Posted on 07/07/2004 5:55:51 AM PDT by runningbear
I don't know where he put her to carry her to the boat or when..wrapped up securely, no evidence, easy to load her into the boat(adrenaline pumping)..The chemicals , fertlizer smells disturbed the dogs sniffing ability, there is no reasonable explanation for him to store the boat cover under a leaking gas blower at home....I believe he was destroying smell or evidence....
He forgot to unload the umbrellas at the warehouse that he wrapped in a tarp to carry in his truck from his house the morning of the 24th...peculiar to carry them all the way fishing?...Not important just a thought.
Well, I had always ruled out the truck's toolbox before. I assumed that they had found no forensic evidence of her inside it.
Now I'm not so sure. Maybe they DID find some sort of fluid or hair or fiber or something in the toolbox. B/C they showed how she would definitely have fit in it. They must think that's where he carried her.
So, if we are paying attention to Catherine Crier, it looks like Geragos' next big thing will be to try to pin this murder on the female meth addict who stole those credit card "checks" from Scott's warehouse mailbox. Or he'll try to say she had some male associates who are somehow implicated.
It occurs to me, though, that Laci and her belongings would have probably provided people with no clue that she was married to someone who had a warehouse at that address. Any address mentioned in HER personal effects would have been her home address.
And suppose this meth addict (name: Taberna) did know about the missing woman's connection to the warehouse mailbox from which she was now stealing mail?
If you or your associates had committed the GRUESOME, HORRIFYING murder of a pregnant woman in Dec., would YOU go anywhere near the husband of the dead woman? Wouldn't that be too much of a risk? Wouldn't you, rather, make sure that you were GONE, disappeared, unable to be found, and make a point of never bringing yourself anywhere near the crime scene, or the office of the victim's husband?
I mean, if this woman had murdered Laci, it is very unlikely that she is then going to bring EXTREME HEAT down on herself by stealing from that victim's husband two months later.
The majority of thieving addicts that I've seen steal more from their family and friends. This is because they know those people are less likely to call the police on them. These people wouldn't steal from someone against whom they've already committed a horrendous crime. They don't want to go to prison--they want to get away with it!
Here's an idea based on something I read on another forum.
We have a supposed report that Laci used the bathroom of a woman at the warehouse, either on Dec. 20, or Dec. 23. This alleged witness does not provide proof that Laci went into Scott's warehouse on one of those dates; she only purports to prove that Laci went into HER bathroom on one of those dates.
What if Laci was asking to use the woman's bathroom b/c Laci was there at the warehouses without Scott? I mean, if Laci went by there w/o Scott, she probably didn't have a key to get into Scott's warehouse.
Why would Laci go by there w/o Scott? Checking up on him. Wifely snooping. Maybe it was her checking up on him (when he KNEW she might really find evidence of his affair) that made him angry enough to kill her.
I think he is really on the Renfro/watch stealing, homeless thieves connection....Shady people in the neighborhood...The Crier show was not my cup of tea...we don't even know if it was Laci's watch..The check stealing happened at the warehouse mailbox after Laci's disappearance I believe...
I think the Posecutors are going to have to have an objection to some of Geragos's unrelated cross exams .In the defense case one must have more than Geragos has shown to present another suspect.
Regarding objection to cross-exams:
It's true that the defense attorney is not supposed to "testify" while asking cross questions. That is, he's not supposed to bring up stuff that has no relation to the direct exam, just to try to plant off-the-wall suggestions in the jury's mind.
However, here's what usually happens when the proponent (attorney who called the witness and did the direct exam) objects: the judge sits there for a minute, and oftentimes he will ultimately shrug and reply, "Well, it's cross-examination." This means he has overruled the proponent's objection.
Because the balancing factor is that the defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. And so a judge is going to be hesitant to do something that might be seen as curtailing this right.
The good news is that sometimes when a defense attorney gets too suggestive or aggressive in these cross-exam questions, the witness stiffens up and takes the opportunity to add in more details--details that the defense probably doesn't want to bring up.
What I'm hearing about Catherine Crier is really starting to make me mad. She has really become a shill for the defense.
If I thought that she truly believed some of this crap she's putting out for the defense, it wouldn't be so annoying. But I believe that she is doing this in return for some sort of remuneration. Which would be way too close to prostitution. Just my opinion.
Yes, Geragos is eager to blame this murder on the watch pawner, or maybe on the "check" stealer. Both of them look to me like pathetic, down-on-their-luck, addicted, possibly homeless, women.
What the heck kind of liberal IS Geragos, anyway? So eager to stereotype these poor, downtrodden people! Not very compassionate of him! I thought he was supposed to be a champion of the downtrodden?
Your description of Chris Pixley as the "life-sized Ken doll", with Janie Weintraub as "his nightmare date Chuckie" had me rolling on the floor laughing!!!
Juzcuz, I am pretty sure toxic shock is not caused by meconium. The biggest fear is if the baby poops just before delivery and then when he takes his first breath aspirates it into his lungs.
That doctor was pointing out the fact that Conner could not have been born and then later killed as he still had that first poop in him when found.
Exactly!
The Crier show was not my cup of tea..
we now have a real choice...Nancy Grace is going to start covering the Laci murder at 11 PM Mon thru thursday on CTV
Just believing is not enough, but based on your consideration of the evidence you are firmly convinced........
Definition of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.It is not required that the Government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense--the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it unhesitatingly. Putting it in another way, a reasonable doubt means a doubt based on reason and not the mere possibility of innocence......................................................................................
As I have said many times, the Government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were told that it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the Government's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
They say if there are two reasonable explanations for something happening then you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
So far I haven't found the explanations on the defendants behalf reasonable..............Spunky
This is one fact that has always disturbed me. If this is true then the neighbor couldn't have much of a thing for dogs. Who would ever put a dog back in a yard with the leash still on? I wouldn't as I would worry that he would get caught on something and be stuck there for who knows how long. Or get twisted in the leash and choke to death.
I like the Abrams report usually better than all...Nancy G gets on my nerves at times(overtalking and interrupting a report from the courthouse) but I'm glad she is usually on my side.
I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of that neighbor, Karen Servas.
Given that we have a leash law, and therefore unleashed dogs might end up in "jail", I know if I saw a neighbor's dog runnning loose I would put it back in their fenced yard. In fact, I have done just that!
Karen was on her way somewhere. Dec. 24 is kind of a hurried day for most people, b/c most people have Christmas plans. She probably did not want to have to spend time chatting with her neighbor and exchanging pleasantries, as she handed the dog over to Laci. Also, the door to Laci's house was in a place where you had to go inside a fence to get to it.
She could've taken the leash off, but then once again she risks delaying herself by having to knock on the door and give the leash to the neighbor. She could've just hung the leash on the fence, but then she'd risk inconveniencing her neighbor b/c the neighbor would find the dog, but wouldn't know where the leash was.
Lots of dogs are left alone chained to a spike, and those dogs are wearing a leash, in a way, and they don't usually strangle on it.
Frankly, I could easily imagine myself shoving the dog back in the pen where he belongs, leash and all, and hurrying off to handle my own affairs. I might then call the neighbor/dog owner as I was driving away, to let them know. Karen didn't, but then I could see her forgetting all about the incident while she was off to go shopping. Or maybe she had not committed the Petersons' phone number to memory. I only know one of my next-door neighbors' phone numbers by heart.
12 cinderblocks.........
There is a Psyches Knot blog..Is he/she a member here? Did you read the new Modesto Bee report of calls before Laci's disappearance between a Fresno detective and and Amber? The red herring report is a fun read..I have it on my favorites list.http://psychesknot.typepad.com/
One other thing. What incentive would Karen Servas have to lie about her having put the dog in the fence with its leash on?
And didn't subsequent facts (as recounted by Mister Innocent) bear up her story? He said he did find the dog in the fence, with its leash on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.