Employee recalls sex talk between Peterson and woman at trade show

Unfathomable to me, too. I think he meant to kill the baby, the baby was not a real "loved person" to him...He simply did not want to have the responsibility and wanted to be free ...from marriage and fatherhood...

His "glorious marriage" to "amazing" Laci was not providing what he needed...and complicating his abilities to do as he pleased....He showed no guilt or remorse....

His sleepovers and phone calls with Amber were providing excitement, adoration, and he did not want to stop receiving those things. Freedom was what he wanted.

Speaking of transcript summaries, I read an excerpt the other day. Remember the story of how one of the defense attorneys (Dalton, apparently) and an investigator, went to Scott's warehouse, and the realtor caught them removing something from the seat of a forklift? At first I'd heard the removed object was a water pitcher, but in the transcripts I believe it says water BOTTLE.

Meanwhile, they're talking about GHB again on websleuths. They rehashed some info one of them dug up through research. It said that GHB is clear and is particularly dangerous b/c people sometimes drink from water bottles where it is present.

And now I'm wondering again about Laci's symptoms. CO, I was older than Laci was during my pregnancies. I have good health; Laci, from all accounts, had good health. Sure, you get tired, but not as much as Laci apparently was. I never ever experienced "dizziness", or the feeling that I would pass out. She, OTOH, seems to have experienced these things more than once.

Could he have been dosing her with something, maybe GHB? There was a report way back that he had indeed looked up GHB sites on his computer.

Let's not forget that shortly before Lizzie Borden's father and step-mother were found hacked up, she had been seen buying prussic acid--a deadly poison. Shortly after she bought it, some of the family got sick after dinner. Just b/c a murderer might try more than one method doesn't mean they don't get the job done!

Here's something else that troubles me:

I'm a subscriber to the 2-trip theory, the idea that Scott made one trip to the Bay in the dark of night, and the second one, the one we've all heard about, during the day. I was thinking that the body was dumped, of course, during the first trip.

But there are various stories: Supposedly a "burglar casing the neighborhood" saw Scott doing something suspicious near/at the house, at about 3-3:30 on the morning of the 24th. Then we hear that a truckdriver saw Scott towing the Gamefisher near Berkeley, at 3-something on the morning of the 24th. Then, that some man near Berkeley saw (from afar) Scott messing around with something alongside his boat, at 3-something on the morning of the 24th. We have definitely heard that Mrs. Medina across the street thinks there were 2 vehicles in the Peterson driveway at 5:00 a.m. on the 24th--though she didn't say whether one of them was Scott's truck.

I can't reconcile all this stuff. I don't know; maybe she really was killed not long at all after the 8:30 phone conversation. This would have him doing his dirty work much earlier on the evening of the 23rd. (After all, it WAS dark early.)

I understand he was lively and affectionate towards Amber in his calls which took place in late December. And we hear that he NEVER MENTIONED the hubbub going on all around him. Never mentioned the whole tragic mind-numbing even that HE was at the center of.

I don't know, Meg--that may not prove to the jury that he'd just killed his wife, but it's just GOT to boggle their minds! It's just GOT to at least make them shake their heads in disbelief.

I gagged through Greta tonight and the only thing worth repeating was Scott's interview where he said he confessed to Amber right after she disappeared...LIE..If he was still sweet talking and lying to Amber after the 30th..the jurors can be sure he was doing just that the day after Laci disappeared...

He looked drugged in that interview and I don't think the jurors will be impressed by his words or demeanor. Combine that with Amber's taped calls and it will make him seem less credible than just another cad on the make.

I read the pretrial testimony concerning the timeline and saw the problems...with "eyewitness" testimony about the boat and the neighbor's 2 vehicle at 5 am testimony.

So do you think he made two trips, and if so, when was the first trip?

I'm thinking the "burglar casing houses" was probably the weak link. His statement would, um, not be too credible. Once we dispense with the burglar, that means Scott COULD have been seen near Berkeley at around 3 a.m. on the 24th.

??

I caught the last 10 minutes of that tripe. Just short excerpts of Scott talking in his strangely weak, weenie little voice.

That bit about "I insist we keep the focus on Laci" is, shall we say, less than convincing.

I was convinced as things were revealed that he made two trips...but proving it doesn't seem possible...There is more than one Gamefisher boat in that area and the jury could discount that testimony with a good cross examination.

I forgot to comment on the excellent job done on Loretta's chart..It does keep it organized and easy to see the progression...Her next chart will be Broncchini's testimony and all the Geragos "tips" cross exam...("hide the ball" tactics by Geragos)...Hard to chart, I'll bet!

Chip away at Scott's credibility and character and soon, ...the jurors minds begins to open to see he is capable of the horrible crime after all, he's more than a lying skirt chaser, until finally the amazing non coincidence that he was fishing in the same place the bodies washed up...90 miles away from home...and "fishing" there the day Laci went missing.

NO sign of robbery, No sign of break in. Eyewitness sightings don't match dog arrival at the neighbors yard, or sightings have Laci in wrong clothing....too early or too late sightings.

That's why I am hoping there is more than we know, when it comes to accounting for how Scott really spent the night of Dec. 23.

I honestly expect to be surprised in some way.

One key thing is going to be, I think, WHEN is the very, very first time it was publicized, even locally there, that Scott said he'd been fishing in the Bay that day? And how specific was the info given to the public about exactly which way he went, when he launched his boat at Berkeley that day?

For months upon months, I sat reading these threads, and saw over and over, people would complain that they weren't telling us, the public, enough. I probably said it myself a couple times. But inwardly I knew that while we need to be informed, the authorities have every right to keep mum when there is a murder investigation at stake.

Now we see how telling the public too much is not always in the public's interest. The fact that we heard what Scott's alibi was gives his lying lawyer a chance to claim that everyone knew exactly where Scott was fishing, and that therefore this mysterious, motiveless murderer dumped the body right there, in order to "frame" Scott. And that's just how his lying lawyer might deny the public the justice of seeing the perpetrator punished for this awful crime.

"He already had these bogus business cards."

This is interesting - it suggests that his deceit is premeditated, as opposed to off the cuff. I think we are in for some very telling testimony from Amber. I remember Gloria commenting, sometime ago, that this was one of the most unusual situtations she had ever encountered. She's been around the block a time or two so that comment really stuck with me.

Sorry for the long delay in answering your post. We've had terrific electrical storms here that keep me off the computer, then our three-year old grandson spent some days with us and then the holiday which is also my daughter's birthday (46th). Party Time! Whew, we had lots of fun but glad it's over!

IMO, it's possible SP killed Laci and their baby. I'm just "still on the fence" that beyond reasonable doubt, he's the one responsible. I would hate to see him convicted on circumstancial evidence alone because "he's the only one who could have done it".

Regarding your question, what do I think happened? I don't know what happened. I see some possibilities. Maybe Laci came out of the house with the dog and saw those guys breaking into the neighbor's house across the street. From what I've read of her spunk, she could have confronted them and threatened them saying, I'm calling the police. They could have forced her into the van and taken her along with them. This event would require only a few minutes. Maybe they held her at that building where the police were told it was too dangerous for them to enter. Anything could have happened from that point on. I read they did a CYA and turned themselves in but did they tell police the whole story? A reasonable doubt, IMO.

Also, that kooky lady down the street with her boyfriend and his "Hawaii" friends that matched the description of the suspicious people hanging around the neighborhood that was reported to the police. Were they involved? Maybe even the owner of the empty house next door. (A friend of Scott's.) Was he any where around there that day? I just want to know all possible leads were checked out.

Maybe the step-father was responsible. Early on I had doubts about him. He seemed to be the odd man out of everything. I wondered why Sharon used the name Rocha instead of Grantski and did he resent that. Turns out they were never married. I read he had financial difficulties and problems with the IRS. He even told Scott and Laci, "wish I had a boat". Was he too poor to buy a little fishing boat? Is there NO scenario that would pass Laci's money/life insurance, etc., to her mother and therefore benefit Ron? Stan Goldman on FOX News mentioned a possibility called "Victim's Rights Act" that could question beneficiaries. Was Laci's money already in trust waiting for her to turn 30 and would go to her survivors? Not to Scott if he's convicted of killing her. An inheritance my mother was in process to receive when she passed away (from her sister's estate)went to me and my siblings, not to her siblings. We don't know for sure Laci's inheritance would/will go to Amy and Brent. There are many unanswered questions. Many people on this thread speculate like wildfire, but until evidence is testified to, in court, we just don't know.

I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he's a spoiled brat that thinks only of himself. But as far as his parents (who, of course, are responsible for raising him in such a manner), I can't jump on them for doing everything they can for him. There are mother-hen posters on here that would take on wild animals to protect their children (me included). That's what the Petersons are doing. Right or wrong, that's the way parents are.

There may be overwhelming evidence down the line that prove Scott is guilty of these crimes. In that case, I will be very sad but at least satisfied that a not-guilty man was sentenced to be put to death.

Hi, Ben. Sounds like you and the kids had a great time!

If Laci accosted the burglars while holding the dog, it has to have been after about 10:35 on Dec. 24th. They couldn't have broken in any earlier b/c the Medinas were still there.

Meanwhile, the dog was found wandering in the street at 10:18. Karen Servas was in and out of her house, right next-door to Laci's, more than once during that period.

So first, we would have to suppose the burglars broke into the Medinas' house almost the moment the Medinas left, or at least on the same day, sometime before Scott got home at 4:45. This would have been hard for them, though, because the postman was traveling up Covena just about between 10:35 and 10:50. The postman, from his testimony, seemed like a very conscientious and law-abiding person. And neighbors were coming and going all day, as shown by testimony.

The evidence in the burglary later showed that the burglars actually broke in on Dec. 26th. Obviously, that would have been too late for them to abduct Laci, so let's just suppose that they broke in on the 24th.

We would know that Laci had already been out with her dog b/f the burglars broke in, b/c they couldn't have broken in any earlier than 10:35, and the dog had already been allowed by SOMEONE to get loose, wearing his leash, and at 10:18 he was returned to his pen. (Karen Servas came off as a believable witness, and in fact retraced her steps and checked her times carefully at the specific request of SCOTT.)

So this means Laci would have had to go get her leashed dog out of the pen where Karen put him, getting him sometime after 10:35, when she would have seen the burglars breaking in, and have gone and accosted them. If they took her then, how did the dog get back in the pen AGAIN, wearing his leash? Because that is how Scott said he found him.

Or we might assume that Laci saw these burglars (had to be after 10:35) and went over to accost them WITHOUT the dog. Now, we have Amie Krigbaum, who lived next door to the Medinas, saying that she was home that day. She was so attentive to neighborhood goings-on that she even knew the different dogs' barks. The Medinas' dog was left in their yard, btw, while they were out of town. Yet Amie Krigbaum, who gave an exhaustive account of her own doings on Dec. 24th, did not notice any noise at all over at the Medinas'.
She had two other people living there with her, too, and we've never heard that they heard/saw anything amiss at/near the Medinas' on the 24th.

Okay, but let's suppose that that's what happened: Laci went over to the Medinas', has to have been sometime after 10:35 on the 24th, and she tried to stop the burglary. The burglars tied her up or killed her, and took her with them.

Then we are faced with the scenario of the burglars taking Laci or her body around to various places, such as the house you mentioned. But amazingly, no one in the neighborhood of that closed-up house saw/heard a peep, either.

The burglars apparently never get a single valuable thing off their prisoner/victim, Laci. At least, nothing has turned up, though the burglars turned in other stuff they took. And they don't even try to go into Laci's house, even though they could have forced her to tell them where she lived, and to give them the key. Meanwhile, they read in the papers that Laci's husband said he went fishing in the Bay, 90 miles away, on Dec. 24th. (Assuming this was in the papers early enough--was it? I don't think so.) They know absolutely nothing about whether Laci's relationship with her husband was good, bad, or so bad that he would kill her. They decide to put the body in the Bay. So, in some place which we don't know about, they wrap the body and attach weights. (They either attach weights or amputate head, arms, and legs--something has to account for why her body was missing those things. I can see a shark biting off part of an arm, but it strains credulity to think that a shark just happened to bite off just the parts that would easily identify the body: arms, leg with tattoo, and head.)

The burglars also duct-tape up Laci's crotch. Why?

Laci's shirt somehow ends up back in the drawer in her bedroom, instead of at the bottom of the Bay with her body and her pants and her bra. LOL, we KNOW Laci didn't go over there to stop that burglary wearing no shirt, but just a bra!

Shoes? Who knows? None were found with the corpse, and strangely, none of her shoes seem to be missing. Okay, she was barefoot when she went over there.

It doesn't fit in with the M.O. of burglars (and neither of the burglars has any murders on his rap sheet) that they would take so many pains to hide the body. They had a perfect place to leave the body: inside the Medinas' house, where the burglars apparently knew the people would be out of town for a while. And as an added extra bonus, that might have made it look like it was LACI who had illegally entered the house to take stuff! AND another bonus would be that the MEDINAS would be suspected of having something to do with the death of a woman who was found in their house.

I don't see why the Hawaiians should be suspected just because of the color of their skin. They were supposedly roommates of Kim McGregor's ex-boyfriend. That is the only (tenuous) connection they've been shown to have in this whole thing. Talk about framing innocent men!

Greg Reid, owner of the empty house and a friend of both Scott and Laci, was not around there that day--until later at night, when he opened his vacant house for the police. He lived in another neighborhood--I can't remember, it may even have been another town. His wife Kristen was also a friend of the Petersons. What would Greg's motive be for murdering Laci? The police checked the house, and neither they nor Greg has ever reported that it looked like anyone had been in the house. We can't always assume police are liars; I imagine every now and then they run out of tales and tell the truth.

On the money thing, it's clear that Sharon stood to gain nothing. This trust was set up to benefit the descendants of Dennis Rocha's parents, and Sharon was Dennis' ex-wife. LOL, I have NEVER heard of a guy's family wanting his EX-wife to share in an inheritance. As for who would take the trust money should Laci die, I think it depends on how it was worded, but the way it came across when Brent and Robin Rocha (both of whom know all about the trust) testified, the money would go to Brent and Amy.

Ron Grantski was nowhere near that money--even if he HAD been married to Laci's mother, even if all the kids had died. (BTW, if he was going to murder one of Sharon's kids so Sharon would gain monetarily, why pick the one who was pregnant, thus exposing himself to even WORSE reprehension for this murder?) I think Ron had a real time with Sharon's kids, especially the talkative Laci, but he has demonstrated his wish to remain with Sharon--by staying with Sharon for 20+ years. Surely he knows that if he ever even thought of killing Laci, especially while she was pregnant with Sharon's grandson, that even if he got away with it, he would have to live with the fear that if Sharon ever got the slightest inkling, he would be TOAST. Ron Grantski, while he may have had IRS troubles as many people do, has no criminal record that I know of. If he hated Laci that much, seems like he'd have been more overcome by his homicidal rage during the 16+ years he lived under the same roof with her--not later, when he was finally relieved from having Sharon's children around (assuming it stressed him.)

And where is the proof that Ron Grantski got anywhere near Laci on the 24th? He and Sharon called her late in the afternoon. And if she was held prisoner, how in the world did Ron conceal that fact from her mother, with whom he lived, and whom he saw daily? Also, if Ron is the one who dumped her in the Bay, how did he do it? He doesn't have a boat!

To return to Greg Reid, I believe he is someone Scott talked to at length on Dec. 24th, while Scott was driving back from Berkeley. Scott called him; thus, Greg was answering his phone, not wrestling with tying up a body to prepare it for dumping. That's at least a partial alibi for Greg. Then, I believe Greg let Scott stay with him in the days after the disappearance. How on earth did he keep his cool while he was in the presence of the husband of the woman he'd murdered?

I don't blame the Petersons for wanting their son to be okay. I blame them because of the way they treated the house as though Laci's family had no claim to have a say in how the house was used. I blame them because of the arrogance of Lee when he speaks of the whole proceeding. I blame them because they tried to keep jewelry which did not belong to them. I blame them because they posed for a national magazine not long after Laci's disappearance, with another of their grandchildren (a newborn) in the picture, and thoughts of Connor didn't keep them from refraining from this public display so soon after he was gone. He WAS their grandchild! I blame Jackie Peterson because she continually shacked up and had baby after baby with men she wasn't married to, leaving the babies to have to be adopted instead of growing up knowing Jackie and their fathers. I blame Lee for having deserted his own wife (said to have been pregnant at the time) to take up with Jackie. I blame them for thinking they are above the gag order, while others are scrupulously following it. I blame them for condoning the way their son continually committed adultery. But that's just me.

I have tried to think of an alternate scenario, but the only thing that fits it all is Scott. Even with Scott as the probable perp, there are still some maddening questions.

I think we are just looking at this in different ways. I think you are perhaps more interested in the rights of all innocent accused's being protected, while I must say I am looking at it as more of a whodunit and I admit that I am absorbed in trying to make it all fit together. I just can't ignore what to me seems obvious-- Scott is the only person we've heard of who had all three of these coming together: motive, means, and opportunity.

Um no disrespect but are you Sh&^tt*ng me??? Seriously, I FIND IT PREPOSTEROUS that you have swallowed such inconceiveable, unbelievable and impossible scenario(s). There were people in that neighbourhood, on that street, whether being neighbours driving by (Karen Servas in particula) who had receipts to place her where she said she was. She returned the dog to his yard at 10:18, the mailman was on the same street in the close proximity of the Peterson house between 10:25 to 10:40 - that is 7 minutes in which Laci could have been kidnapped (NOT) AND the Medinas were across the street and were leaving their home at 10:30. The Medinas home was NOT burglarized THAT day. Forget it!! It's NOT possible. And Laci, even if she were on the street would have screamed her bloody head off. Her neighbours were ALL home.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You have made points I will be thinking over. However, unfortunately (or fortunately), we are taking the three year old grandson to the lake for a few days. He loves the pontoon boat so it will be lots of fun. I will have a bunch of catching up to do when we get back.

I didn't get to read the preliminary testimony, couldn't find it. Could you direct me to it? I would appreciate it.

No disrespect but no, I wasn't Sh&^tt*ng you. I wasn't even talking to you.

I've read your wild posts and you wouldn't believe Scott could be innocent if someone else turned themselves in to the police with evidence and a signed confession.

I'm waiting for all the testimony and evidence to be in, that's all. Devil asked me what I thought could have happened and I listed some possibilities. Cash register receipts (clocks) are not always accurate and that may prove to be the case here.

Have a nice day.

Have a nice day yourself!! Whether you were talking to me or not, your posting on a public forum. I don't feel that my posts are half as wild as Scott Peterson's truck loads of lies. Cheers!