Prosecutors want autopsy results unsealed

The Modesto Bee ^ | May 29 2003 | John Cote' and Garth Stapely

[Howlin]

Perhaps he knows a little bit more than you do; especially since all the people on the panel agreed with him -- and they WERE lawyers.

[justshe]

Yes.....read about the Black Dahlia case. It took courage for that son to come forward with what he had found, no? I wonder how many children would have.....considering it damned his father!

[daylate-dollarshort]

Now I've heard it all.

Just what the hell is Scott Peterson doing in jail if there is a question of whether or not Laci Peterson is in fact dead???

Give a cite where we can find this truly rediculous statement from the Rochas' attorney.

[TheSpottedOwl]

There are Satanists out there. The cops perhaps run into Goth kids, and therefore just consider them "wannabes".

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, well, if that is the case, then how CONVEEEEENIENT for Scott that his wife's body got thrown in the ocean at a time when her wedding ring just HAPPENED to be off her finger. Or is it true that "there's no such thing as coincidence"?

[TheSpottedOwl]

Watch now as the Petersons proceed to look like total fools while pursuing the "burglary" charges.

What ever happened to dignity and professionalism? I'm speaking more for some of these lawyers. The Petersons should be told quite firmly to shut the hell up. They are making their son look very guilty. It's one thing to visit your son in jail, that would be expected; it's another thing to go on interviews and spewing all sorts of nonsense.

The Petersons have no class...

[Howlin]

Just what the hell is Scott Peterson doing in jail if there is a question of whether or not Laci Peterson is in fact dead???

Just what the hell is Scott Peterson doing in jail if his own attorneys and mother and father know who really killed her???????

I stated what LAWYERS said. From your posts on these threads, I'm guessing you aren't an attorney, so perhaps you should consider the fact that there are people who know more than you do.

[daylate-dollarshort]

.....no answer?

Then perhaps you can explain the necessity of a search warrant to enter Scott Peterson's home servable on Scott?????

If the Roches' have equal access as you claim, why not just get permission from Laci's mother to searh the home??

[Devil_Anse]

I tend to agree with you that at this point the house is owned by Scott, period. You say he has an undivided half-ownership interest in the house. I would go further and say that since the house was apparently owned in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, that he just plain owns the house, now. (Subject to the money owed on it, of course.)

California law, of which I don't know the specifics, would have to be superimposed on all these suppositions.

Scott may own the house, but the personal property in the house would go by inheritance, I think. Scott does not necessarily own all of THAT.

There is of course no need for the Rochas to have a power of attorney as regards Laci; I'd think they would simply apply to have one of them be the representative of her estate. Don't know if they have--probably they have. But on that, too, Scott could give them a fight. It appears that, egged on by his mother, he might be just low enough to do it, too. He'd probably lose. I think one of the Rochas will indeed be named the representative of her estate. Or some neutral party.

When a person dies, the real property has to go somewhere. The law doesn't want there to be gaps in ownership of property. So there is that concept of "seisin" which says that the correct heir to the property has seisin from the time of death. (Sometimes spelled "seizin".) Probably a similar (but not the same) concept would operate to make Scott the owner of the house, as of the time Laci died. The point about the lack of a death certificate does give pause, though. We all know she is going to be "officially" dead, but is she "officially" dead, now? I'd say that he became owner of the house on her death. Period. (Motive, anyone?)

When the presumptive heirs (the Rochas) to property have reason to believe that someone is going to "waste" the property, seems to me that they can get authority from the probate court to take measures to safeguard the property. I'm talking about Laci's personal property here. Wonder if the Rochas have anything pending in the probate court to try to cause a sequestration of assets, a safeguarding of all the assets subject to inheritance. Seems that they could at least ask for such a thing. It also seems to me that McAllister is thinking the same thing--b/c apparently he turned over those Tiffany lamps to the Rochas right quick.

There is absolutely no reason for Jackie P. and company to be so nasty about things like Laci's wedding dress. If you look at today's article, you'll see that there's a sort of theme: Jackie was "perfectly willing" to give the Rochas the less-saleable items, but she seemed to want to keep things like Laci's rings, which were reportedly recovered from a jeweler who was making them into a new piece of jewelry. This reportedly included her wedding ring. Which brings me to another question: why is Laci's wedding ring not lying on the bottom of San Francisco Bay?

[Devil_Anse]

I definitely don't think all the oxygen is getting to Jackie's brain! Maybe she burned a hole in the tube while having a cigarette. Pure speculation here!

To return yet again to my friend who rode the lawnmower into the moving van and made off with it, the ex went right down to the sheriff's office and demanded that she be charged with burglary. They refused to entertain the charge. I think the DA/police here will do the same.

[justshe]

I don't know about "MOST" pregnant women, but I couldn't wear my wedding rings the last 2 months of either of my pregnancies. Water retention was too great...and they became VERY uncomfortable, especially if I left them on overnight. Perhaps this was occurring with Laci. I have never seen any discussion re: this condition with Laci, however.

[Howlin]

Are you as clueless as you appear, or are you just here to make trouble.

When the search warrant was obtained, Scott AND Laci Peterson were owners of the home; nobody knew that Laci wasn't alive at that time.

And the reason they had to get a search warrant was because Scott, the grieving husband, so anxious to find his wife, wouldn't let them in.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Not an answer Howlin'. Try to focus on the subject.

What is the source for this "statement" by Roches' attorney? Who was on the panel?

I see that you, as well as many others, are a fan of Greta's.

Do you remember the comments from Greta and her panel of attorneys regarding the entry of Laci's family and friends into Scott's home?

Do you remember the comments that Scott was the estate of Laci Peterson? Further, that it was his home and as the "estate" even Laci's property belonged to him??

That's five attorneys Howlin.

Do you remember the comment from the attorneys that the Medesto prosecutor wouldn't persue criminal charges against the Roaches despite the unlawful acts???

As far as whether or not I'm an attorney- keep guessing. I just might have more experience in the field than you know.

As far as what Peterson's "own attorneys and mother and father" know is not the question here. Besides, the topic of Geragos' "parallel investigation" is part of the subject matter of this thread. IF he can prove his theory by means of that "parallel investigation" I'm sure that he will announce it.

[daylate-dollarshort]

You missed the point Howlin'.

[Howlin]

Do you remember the comments that Scott was the estate of Laci Peterson?

There is obviously a differing opinion; her attorneys contend that the Rochas have just as much right to the house as the Petersons do, regardless of their POA, precisely because he IS under arrest for her murder and there has been no death certificate issued; those are facts, live with them.

And I am POSITIVE that the reason the police and the DA did nothing to stop the removal of Laci's belongings is because they said it was a CIVIL MATTER. I think the fact that the police stood around while that burglar alarm went off should tell everybody just where the DA thinks this issue is heading. As for me, I'm fine with it; the bigger fool Geragos keeps making out of himself, the better for Scott's conviction.

IF he can prove his theory by means of that "parallel investigation" I'm sure that he will announce it.

He already DID announce that he could prove it -- within days or hours, he said -- and that was ten days ago. He went so far as to say that the prosecution would have egg on their faces. So why is his client still in jail, unless he is, as we all know, a known liar, just like his client?

I hope you'll pardon me, but I'll take the word of people who aren't getting their information from the people who are trying to get a murder off.

I'm sure they hope you're picked for jury duty; that is, if you're not already on the defense team and are merely here to divert attention away from the real facts of this case.

[Howlin]

I didn't miss any point; if Scott Peterson were truely worried about his missing wife -- and didn't have anything to hide -- he would have let them in that very second.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Hi "Devil"~~~~~~

California law, of which I don't know the specifics, would have to be superimposed on all these suppositions.

I believe that under California "usual and cutomary" deed construction they likely recorded the deed as being owning the property "by the entireties" which is the same thing as "joint tenants".

Scott may own the house, but the personal property in the house would go by inheritance, I think. Scott does not necessarily own all of THAT.

California is a community property state. Both of the parties own the properties. Kind of like the joint tenant an by the entireties concept in real estate ownership. Absent a will there is really little or nothing to decide.

There is of course no need for the Rochas to have a power of attorney as regards Laci; I'd think they would simply apply to have one of them be the representative of her estate.

Scott is Laci's next of kin by virtue of marriage- not Laci's parents. Given that Laci died intestate, there is no formal estate that they can administer or be the executors of. Even if there is some identifiable "separate property" (maybe a pre-nup?) I don't think that there wouuld be a situation where this could occur.

When the presumptive heirs (the Rochas) to property have reason to believe that someone is going to "waste" the property, seems to me that they can get authority from the probate court to take measures to safeguard the property. I'm talking about Laci's personal property here. Wonder if the Rochas have anything pending in the probate court to try to cause a sequestration of assets, a safeguarding of all the assets subject to inheritance.

Unfortunately, the Rochas are not the presumptive heirs- Scot is the estate, he is the heir at this time. That will change, of course, if he is convicted for Laci's murder.

There is no probate case for the Rochas to file an action under. The easiest way to tie the house up if someone tries to transfer ownership or sell it, is really simple. They should file a wrongful death action against Scott and file a lis pendens against the property. No one in their right mind would buy the property then.

As I know you are aware I do not support Scott Peterson, nor have I prematurely found him guilty. What I find somewhat distasteful in the house plundering incident, is that Geragos had already agreed to allow the Roches into the property. I believe that was to be this coming Tuesday. (I'm sure that someone will correct me if that's the wrong day.) I think that he wanted to document what was removed by the Roches. It appears to me that Mrs Roches, for what ever the reason, had an attack of temper and jumped the gun.

Just a point to ponder. If the Roaches had the legal ability to enter the home and remove property, why on Earth did their own attorney tell them not to???

[daylate-dollarshort]

Are you trying to imply that I am an agent for for the defense?? And what "facts" am I trying to divert attention away from. What you spew on these threads are not "facts".

No "facts", other than Laci and Connor are dead. Most probably murdered. Al the rest are speculation and accusation. The "facts" will be determined at trial.

You're mighty close to crossing the line Howlin'.

As others who post on this thread are aware, I have received over a dozen e-mails regarding my posts on the Laci threads. They were mistakenly addressed to my wife. They were foul, vile, accusatory, and some were explicitly threatening. And this wasn't the first occasion.

I am not the only person that has received such e-mails. Several others reported on these very same Laci threads, that they too have recieved similar e-mails. I cannot help but notice that most,if not all, have quit posting.

I won't be pushed off this board or silenced by rabid, out of control, posters who have appointed themselves judge and jury of Scott Peterson or anyone else.

As I have posted before, I have no problem with the open and frank discussion of this case. In fact I encourage it. What I do object to is the posting of unsupported supposition, gross mistatements and rank speculation. I posted that to you directly. You either ignored the post or simply dismissed it.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Totally non responsive.

Further, the Prosecuter and MPD did not say that a violation of the criminal code had not occurred. They clearly bailed.

It is typically the perrogative of the Prosecutor to pick and choose the cases he will or will not prosecute. Because they chose to deem it a Civil Matter is simply refective of this.

[Howlin]

Further, the Prosecuter and MPD did not say that a violation of the criminal code had not occurred.

They said it was a civil matter, period.