Peterson's pregnancy was about 32 weeks along when she was last examined by an obstetrician on Dec. 23 - the day before she was reported missing. Authorities believe her husband killed her that night or the next morning.
Her remains were recovered clad in tan maternity pants similar to what her sister, Amy Rocha, said she wore the evening of Dec. 23. Scott Peterson told authorities his wife was wearing black pants when he left for a solo fishing trip to San Francisco Bay the morning of Dec. 24.
Both bodies were found in April along the shore a few miles from where Peterson said he fished.
But some people in the Petersons' La Loma neighborhood have told The Bee they saw Laci Peterson walking her golden retriever that morning - after the time police believe she was slain.
Under questioning by Geragos, Owen acknowledged this morning that he interviewed three people on Dec. 27 with stories that Geragos said could "negate an element of the crime."
John and Karma Souza told the detective they saw a suspicious man in a puffy jacket and blue jeans who "popped out of bushes" as they jogged on a trail in East La Loma Park early that morning.
At about 10:50 a.m., Diana Campos, an employee of a nearby hospital, saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever with two men along a path in the park, Owen said. Campos described the woman as 6-to-7 months pregnant with straight, shoulder-length hair, and the men as extremely dirty.
Campos saw a flier about Laci Peterson's disappearance on Dec. 26 and called police the next day. "She said to herself, 'I know that girl,' and realized it was the same subject she saw walking through the park," Geragos said.
Owen agreed, but said he thought the witness had seen reports on the disappearance. "I felt she was giving me information that was not going in the right direction," he testified.
The alleged sighting could be crucial because Scott Peterson came under tight police surveillance after Christmas Eve and likely would not have had an opportunity to act.
Owen also acknowledged having scraped paint from a red buoy in the bay to compare with paint that showed up on the right side of Peterson's 14-foot aluminum fishing boat. Geragos suggested that police theorized that the defendant tied his boat to the buoy to keep it from capsizing when he dumped his wife's body - but the paint samples didn't match.
Geragos also suggested that the paint transfer may have occurred when police bumped the boat against a red dolly at a police storage area.
"Did you ever consider that it was Modesto police that cause the paint transfer?" Geragos asked.
Owen said he wasn't aware there was a red hand-truck in the storage area.
http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/updates/story/7736641p-8640323c.htmlOut of the dozens of divorce cases I personally know of, not ONE ever imputed income to a woman. Not even when the woman was a college graduate and already established in a high wage earning profession such as a surgical nurse.
Family court would be especially reluctant to impute income to any mother even when the children are grown or nearly grown. This is all the more true when the mother in question is a brand new mother. Family court is one of the most PC institutions in this country. Keep in mind that most family court judges are elected. Sorry, I have to disagree with most of your post. Are you a California lawyer? First of all, spousal support in California, if applicable, is generally based on half the length of what is termed a "long marriage," which has been determined to be approximately 9 years. If I'm not mistaken, Laci and Scott were only married about 3 years. Definitely not spousal support material. Secondly, don't confuse spousal and child support. Some people do get "family support," but others (like me) get separate awards.
I'm a (California) paralegal who had to do my own divorce case pro per, because my crazy ex scared off all the lawyers on both sides. I sat in court for four solid years with my case and watched dozens and dozens of others unfold. You'd better believe the California Family Court imputes income to not only professional women, but oftentimes women who have been in longterm marriages...like ME. Mine lasted 18 years, and even though I stayed home to raise my three children the last 8 years of it, I had income imputed to me. That was when I was NOT working and had been a stay at home mom. Laci WAS working as a substitute teacher. And in my case my kids were small and the man was abusive (we had to flee the house with our lives), and we certainly were not "awarded the house." The house was ordered SOLD by the court. This is commonly done in California.
I don't post this to be disagreeable or make a big deal about my situation, only to point out that I have personal, direct evidence contradicting your contentions. There's more I could disagree with in your post but I won't bother.
BTW, I had much better luck with my case AFTER the attorneys got out. They certainly know how to milk an impossible situation for all it's worth.