Posted on 07/07/2004 5:55:51 AM PDT by runningbear
He wanted to be FREE of any responsibility. Especially fatherhood. Divorce? Far too costly for someone so greedy. He would have been paying child support for a good 18 years or so and he would have to split all property and he may even have had to pay alimony for awhile. Plus, Mr. perfect would be exposed as the scumbag he is.
Ooops, sorry!
"Q. Did you take the leash off the dog?
A. No."
That was the question and answer AFTER the prosecutor had had Karen Servas describe in EXCRUCIATING detail how she saw the dog, went up to the dog, took hold of the leash, checked one gate and found it locked, went to the other gate, briefly looked around b/c she thought she heard someone raking (but that sound turned out to be coming from a different yard), said, "McKenzie, stay!", then closed the gate tight and left.
This prosecutor went into so much detail, he even had her describing which way her car's front was pointing in relation to the dog, and had her mark on a diagram exactly where the dog stood in relation to the car when she first saw him, and had her mark her exact path she took to get the dog back to his fenced yard.
Does your w/o stand for without? Because if it does then you are correct. A dog running loose (without) a leash probably wouldn't be a concern. But in my opinion since it was dragging a leash I would have been concerned especially if I didn't see anyone around and knew who the dog belonged to. Surely she knew Scott and the dog well enough to know Scott could hang onto him and if she thought that Laci was walking the dog then their definitely should have been concern.
This is just my own opinion. I know if I was the neighbor I would have been concerned and would have made calls to find out what happened.
And you can bet your bottom dollar if the dog belonged to an 85 year old I would have been out searching for her. I am on pins and needles keeping an eye out for my 87 year old neighbor across the street. Whenever I don't see her blinds open by 8:00 a.m. I am going oh! oh! is this the day.
I haven't been able to post much lately due to ill health. I agree with the line of thinking Spunky has been pursuing.
It had always bothered me about the dog and the leash.
But that line is the way Scott Peterson wanted us to think, i.e., that it was Laci and the dog. As you said if the owner was an 85 yr. old lady. We were thinking that it was common for Laci, an 7 l/2 mo. preg. woman and that would be a cause for concern to see the dog and not Laci in that instance.
If it was more common for neighbors to see the dog with Scott the concern for seeing the dog without the owner would have been less. They were out jogging and McKenzie got ahead of Scott perhaps.
Also if the dog was with Laci and she was supposedly kidnapped, I don't believe McKenzie would be standing in the street, he would have followed and wandered until he could pick up a scent. Dogs are very possessive of their owners.
Laci and Conner bump.
"Q. Did you take the leash off the dog?
A. No."
That was the question and answer AFTER the prosecutor had had Karen Servas describe in EXCRUCIATING detail how she saw the dog,
Thanks. Now I know for sure she didn't take the leash off.
I guess it doesn't make any difference except I just feel if she was a good neighbor she would have had more concern as to finding the dog running loose with the leash on and not enquiring about it. After all Scott was home by what 4:30-5:00 p.m. and she didn't call to see if Laci was all right or what might have happened.
Karen Servas was asked if she heard from Scott on the 24th. She replied, according to her testimony: that yes, he called her, not sure of time but knew it was after 8:30, wanted to know if Karen knew where Laci was. Karen said no. So Scott told Karen Laci was missing, and that they had helicopters and people searching the park for her. Karen said she told him she wasn't there, that she was up in Ripon (a town 10-15 miles north of Modesto); she said, "and I told him, well, I found McKenzie." At that point, Scott said, hold the phone, and he immediately put a detective on the phone to Karen so she could tell it directly to the detective.
So it appears that Scott had a detective standing right there listening to him talk to Karen. That, to me, seems to make it difficult for him to adopt what she told him as something he "already knew", such as the fact that the leash was on the dog when the dog was put in the pen. She told the details, about her finding the dog, directly to the detective.
Then on Dec. 25, she said she was back home, so she was in and out of Scott's and Laci's house that day.
The next time she heard from Scott, Karen was in Santa Fe. He called her on Dec. 28 and left a msg. She called him back about an hour and a half after the msg was left.
Back to when Karen S. was at the house on Christmas. She said she went to their house to watch the 5:00 Sacramento news b/c on her satellite, she doesn't get the local channels. She wanted to see if Laci's disappearance was being reported in Sacramento. She stayed till about 5:15, then went home. While she was with Scott watching the news at his house, Jackie and Lee were also there, and so were Renee Tomlinson and her husband.
Scott asked her to stay for dinner. She said no thanks, b/c she is a vegetarian. She went home 5:15, but Scott called her up and said, I found some tortellini that you can have on your diet. So she DID go back over to eat with them. She said Renee and husband were no longer there. Jackie and Lee were upset and crying; Scott was calm and cooked her tortellini. Scott brought up the fact that the police had taken his gun from his glove box; said he was upset that they had taken it w/o his knowledge.
The last time Karen S. saw Laci was on the 22nd. Laci and Scott were in their yard. Laci wanted some plants transplanted. Scott was doing the transplanting and Laci was telling him where she wanted the plants re-planted. Also, on that day Scott came to Karen's house and helped her set up her Christmas tree.
Apparently Karen is a divorcee with a young son. Some of the time described, the son wasn't at home with her. Must've been doing the Christmas visitation with the father. Karen herself was clearly not really celebrating much of Christmas at home, but was going to other people's (probably relatives') houses for various Christmas events.
FWIW, I think Karen was on the move around the time Scott came home. I think she left her house (again) at something like 4:05 on the afternoon of Dec. 24th. We know she went to this Ripon place, this other town. She went there to eat "Christmas Eve dinner" with someone, probably relatives. So that's why when Scott called her after 8:30 Dec. 24th, she knew nothing of all the excitement on Covena Avenue.
That's a good point--that the dog would not have just casually walked on after its owner was kidnapped, the dog would have at least tried to follow.
You guys, let's try to take our minds back to before this case ever happened. I swear, before this case happened, the occasional times I saw a neighbor's dog (or any dog) running around loose with its leash attached, it NEVER would cross my mind that anything bad had happened to the PERSON. It would sometimes cross my mind that the DOG was in trouble--lost.
I mean, it just didn't seem to me that the dog with a loose-hanging leash was in any way analogous to the "riderless horse" from the movies!
I've lived in a very crime-ridden place before, and I've lived in a nice, quiet area, too. Before this case, it just never occurred to me that seeing someone's dog running loose with its leash would be any cause of concern that the owner was incapacitated. Unless, as I said, I knew the owner was very old.
OK, will do. I have a medal dangling on a chain moving back and forth before my eyes. :-) I am now going back to before December 23, 2002. I see a dog running loose dragging a leash behind it. I have no idea who this dog belongs to. I assume it just got away from a child who couldn't hold onto it.
Now I see my neighbors (who have no children) dog running loose dragging a leash behind it. I know the husband is strong and the dog has never gotten away from him before. I know the women is pregnant. My mind starts to wonder what could have happened. I still say as a good neighbor I would have been very concerned.
Devil, thanks for the rest of your postings. I never realized that Karen had been gone most of the day. That does somewhat answer why she hadn't called Scott and Laci's house before Scott called her. Although she probably has a cell phone. Maybe she would have the next day if she hadn't of heard from Scott that night.
He wanted to be FREE of any responsibility. Especially fatherhood. Divorce? Far too costly for someone so greedy. He would have been paying child support for a good 18 years or so and he would have to split all property and he may even have had to pay alimony for awhile. Plus, Mr. perfect would be exposed as the scumbag he is.
I don't think they have proven any of that....but its as good a GUESS as any.
Friends of ours had a dog that at least once run off with a leash, then returned home after an interval. Of course, Scott could have let the dog out at some spot. But wouldn't the dog have put out a fight if someone had tried to kidnap Laci?
Alternative charge #1:
While motive is not an element of the crime charged, such evidence is both desirable and important as it may strengthen the state's case if an adequate motive can be shown. Therefore, an absence of evidence of motive may tend to raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. But a total lack of evidence of motive does not necessarily raise a reasonable doubt as long as there is other evidence produced that is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.1
Since it is impossible to look into someone else's mind to see what motivates that person, a jury must infer such a motive from the accused's conduct. The jury should endeavor to determine whether on all of the evidence it can reasonably be inferred that the accused did have a motive to commit the crime, if the existence of a motive can be reasonably inferred.
If the absence of an apparent motive does not raise a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, then the mere fact that the state has been unable to prove what the motive of the accused actually was does not prevent the jury from returning a verdict of guilty.
Alternative charge #2: The law does not require that the state, in a criminal case, prove a motive. That is, it is not necessary for the state to prove what reason an accused person had for committing the crime charged; what motivated the accused to do it. Recognizing the fact that crimes are generally committed for some motive, evidence tending to show the existence of a motive is admissible and may be evidence tending to prove the guilt of an accused person if it appears that the accused has a motive. In the same manner, in any case in which there appears no adequate motive on the part of the particular accused to commit the crime, that fact may tend to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of that accused. Whatever motivates a person, however, rests only in that person's mind. No one else can look into the accused's mind and see what is there. Whatever was in the accused's mind must be inferred from the accused's conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. You are entitled, indeed, it is your duty, to draw such inferences from a person's conduct as are reasonable. You should examine the conduct of an accused in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and, knowing how the human mind ordinarily operates, endeavor to determine whether, on all of the evidence, it can reasonably be inferred that the accused did have a motive to commit the crime. If the existence of a motive can be reasonably inferred, that may be evidence tending to prove the accused's guilt. If no motive can be inferred or found, that may tend to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, or it may not raise such a doubt. If the absence of an apparent motive does not raise a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, then the mere fact that the state has been unable to prove what the motive of the accused actually was, does not prevent you from returning a verdict of guilty.
While motive is not an element of the crime charged, such evidence is both desirable and important as it may strengthen the state's case if an adequate motive can be shown. Therefore, an absence of evidence of motive may tend to raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant. But a total lack of evidence of motive does not necessarily raise a reasonable doubt as long as there is other evidence produced that is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.1
Good post, but doesn't change the fact the man is innocent till proven guilty. If he is found guilty, I believe he should get the death penalty, but till then he is innocent.
I don't like the swing of media and public opinion to label a person guilty just because THEY think so. Its not right, and its not fair. Our system is to assume innocence, and let the facts prove guilt........not the other way around. That is as frightening as the murder of a young woman and her unborn child. Like I said before, I don't know if he did it or not, I wasn't there, I have not been appointed to listen to the facts and decide. I am neither Judge nor Jury and till the verdict is in, the man is innocent.
He is presumed innocent in the court by the judge and the jury..That is the law..The law says nothing that stops citizens outside the jury from presuming anything we please.
.
Many of us have kept up with the interviews, the preliminary hearing, the reports of what happens in court and some subscribe(pay into a pool fund) to transcripts...People on this thread largely form their opinion on known facts...the rest they draw conclusions on what is known and speculate about the how and the exactly when...(No one can know due to the time the bodies were in the water.)
We would have to presume the police were wrong to arrest, the judge was wrong to find probable cause at the prelim if we were to presume innocence as completely as you imply.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term for use in the court....I believe Scott murdered his wife ..which counts as nothing ...only the jury's opinion matters.
The irony is though that a verdict of "Not Guilty" does not mean a person is innocent.
Here are a couple of interesting readings.
Boxcarbill
Originally posted by Klord
I live in the state of Nevada. I Would like to know where in the Nevada constitution and where in the U.S. constitution that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I have seached high and low on the internet and can not find a solid souce. I do see many reference to folks talking about it. But no specific article quoted.
Thanks!
Klord
Boxcar answers:
Innocent until proven guilty is not a constitutional right per se but rather a presumption of the law. And that law goes way back to the Romans. (See quote taken from COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895) below) Presumptions allow us to have a beginning position. We presume that there will be a tomorrow and it is on that presumption that we make preparation for the upcoming day. Of course, most presumptions can be rebutted. Presumptions in law give the fact finder, judge or jury, a starting position from which to hear the evidence. The presumption of innocence is a starting position in evidence. If there is no evidence heard, then the presumption of innocence dictates an acquittal. The presumption of innocence is based upon the premise that most people obey the law; but since, obviously, not everyone does, the system allows for the rebuttal of the presumption by placing the burden of proof upon the state to come forth with sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. In a criminal case that burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt .
It says we begin with that presumption. To my knowledge I don't think the judge says we have to continue that presumption clear to the end of the trial. I think you are able to start making a decision throughout. At first you may be one way and then the next way until at the very end you have to come to a firm commitment of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not that they are innocent.
I think most on this forum started at the beginning with the presumption of innocent, but after seeing, reading, hearing they believe him to be guilty of the crime. That is not to say if they were actually setting on the jury they might have to say "Not Guilty" if the evidence does not meet the standards of 1st degree murder.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator Bruce McPherson, Chair S 2003-2004 Regular Session B
6 3 8 SB 638 (Burton)
As Amended April 30, 2003
Hearing date: May 6, 2003
Penal Code
NJ:br
Criminal Procedure - verdict
upon a plea of "Not guilty" - CHANGE TO "NOT PROVEN"
COMMENTS
1. Need For This Bill
According to the author:
A verdict of "not guilty" usually does not mean a jury has decided an accused is innocent of the crime of which he or she is accused. Rather a jury may believe there was some wrongdoing but that not enough evidence was presented to support a "guilty" verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, some juries, fearing community outrage, may render a verdict of "guilty, " although the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been satisfied. A verdict of "not proven" might prevent confusion and perhaps even prevent the public outcry over the verdict of "not guilty" in some cases. The purpose of this bill is to provide juries with a more accurate description of a jury verdict which does not find enough evidence for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but does not believe that the defendant is innocent. The purpose of this bill is not to change the intent, meaning or consequence of a "not guilty" verdict, but simply to change the wording of "not guilty" to "not proven."
I have no idea if this bill was passed or not.
WHY is always the question although it does not require an answer to convict...The family wants to know, the police seek to find the answer...people look at everything trying to understand WHY?
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.