Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RGSpincich
Once the prosecution presents it's case showing how it would be impossible for these folks to have seen Laci on the 24th, they will vanish.

And just how is the prosecution going to do that?

They don't have a time of death. They have dog handlers inferring from the behavior of dogs, days after the event, the she probably got into a car. The defense will tear that to shreds. Hell, I don't even believe it now.

Laci was known to walk the neighborhood with the dog. I think a jury would give a lot more credence to a human eyewitness who can tell exactly what he/she saw and at what time of day than to whether a bloodhound wagged its tail. Think about Westerfield--even though he was guilty, the dogs were wrong.

143 posted on 06/07/2003 9:36:32 PM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: CurlyDave
And just how is the prosecution going to do that?

At trial. Strange rules there, they don't have to limit their case to what you and I think we know about the case.

I believe they have enough evidence to show that Laci was dead at the time these sightings occurred. How about if they show that she was dead (you do believe she's dead don't you?), that SP transported her to the Bay and that SP was spotted at the Marina at a certain time? Spotted at the marina at a certain time that would eliminate the free time necessary for Laci to walk her dog.

Forget about the dog handlers, they won't be important to the case. The eyewitnesses who claim to have spotted Laci are not reliable. The teacher is iffy and says the dog looks like MacKenzie from a distance in the park, the Mitchells have her in a different neighborhood all together while looking for a mystery football game and Maldonando puts her back on Covena going in the opposite direction than what the Mitchells have said. There is no coherent pattern to the so called sightings.

189 posted on 06/08/2003 1:28:25 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

To: CurlyDave; RGSpincich; runningbear
Thanks runningbear for the ping.

You are correct RGSpincich, when the prosecution presents its case,these folks who claim to have seen Laci on the 24th will disappear.

As this article from the Laci Peterson web site points out, dogs were used from the 1st day of the investigation.I quote:
An immedicate search of East La Loma Park and surrounding areas was launched by police and,within hours, many others. They utilized foot searchers,all terrain vehicles, patrol cars, sport utility vehicles, helicopters and search lights,heat sensors, water recue units,CANINES and equestian teams.

The dogs you are referring to CurlyDave, are the bloodhounds from the Dec.26th. Also Dec 30th another bloodhound brought into the investigatiom believes she left by vehicle not by foot.

I could cite many other things that makes it clear Laci never left her house that day.But heck,I will just let Scott speak for himself. Here from ABC interview is a quote:
Scott Peterson says,"Yes, I tried to sell the house. Who the hell would want to live in a house that's unsafe where your wife was kidnapped from?"
207 posted on 06/08/2003 9:17:59 AM PDT by MaggieMay (A blank tag is a terrible thing to waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson