Prosecutors want autopsy results unsealed

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

[Howlin]

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

What line would that be? The line where I'm free to voice my personal opinions based on the facts as I know them to be?

What I do object to is the posting of unsupported supposition, gross mistatements and rank speculation.

I think I can see why you may be getting those emails.

[BunnySlippers]

She was 3 lbs when I got her and my friends Ma called her a "rat on a leash!"

What a doll. Even though they're small they can keep you busy! I just got back from buying a puppy gate at Petco. Got it up and installed it just now and my Fidel walked right through the bars. Returning it this afternoon. (sigh)

[Jhoffa_]

I just got back from the vet last night. My little 10 month old Chihuahua Fidel's baby teeth never fell out. So he has two sets of teeth on the upper jaw and two sets on the lower.

Egads.. So the answer is braces? For a dog?

I have a half Chihuahua half minn-pin. (looks like a little, 6 lb doberman, she's really cute)

The vet told me that they have weak teeth, so dry food and (little) rawhide chew sticks are good for them.

Those chew sticks took care of the teething problem completely. (and saved who knows how much in otherwise chewed up shoes) So you might give those a shot first.

PS: Strangely enough, she also likes them to releive stress.

She get's really wound up and she seems to like to work it off with a good chew stick. It's like the doggie equal of a beer after dinner or something..

[BunnySlippers]

yes on the LA thing...Did you hear the latest on the "Black Dahlia" case. A PI from Washingoton, the son of a doctor back then, found out his dad did it.

So I've heard! The book is out and I've ordered it at the LA Public Library.

[BunnySlippers]

Egads.. So the answer is braces? For a dog?

Your chi-min pin sounds darling.

Actually the bottom line of #829 mentions that the surgery is to extract all of the baby teeth which are running right next to the adult teeth. But the canines are askew since there was not enough room for two sets of teeth. In order to straighten then, since they are pointed sideways, is to do the braces a few weeks after the operation.

Fidel loves long beef tendons which are rolled into a pinwheel ... they are called "Paddywacks" (they also have Nicknacks). He chews on them all day while I am at work to keep him busy ... and yes, calm. :-D

[Jhoffa_]

Your chi-min pin sounds darling.

Oh, she is.. and vain. The most vain dog I have ever seen.

She loves to be cooed to and told she's a "beauty dog" (LOL! I swear!)

She visibly preens, puffs up and sticks her chin in the air.

And she sings.

The perfect pet.

[uvular]

See my post #666; No mention of admissability in court by Greta. She just reported what I posted there, and no further comment on it-I hate it when she does that!

[Devil_Anse]

Interesting post! Yes, I see what you're getting at about tenancy by the entireties, which as you said, would have about the same effect as the JTWROS. Both are dissolved on the death of one joint owner; real estate people would certainly want that death certificate b/f attempting anything. But the dissolution would occur by the death itself, I think.

I never thought of tenancy by the entireties as existing in community property states, it being a common law concept, I thought. But I guess what's important is that this house of theirs passes to Scott on Laci's death.

I was surprised to find out that in some community property states, the community property passes to the spouse; in others, it doesn't--the deceased's heirs other than the spouse are considered. Don't know where California falls on this.

I think you're right in that most of their property would be community property, but clearly stuff Laci inherited from, or was given by, the grandmother, would not be community. Especially if that gift by grandma was made b/f Laci's marriage. Scott better keep his meat-hooks off those Tiffany lamps, the way I see it!

There doesn't appear to have been a will. I do think there is still an estate, however. I think someone can apply to be the administrator (or whatever they call it in California when you become the representative of an intestate estate.) The question of "who's got first dibs" aside, it would be extremely impractical for Scott to be made the representative of Laci's estate, given that he is in jail. I don't think an estate representative can usually delegate his powers to another person--even by power of attorney.

I still think that the Rochas might well have some inheritance rights here. One other thing, which you pointed out, is that they have another trick up their sleeve: the civil suit against Scott, which would serve to tie up at least the real estate, until the Rochas' rights were given due consideration.

As you implied, there is very little, if any, legal justification for the Rochas' having just gone in and gotten stuff. Still, I think they considered all the possible consequences, and decided they wanted to take their chance on those consequences, rather than take their chance that the Petersons wouldn't alienate property to which they (even Scott) did not have a right.

I still applaud them; sometimes having possession of something, PRACTICALLY speaking, can be the trump card. I think we are about to see an unprecedented amount of litigation take place for a relatively small amount of property!