Replies

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

I recognize that you firmly believe this, but I fail to understand how these people will "disappear".

The defense is free to call them as witnesses, and if Law Enforcement is so foolish as to intimidate them into not testifying about observations contrary to LE theory of the crime they are setting themselves up for reversal and some severe penalties.

While it is is perfectly proper for LE to attempt to discredit witnesses, it is well outside the bounds to have them disappear.

Also Dec 30th another bloodhound brought into the investigatiom believes she left by vehicle not by foot.

1. I can state with absolute certainty that we have no knowledge whatsoever of the beliefs of the bloodhound. The absolute best we can do is to know the beliefs of the dog handler, based on his inferences from the behavior of the dog.

As we saw in the Westerfield case dog handlers can be wrong.

2. It is also perfectly possible for Laci to have left the house under her own power in the morning and to have been dragged to a vehicle in the afternoon.

Yes, it is entirely possible, even probable that Scott did it, but the hard evidence seems pretty thin at this point. Arguments based on "knowledge" of a dog's thoughts just don't cut it. I doubt that LE can even place the time of death within a two week period.

If LE had strong evidence of the time of death or that Laci couldn't possibly have walked the dog on the 24th they would have arrested Scott long ago. Why take the chance of looking like a bunch of Bozos if he somehow gave them the slip?

Their theory of the crime doesn't involve any other conspitators, so they weren't waiting for him to lead them to someone else. The way I read this is that LE has very strong beliefs that Scott is the culprit, but the physical evidence they have is very weak.

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.

Based on actual results in the Chandra Levy case, the fact that they searched with all these methods and didn't find anything means very little.

While it is is perfectly proper for LE to attempt to discredit witnesses, it is well outside the bounds to have them disappear.

Winesses who finally realize that their 15 minutes is over routinely disappear, on their own volition, from public view. The other side has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that is what MM meant and that was my meaning in an earlier post, as well. After witnesses get exposed to evidence that contradicts them, their factual certainty sometimes wanes to the point that they are not even called to the stand. I think that will happen in this case.

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.