Death certificates opened for Laci Peterson and son

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

[Sandylapper]

Thanks, OP! IMO, I now have my expert "chemist"!

[Sandylapper]

Oh, no! I give up! You win!

[Sandylapper]

So you're thinking... that he... tied her to a chair... and then forced cocoa mulch down her to poison her and then strangled her...?

You're really not having a good day, are you? Forget your meds, this a.m.?

[CurlyDave]

Why would the defense want to impeach its own witnesses?

If a defense witness has made a prior statement to the papers which is exculpatory for Scott, and then the witness changes that story at trial, either due to pressure from LE, the media, or some other reason, the defense would want to impeach that witness.

For instance, there were newspaper accounts of at least two people who claimed to have seen Laci walking the dog that morning. If they have now decided they were mistaken or recant in some other way, the defense would surely want to get this into evidence.

I don't know if the rules would let them do this, but I would sure give it a try if I were playing defense.

If the defense can place a living Laci anywhere after Scott claims to have left for Berkeley, his opportunity to kill her is greatly diminished. Remember he has a parking receipt for the Berkeley Marina, which presumably has a time stamp on it. It would be very, very difficult to drive back to Modesto, kill Laci, dump her in the bay, and drive back to Modesto in one afternoon.

The defense only has to sow doubt & confusion in the mind of one juror.

[CurlyDave]

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.

As true as #1 is, I doubt that LE can place the time of submergence of the bodies any closer than two weeks. If someone else did it, the bay would become the obvious dumping point.

As for #2, I only had to read the story of Sam Sheppard once to realize how LE can absolutely devastate a man's life after a trajedy perpetrated by someone else.

If my wife is ever the victim of any crime, I am going to insist on every constitutional right I have. Sam Sheppard was a well respected doctor, a man of means and position in his community and LE cut him down wrongfully despite all the "advantages" that his education and position should hve given him.

As for #3, Scott is a known liar and braggard. This is completely in character.

As far as I can see, there really isn't any hard evidence, which has come to the attention of the public, making this an open-and-shut case.

In fact, for every accusation there is a perfectly innocent explanation. Why do we need so many explanarions? Well, if LE was scrutinizing my life for a given period and every time I satisfied them on some point, they came up with another accusation there would be a lot of accusations and misinterpretations.

I am not saying he is innocent, but there is no hard evidence of guilt as you correctly state.

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.

Who among us has never lied to an in-law?

[Canadian Outrage]

Well Caffein DEFINITELY crosses the placenta so it would have been found in the baby. I am extremely interested in what clothing was found on Laci. If it was PJ's he's up $hit creek without a paddle. Also If those clothes that the "four witnesses" say they say her walking the dog in are at home, it makes them look a little stupid doesn't it. If she was taken, so would what she was wearing!!

[Canadian Outrage]

If they hang the Jury CD, Peterson is NOT off the hook. He will be tried again!! Count on it.

[RGSpincich]

Who among us has never lied to an in-law?

To keep the peace. Over haircuts, dresses and house paint. What's the use in SP lying about his going golfing vs. his going fishing? In any case, he probably forgot to cancel his tee time and the pro shop records will make it to court.

[CurlyDave]

What's the use in SP lying about his going golfing vs. his going fishing?

Very few golfers bring home ugly, scaly, slimy critters and expect their wives to cook them.

[RGSpincich]

Not touching it.

[An American In Dairyland]

>>(1) I think Laci was something of a gardener. Loved gardening. Might she have used cocoa mulch on her plants/shrubs? (

Hi Sandy! Sure she might have but I don't know that all that much gardening is done in December in California. I have a friend in LA who gardens and she doesn't garden in December. I think it would be even less likely further north in CA.

Even if Laci used cocoa mulch, you have to eat the cocoa (chocolate usually) in order to take in any theobromine.

>>2) It has been stated that Laci had caffeine in her system, but the GBH issue is cloudy, at best. Why after 4 months in the water would there be caffeine significant enough to find, but not GBH? <<

If I understand correctly, the body rids itself of different drugs at different rates. I thought I read that GBH is eliminated from the body quickly. Theobromine amounts are 'halved' by the human body in 6 to 10 hours after consumption. So the GBH could have already been eliminated when Laci was killed and the theobromine/caffeine would still be at detectable levels in her system. Once death takes place, so does the body's ability to eliminate drugs, etc.

>>(3) Theobromine (cocoa mulch)--would a significant amount of Theobromine given to a human being be enough to disable them, so that a "soft kill" (strangulation) could be effected? If so, would there be "caffeine" in one's system 4 months later? <<

If I understand correctly theobromine and caffeine are similar in the time and manner they are excreted by the body. Again the caffeine was detectable 4 months later because no elimination takes place after the body is dead.

Theobromine is a mild diuretic, a mild stimulant, and relaxes the smooth muscles of the bronchi in the lungs. It has no properties that would disable a human being even though it is toxic to dogs, cats, horses, and some other animals. It is no more toxic than caffeine to people from what I have read.

[Sandylapper]

I'm probably just really overreaching here, AAID, about the theobromine, but wonder if it could be available in say a powder/liquid form, and put in a nice hot cup of chocolate before bedtime. Because theobromine is derived from cacoa beans, maybe the chocolate flavor would not be altered, and one might drink a hot cup of cocoa without noticing a thing. Now, it might not kill, but might it render a victim incapacitated and unable to defend oneself? With SP's "fertilizer" background, I would imagine that he would have knowledge of something like theobromine, and Laci might have been familiar with something like cocoa mulch if she liked to garden, such that theobromine around the house might not be unusual. Think I've heard Laci had a "green thumb".

I live in the south, and people do prune and give their plants/shrubs nourishment in the fall of the year. I really don't know about that specific area around Modesta, CA.