Death certificates opened for Laci Peterson and son

Contra Costa Times ^ | Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003 | Brian Anderson and Claire Booth

[MEG33]

Bump

[windchime]

"Does anyone know if he has "waived time" , i.e. given up his right to a speedy trial?"

Yes, at an earlier appearance in court the right to a speedy trial was waived. This occurred post Geragos.

[RGSpincich]

You are right about SP waiving time. BUT since that appearance I've heard Geragos say he wants a speedy trial and will pursue a full blown preliminary. July 16th is the scheduled prelim, I think that SP is entitled to a speedy trial within 60 days of the end of the prelim unless he waives time again. The previous waiving of time was in regard to the bail hearing, which has not occurred, and the re-scheduled prelim which was originally scheduled for May 19th.

[windchime]

"BUT since that appearance I've heard Geragos say he wants a speedy trial and will pursue a full blown preliminary."

Thanks for the clarification. From what the legal pundits (Ted Williams for one) have stated, having the prosecution lay all their cards on the table in a full blown prelim would be detrimental to their case & give Geragos a clear perspective on what path they're taking for conviction. I guess Geragos is an @ss, but not stupid.

[Devil_Anse]

It was frikkin' CODEINE!

[Devil_Anse]

Oh, dear. Oh, dear.

I don't dare speculate as to why you posted that.

My experience with said church comes from when I was single, and a friend kept trying to drag me to their "singles nights". Finally, just to shut her up, I went. NEVER again, I thought, as I later managed to slip away from that gathering. It would be too long a post for me to describe what I found there. Yes, too long even for me.

[Devil_Anse]

That's what it was! Morpheme!! Powerful stuff!

[Devil_Anse]

If you're talking about witnesses who will be called by the defense, chances are the defense will not get to introduce their prior statements. Generally, prior statements cannot be introduced unless one is impeaching the witness, and then the statements have to be inconsistent. Why would the defense want to impeach its own witnesses?

Prior consistent statements are only admissible, generally, if the other party has already attacked the credibility of a witness you called.

While the above is not taken from California law, the general rules of evidence for 49 states are taught to law students who will practice in any of those 49 states. That is, routinely, a person who is going to practice in, say, Michigan, will sit in class with a person who plans to practice in, say, California.

The rules of evidence in the 50th state, Louisiana, are not all that different, generally, but the rest of their law is so different that one must take a separate course of study to learn it; hence, a Louisiana student would probably not be in class with students who were going to other states.

[Devil_Anse]

Your post is thought-provoking and contains a lot of good ideas, IMO. However, there's one point I disagree with you on. I don't think rushing the case to trial would be to Scott's advantage.

It is only the prosecution which is obligated to produce any witnesses or evidence at all. Therefore, most of the witnesses are going to be theirs, and any witnesses called by Scott are going to be, essentially, reactive to whatever the prosecution witnesses say.

So if the time drags on, maybe it will dull the memories of the prosecution witnesses. That would be an extremely good thing for Scott. The state would find itself with a problem about its witnesses. If these witnesses then get up there and are uncertain about key facts and times, then Scott might not even have to call witnesses of his own. He could win the case just by neutralizing the prosecution witnesses one at a time.

IMO, the passage of time is almost always detrimental to the party who has the burden of proof. And IMO, the passage of time is correspondingly almost always to the advantage of the defending party. In this case, it is the prosecution, not Scott, who has the burden of proof.

[Devil_Anse]

I thought it was illegal, too! In fact, kcvl posted earlier that it is on the federal schedules of illegal drugs.

BUT even earlier than that, kcvl posted two sites about GHB. On one of them, there's an ad that says, "Buy GHB here w/o a prescription!"

So I don't get it! I thought about clicking on the "Buy GHB" link and going as far as possible--to see what it was--w/o actually ordering any. But I'm afraid to even go that far! If I'm gonna get arrested, darn it, it's gonna be for something I WANTED to do--not because someone thought I was trying to buy a drug that I didn't even want, LOL!!

On mulling it over further, I'm beginning to conclude that maybe that ad on that site is a fraud. B/C it really does appear that buying/selling the stuff is illegal w/o authorization.

[Devil_Anse]

That might be it. I see from reading farther down that some other posters also think this is the explanation.

Maybe, as you say, they found blood evidence (sorry--"bluh ewadunce"--that's how our posters have quoted Dr. Lee) and concluded "violent homicide" and only recently have realized that the violence to the body only occurred after death.

[Devil_Anse]

There's little room for doubt that what we, the public, know at the moment is not enough to convict Scott.

Four things that we do know, however, definitely point towards his guilt:

1. The bodies turned up right near the place he said he visited on the 24th. Witnesses can place him at that place, but apparently none of them can say how long he was really there.

2. His strange behavior--and it was VERY guilty-looking--after the fact.

3. The fact that one phone tap caught him saying to Amber, "I didn't do it, but I know who did, and I'll tell you when we're together later."

4. There seems to be no other suspect for whom a link with Laci can be discerned.

The first three of the above can be proved and admitted in court (with some limitations on proof of his behavior after the fact). That last one is a common sense thing; it would not be valid as a showing of guilt, I don't think. It's more something for the prosecution to save for their argument.

You say it's possible that Laci left the house on her own in the morning, and was dragged into a vehicle later that day. I agree; I think that's possible, too. Furthermore, it's also possible that the person who dragged or enticed her into a vehicle was Scott. There is nothing we know of to prove that he was in the bay all day. We don't even really know when he first left the house that day. We have only his statements (contradictory) to go on.

Originally we heard that he'd said he left the house at 9:30 and driven to Berkeley. So we sat around thinking, then he must have arrived at Berkeley no earlier than 11:00.

Then we heard that he'd said something different later. We heard that he'd changed, and said he went to his warehouse after leaving his house at 9:30, and had worked for a couple of hours.

We know he called the Rochas, presumably from the house, at about 4:45 p.m. Certainly the Rochas and the phone records will tell us eventually the exact time that call was made, and whether it definitely originated at his house.

So if he called the Rochas from the house at 4:45, then he has to have left Berkeley (whatever time he really got there) by 3:15 p.m.

We have consistently heard that no one living knew ahead of time that he was going fishing on the 24th. In fact, we have recently heard that he told Amy Rocha (when he saw her in late afternoon at the hair salon) that he had an 8:00 tee time the next day (the 24th) at the local golf course.

Earlier, there was a story that someone saw Scott in the Berkeley area in the early morning hours of Dec. 24th--during the night, really, that is, no later than 3:00 a.m.

Given the contradicting stories about what he did that day/what he planned for that day, it's possible that he did the murder and disposed of the body, all between 8:30 p.m Dec. 23 (when Laci's mother last spoke to her by phone) and about 3:00 a.m. on the 24th.

This would then leave him free to drive to Berkeley, maybe make a cursory show of going fishing, then drive back and raise the alarm.

[Devil_Anse]

GROSS!!!!

Gee, and that might be yet another link btw him and Clinton...

[Devil_Anse]

Singing? Oh, now you've got me thinking of "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Lana Turner version. That's the one where she and her lover conspire to kill her husband. I can still see that scene where the husband is SINGING, with the banjo.

[oceanperch]

Jeanette Tamayo San Jose Nine year old found, alive!!!!

[Devil_Anse]

You are not the only one who thinks Henry Lee is pulling a "Charro"(sp?)!!

Or a Jose Jimenez.

Or a Charlie Chan.

Oh, what the heck--anything but a Henry Lee!

[Devil_Anse]

Alcohol.

But she would not have willingly drunk alcohol...

Now you've got me very uncomfortable, remembering that brief news mention of her possibly having been "tied to a chair".

[oceanperch]

Theobromine belongs to a class of alkaloid molecules known as methylxanthines. Methylxanthines naturally occur in as many as sixty different plant species and include caffeine (the primary methlyxanthine in coffee) and theophylline (the primary methylxanthine in tea). Theobromine is the primary methylxanthine found in products of the cocoa tree, theobroma cacao.


Theobromine affects humans similarly to caffeine, but on a much smaller scale. Theobromine is mildly diuretic (increases urine production), is a mild stimulant, and relaxes the smooth muscles of the bronchi in the lungs. In the human body, theobromine levels are halved between 6-10 hours after consumption.
Theobromine has been used as a drug for its diuretic effect, particularly in cases where cardiac failure has resulted in an accumulation of body fluid. It has been administered with digitalis in order to relieve dilatation. Because of its ability to dilate blood vessels, theobromine also has been used to treat high blood pressure.
Cocoa and chocolate products may be toxic or lethal to dogs and other domestic animals such as horses because these animals metabolize theobromine more slowly than humans. The heart, central nervous system, and kidneys are affected. Early signs of theobromine poisoning in dogs include nausea and vomiting, restlessness, diarrhea, muscle tremors, and increased urination or incontinence. The treatment at this stage is to induce vomiting. Cardiac arrhythmias and seizures are symptoms of more advanced poisoning.
Different types of chocolate contain different amounts of theobromine. In general, theobromine levels are higher in dark chocolates (approximately 10 g/kg) than in milk chocolates (1-5 g/kg). Higher quality chocolate tends to contain more theobromine than lower quality chocolate. Cocoa beans naturally contain approximately 300-1200 mg/ounce theobromine (note how variable this is!).

[fiesti]

if this devil sp walks i am gonna be so angry i won't know what to do. oj is 1 thing but this bastard something else and his mommie dearest