Posted on 07/07/2004 5:55:51 AM PDT by runningbear
My biggest fear is that Geragross is muddying up the waters so much, that the jurors are going to be thoroughly confused. I know that he is allowed to do this, but good grief! Hopefully, the jurors will be able to see through the crap and use commonsense. One or maybe even two coincidences could be possible, but everything combined, there is no way that he didn't kill his wife and baby. I wish I were on that jury, but I would have had to lie to get on it, and I would never do that.
I had also heard that Geragross may purposefully had Scott lose those 40 lbs. so that he would look unable to be able to lift Laci. What a slimeball.
Me too! Yes, she is a member here. I think CO told her to come on over. I enjoy reading PsychesKnot's posts.
I was noticing that bit about Byrd. Byrd is reportedly a Fresno homicide detective, isn't he?
I read how Amber supposedly talked to him for an hour on Dec. 21. Now, truth time: my first thought on hearing that was that maybe he was a boyfriend or ex-boyfriend of Amber's. I have no idea if that is correct or not.
It's going to look ridiculous if Geragos tries to pretend that Amber's Dec. 21 call to Byrd somehow means that Amber was involved in the murder. Oh, YEAH, I just know if I was planning a MURDER, I'd spend my time chatting beforehand with the local HOMICIDE DETECTIVES!
Supposedly a cop named Jameson made a report in early January in which he said he thought Amber might be involved in the murder. Later, when Amber went public, the police made a big point that their investigation had found that she had NO involvement in the disappearance.
The whole Jameson thing reflects a common practice of police: they find someone like Amber who is on the periphery of something big like this investigation. They want the person to spill their guts to them. They don't want to have to pussyfoot around, being led around by the person who will probably at first deny all knowledge, or try to protect someone, or tell false stories.
The police know they have to give the person some incentive to start talking, and start talking NOW. Frequently, they do this by pointing out to the person, "You know, if you don't come clean with all you know about this, right now, then we may have no choice but to assume YOU are involved in the crime!"
When Amber went public she looked like she was scared to death. I have no doubt the police had put the fear of God into her by telling her that if she didn't cooperate fully, she just might end up being charged.
Not very nice to Amber, but I think the police like to apply a little pressure when it suits their purposes.
I still don't get motive. What motive did Peterson have to do this terrible thing. Wanting to be with Amber doesn't cut it.....divorce is to easy. Until proven guilty, I believe he is innocent. Last time I checked that was the way our justice system was suppose to work.
Circumstantial evidence does not mean guilty. Just because it LOOKS like someone did it, doesn't mean they did.
I have no doubt that they put on the pressure...I also have no doubt that Amber could not turn off her romantic feelings about Scott for awhile....even if she felt betrayed and resentful of being embroiled in a potential murder investigation.
LOL, thanks! One thing they ought to do in their closing argument is an old stand-by that was used often by a prosecutor whose arguments I used to observe. This guy was GREAT, and it was a pleasure to just watch him in action.
Often, as in this case, the defense would argue that someone (usually the police) was trying to "frame" the defendant. Prosecutors then argue, "Ladies and gentlemen, if we [police and prosecution] had wanted to frame Mr. X, don't you think we'd have done a better job??" In the present case, he could go on to say, "If we wanted to frame Mr. P., why on earth would we have hidden the body SO WELL that it took all those months, and a powerful storm, to dislodge it? Why wouldn't we have simply placed the body in his truck or his warehouse, or his yard? Or why wouldn't we have simply set it down in the water near where we'd found out he claimed he had been that day?"
Of course, here, they're claiming some other, unknown persons were "framing" Scott. "Why did these people want to frame Scott? They'd already gotten away with the murder!"
To go back to the suggestion that the police were somehow framing Scott: "If the police wanted to frame Scott BUT good, don't you think they'd have put on a person claiming to have been an EYEWITNESS, someone who would come in here and say I SAW HIM KILL HER?" This also works if the defense claims someone else wanted to frame him: wouldn't the someone else, if they're going to all this trouble, have gotten a person to come in and lie and say they'd SEEN HIM KILL HER WITH THEIR OWN EYES?"
She would have no reason to lie. I was just stating that it disturbed me that she just put the dog in the yard without taking off the leash. I know people tie their dogs up in yards but generally they are on pegs that swivel so there is not much risk of the rope or leash winding around them. A short loose leash could get caught on something and even if it didn't get wrapped around their neck the dog could get it wrapped around his feet and be miserable. It is just that I don't think I would have left the leash on the dog.
You're right, she probably still wanted to believe in him.
The defense can talk all they want about Amber allegedly double-crossing the police. All this does is make her look more sympathetic.
If you were involved with someone who was suddenly accused of something like this, wouldn't your first reaction be disbelief, and a corresponding sympathy for this person to whom you were so close?
If Amber was at first secretly trying to help Scott, that blows out of the water any defense suggestion that Amber is just another person who has it out for Scott and is trying to "frame" him. It makes Amber look like she is NOT biased in favor of the prosecution. If a witness looks less biased, that's a good thing.
Name a person, any person, who DID have motive to do this terrible thing. I'm listening.
Because SOMEONE did this terrible thing. Therefore, someone had a motive. That is a fact.
LOL, I guess it's a good thing she did leave the leash on him. Because if she hadn't, Scott's claim that McKenzie got loose while Laci was abducted while walking him would look even more implausible.
The perpetrator wanted that dog to be found with his leash on, and Karen, being in a hurry, unknowingly played right into his hands.
Frankly, if Karen Servas hadn't SAID she left the leash on the dog, I wonder if Scott would have gone with that story.
Name a person, any person, who DID have motive to do this terrible thing. I'm listening.
I don't have to name anything, I am not the judge or the jury, I want to see PROOF that he did it, and a motive. I need to be convinced that he is guilty, I wasn't there, I don't know. You can guess all you want, and assume all you want but bottomline........he is innocent until proven guilty and no one has proven anything different. Yes..someone did it, but until its proven, no one knows but Scott.
I agree.
I did a Google and read several articles about Karen's testimony. Here is one of them. Under questioning by prosecutor Rick Distaso, neighbor Karen Servas said she delayed her plans to run errands, and instead got out of her car and grabbed the dog by its leash, which was covered with moist leaves and grass clippings. Servas, who put the time at 10:18 a.m., said Laci's car was parked in the Petersons' driveway, but the gate was locked, so she went to another gate at the side of the house and locked the dog in the yard........................................................... Servas said Scott Peterson called her at 8:30 that night to tell her that Laci was missing. When she told him that she had found their dog wandering the neighborhood, Scott handed the phone to a detective, she said...................................
Neighbor Testifies
In none of the articles does it say she left the leash on the dog when she put him in the back yard. They don't state one way or the other.
Do you have an actual transcript where she says she left the leash on when she put him in the yard, because these articles only say she found him with the leash on. If she didn't actually say that she left the leash on in her testimony and Scott stated he found the dog with the leash on then he made another boo-boo. Karen did say the leash was moist and the dog dry.
But now I am wondering for another reason as to what kind of neighbor she is. She says Scott called her at 8:30 that night to tell her Laci is missing. Now if it was me and I found a dog in the street with the leash on and knew who it belonged to after running my erronds I would have been worried about what happened to the neighbor who would have been walking the dog. I would have been on the phone and if no answer leaving messages like crazy to see if the neighbor was home yet. If I got no response after all this time I would have called the police to express my concern.
In fact a month ago I saw a dog that I was pretty sure I recognized running loose. It didn't have a leash on. I tried to follow it but couldn't find it. So I called the neighbor who I thought it belonged to and left a message. Shortly afterwards the neighbor called back and said she had been over to her rental house with the dog and it took off.
Toxic Shock is something completely different juz. It has nothing to do with pregnancy. Meconium in the Amniotic Fluid means that "something" has the baby under stress in the womb. Looks like Conner tho wasn't under stress for long because the meconium had not been fully passed. It was still at the anus. As I listened to that Dr. DiMaeo the other day, he stated that the baby actually was very well protected from even bacterial activity in the uterus. The cold (about 40 degrees) at the bottom of the Bay and the thickness of the enclosed uterus actually kept that baby in near pristine condition. The only changes that happened to Conner were in the 24 hours he was free floating before being washed up.
I actually believe he put her in the truck tool box to transport her to the warehouse. If her head was bagged and the rest of her was still clothed, then there would likely be no leakage of any fluids. At the warehouse I believe he packaged her and put her in the boat. Remember the truck driver (3am) said he saw a large package in the boat covered with a Mexican style blanket? I'm still of the opinion that at the Bay he secured her with the extra life preserver while he attached the weights. He then towed her out a ways and cut the life preserver off her and DOWN she went like a rock. (Just MY theory) could be completely wrong
In answer to your question, yes, Karen Servas testified the dog had the leash on when she saw it running loose.
The only thing GOOD that Crier has had on recently is Dr. DiMaeo and he was FANTABULOUS!! I was doing loops around the room. Finally, I had heard a Medical Expert say what I KNEW had to be the truth.
Spunky she could have put the dog back in the yard with the leash on thinking that Laci was actually home but maybe napping. I don't know. I find it worse that Peterson was willing to have his dog lost or run over by just letting him loose away from home.
Yes but the Prosecutor usually objects because there is NO FOUNDATION that has been laid for that questioning.
That wasn't quite my question. I know according to the article she found the dog with the leash on.
My question was: Did she say she left the leash on the dog when she put it in the back yard? There is nothing I have read that said she left it on the dog so if Scott said he found the dog with the leash on and she may have taken it off before putting him in the yard then Scott blew it again.
The neighbor at 8:30 p.m. when Scott called her may have told Scott she found the dog with the leash on and Scott then told the police that he found the dog in the back yard with the leash on, this may have been another lie on Scotts part.
What I remember of her testimony, such as I was able to read quotes from it, was: she said she was about to drive away and she saw the dog standing in the street "looking at me". Then she got out and checked the dog's tags to be sure it was McKenzie. Then she said, "I saw that he had his leash on..." Later, she again referred to the leash when she said, "so I took hold of the leash..."
That's what I remember.
I've occasionally seen a dog with a leash on, running loose. When I was a child, I didn't think much about it, but as an adult, seeing that usually makes me look around to see if there is some person running after the dog. Often there is. But before I heard of this case, it NEVER occurred to me that the absence of the person who had (apparently) been walking the dog meant that anything BAD had happened to that person. I mean, it only meant, in my mind, that the dog had lunged forward and gotten away, and that the person would no doubt be coming after him soon.
LOL, as a dog owner, I can tell you that the times our dog has gotten loose wearing his leash have been many. For a while, one of my sons wasn't quite strong/big enough to hold onto the exuberant dog, and sometimes the dog would give him the slip.
For all Karen S. knew, it could've been Scott who'd been walking McKenzie, and had had McKenzie lunge forward and break free with his leash on. In fact, IIRC, Scott was the one who walked McKenzie usually. McKenzie had been HIS dog b/f they were married. I remember at least one neighbor saying that they had NEVER seen Laci walk the dog alone (w/o Scott being with her), whereas they had seen Scott walk the dog alone.
Certainly in a nice, pretty decent, friendly neighborhood like Laci's, I don't think that the sight of the dog w/o the leash would have made anyone automatically think that something was wrong with the dog's owner. Now if McKenzie's owner had been an 85-yr-old lady with osteoporosis, maybe they would. Otherwise, I don't see it as being a source of automatic concern.
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.