Replies

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.