|
|
Post by catskillz on May 14, 2005 9:06:34 GMT -5
CC,
I fully agree with u on that one, i'm not denying i could be wrong as i haven't seen hard evidence.
I want to distinguish therefor the matters if i think he did it, and if i think he should have been giving the max penalty of death (not) or lwop.
It also isn't a single item from his behaviour that made me believe he's guilty, it's the overall impression i get, somehow it doesn't add. To me this belief is justified, since i know it is not a result of tunnelvision or preconception, i looked at it from different scenario's and eventually came to this conclusion.
Best, catz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on May 14, 2005 9:11:32 GMT -5
That's some reading...  I'll read it in depth shortly, suffice to say: The Medina's left their home at 11:40 on 12/24. The burglary happened after Laci was reported missing. At the end of the day, Cyril Wecht never took the witness stand and no official comments or reports were entered into the proceedings. Prior to the gag order he commented as AN ANALYST, despite his being renowned as an expert. Geragos had ample opportunity to call him to the stand and failed to do so and Cyril stated he was not going to state something 'just for the defense' if he did not believe it. I regained respect for the man when that emerged. Years ago, 2 Australians crashed their plane and survived ashore for X many weeks, one of the seats eventually washed up over A MILE down the coast, while the bulk of the wreck landed at one spot. That's due to current activity. Exhaustive and expensive sea searches failed to find the rest of the heavy equipment on the sea bed which was ALSO relatively shallow. It simply sank into the soft sand... perhaps forever. It's interesting you genuinely believe Scott only lied about his affair with Amber. I do hear where catz is coming from in terms of his behavior and attitude throughout the 4 month period leading to the startling resurfacing of the bodies. IMO, he's guilty but death is not necessarily the answer. The Medina's left at 10:30. Diane Jackson saw their safe on the lawn at 11:40..... on the 24th. Laci was not reported missing until that evening. I agree with you about Wecht-- Geragos should have put him on the stand. Wecht was outraged at the verdict and said so from Pittsburgh. KDKA news reported it. The "not in a million years" comment was made on Greta..... but I agree with you the jury needed to hear it. All I can figure is Geragos thought the jury would use common sense- they didn't. The tape could not get back over the baby's head..... how do you explain that? Aside from Amber-- what other lies are you talking about? Seriously, I'd like to know. If you mean the GPS tracking and the wiretaps-- they ALL knew Scott was being both followed and taped. The media always knew where he would end up-- thanks to the lovely leaks by the MPD-- eventually Scott learned not to report where he was on the phone- he knew he was being taped, and so did his family. |
|
|
|
Post by catskillz on May 14, 2005 9:35:17 GMT -5
I'd surely like to see the entire footage, the part i have seen with him not wanting to talk about the baby seemed very unreal to me. I said i've questioned whether this would have been due to stress or other factors, but i find it not adding up from any perspective.
I just got a very strong impression from it, it didn't seem sincere to me either way.
public appearance, efforts in searching, golfing when laci is missing.. ..
Indeed he must have been under an amazing amount of stress, either way. U were talking about some of scotts lies before, i didn't see the phone call from scott at the vigil to Amber among those. According to what i know he was phoning amber from there telling he is in Paris. It's not the fact that he's calling amber thats mainly affected me, it's the fact that he called at that time from that place.
Second from what i learned he went golfing during the time the search efforts were going on, and he wasn't often seen at the sites reporting that he was busy calling people from the home. I also learned he told family members he enquired about the investigation efforts at the police dept, but there seems to be no record of this. Please say if there are facts that are wrong, besised the motivation as to why the facts occurred.
Despite the documents and the explanation of 'avoinding' harrassment, it can be at least called suspicious and not too smart, since Scott and the defense must have been well aware of the impression it would give in this stage of the investigation, and the effects during trial. Since appearently (and imo obviously) it was not very effective thing to do, i don't think these are obvious reasons. Neither Scott or Geragos are that stupid.. In addition, why did Scott have a car full of camping gear, food, his brothers id and was travelling near the mexican border.
Sure one can individually explain every little piece in an appearent reasonable way, but one must agree the combination of all is make things look highly suspicious.
The more of these 'accidental' things occur, the less probable they seem imo.
I tried to look at it from a guilty and innocent view, again in the whole of things, i find it hard to match
his behaviour to that of an innocent and devastated person fighting for his life.
In the end, it's all these factors that made me choose
the most probably cause (thats what its about as far as for my judgement of the case), i think the most probable thing is guilt. Probable doesn't mean 100% sure.
Best, catz.
|
|
|
|
Post by catskillz on May 14, 2005 9:41:14 GMT -5
I never took part in these discussions on other message boards because of the nature of those conversations. There are many, many people that are way out of their minds (i wanted to mention 'towards this case', but probably i can do without), a scary thing. I hope these people never end up on a jury.
Best, catz.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoonRiver on May 14, 2005 9:46:56 GMT -5
OK! Please note, I'm not on trial, lol   CCADP: Yes, I definitely see from navigating this website that many (lethal) blunders by 'the system' and therefore endorse your views on getting to grips with facts vs "whatever". Right now, and since January 2003, I've believed Scott to be guilty. After the trial, the tapes, the transcripts, the logic and then being convicted I must say I do not FEEL guilty believing, or stating that he is guilty. But, I feel to PUSH my beliefs and/or reasons onto others is totally unfair and will only cause aggro. If scott & family KNEW he was being taped then he has himself to blame for (either lying or) playing games and misleading everyone over the phone and all the other times. Why go to such great lengths and create this nonsense? It was a serious matter. No-one should make up stories, mislead and or 'play games' when so much is at stake as was the case with Scott Peterson. Nor should anyone in their right mind continue to act like this when they openly admit they knew (but only after the fact) that the national and international spotlight was shining directly on them; so that's 'why' they lied.  Doesn't make sense to me. It's too late to say after being convicted "He knew he was being taped, that's why he said X Y Z.". That, in too many an opinion and not just mine, did not bode well at all. My ears were not pricked up here due to reviving and rehashing OLD evidence. Personally, I accept the evidence as it ran. Scott's behavior is Scott's own doing, however: I AM extremely interested to hear what NEW evidence lies ahead. I also believe that UNDISCLOSED evidence (but also deemed 'old' or was not allowed in) that did not make it into trial is a serious enough issue and warrants investigation. A man's life is at stake! To debate why he disguised himself, why he ordered porn channels 2 weeks after Laci disappeared, why he avoided the media and told conflicting stories on TV; why he was laughing at his wife's vigil; making up trips to Paris with Francois and Pasqual, lying about his (then existing) wife's alleged death, and so on and so forth will open a can of worms not worth fighting over. Fact remains he did those things. It's the things the trial DIDN'T do that I am interested in. Some feelings are tainted or biased. Here's an example: The defense group feel taking Donny & Skeeter's word as to the burglary is rubbish; they're inmates and not worth listening to and they'd lie to get attention. Shouldn't that work both ways? ( i.e. the new inmates who were discussing Laci over the phone in Maggie's previous post?) Nevertheless, as opposed to a he-said / she-said scenario, I know I'd like to see established, bonafide, new facts come into play. If the DP is the verdict, then no man should die without the right to have this heard and investigated. Surely? Maggie, he dyed his hair orange AFTER the bodies were washed ashore. The hairdresser was located and the timing verified and he was picked up in stunning orange hair and claimed this was due to swimming in his friend, Aaron Fritz's swmming pool (and in fact this was untrue). However, after all the above, Scott was nowhere in sight when asked to help identify the bodies. Reasonable? |
|
|
|
Post by MoonRiver on May 14, 2005 10:04:18 GMT -5
It was very disappointing to learn Scott was golfing and not searching. It was mind-blowing to read he sat in his car at a shopping mall, talking on the phone but returned to say he'd been searching.
It was also astonishing to learn that he told different people different things on his return from the Marina. He told neighbors he'd been golfing, that changed to fishing; one aunt golfing and one uncle fishing.
That set off hinky meters.
He described Laci in different clothes to that which she had on. But we know all of this. Indeed it is these very telling circumstantial factors that eliminated anyone else and pointed directly to Scott. Like a compass: it does not have to physically SIT at the North Pole to demonstrate very clearly where North is. and which direction to go to get to North.
So, Scott plotted the course of his own fate.
But it is not the old things, it's the new evidence. Will there be a new trial? Are there indeed aspects that should have been allowed IN (as opposed to Mark Geragos trying to throw everything OUT)? These must, must, must come out.
Back to Lee's letter. WHY write a letter to the home town where Laci lived and grew up for publication 3rd May ... which is exactly one day before her birthday? If the Petersons loved Laci as they said they did, they'd have held that anniversary near and dear and would not ever have contemplated such a sensitive date to launch an attack on everyone else.
That was like "HOOOOO boy, offside!" in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 14, 2005 10:05:59 GMT -5
Hey Moon  No - you're not on trial - not even being brought down to the station for questioning - smile. No one minds you bringing up these issues; its fine; I am sure lots of others reading or who will read this board will have the same questions so its good to be able to have supporters present whatever evidence is available and can be made public right now. Maggie's going to send me the pdf file mentioned above and i'll post it at CCADP so that we can put the link here ... Maggie - I am posting victims pages in the victims section and also soon on our links page. I went to a page I had seen before which had been a memorial for Lacy and Connor but now there is a big banner on top saying 'one step closer to justice; scott being led to D. R ' so I am not comfortable with posting that one now (We link to victims pages but not the ones that just seem to be calls for death to the perp; but unsolved cases; memorial pages for victims that are just that;... I would like to include a link on the links page to a memorial page for Lacy and the baby - is there one that you know of that does not include a call for blood? |
|
|
|
Post by MoonRiver on May 14, 2005 10:12:40 GMT -5
Note, I do feel for the Petersons and in NO way wish to discuss them or the Rochas. They do not deserve this and enough has been said about them. Sincere apologies if it looks as though I'm heading that way. I've ignored most of the 'emotional' bashing during the trial because this has been a deeply wounding experience for all parties. The pain was expected and it showed. However, I just think the timing and content of Lee's letter, this time, was offside. Perhaps he did not even realize this himself; we're all prone to say the wrong thing at the wrong time ... NO-ONE is perfect, granted. JMO... Now, Maggie! Where yah gone? I'm very interested in those new transcripts from those brothers re seeing Laci walking up! Death Row answers nothing. If Scott Peterson's defense brings fresh evidence, he (if anyone) deserves his voice to be heard. Well, I'd far rather a convicted man stand up and say "I was a fool, a liar, a jerk, a weed a total ........ whatever.." than for us to later turn around and find an innocent man was put to death. NO WAYS! |
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 14, 2005 10:14:36 GMT -5
these parents are in a stressful and painful situation that none of us can imagine - I am sure that even if people think that showed some kind of lack of respect for their daughter in law; no one would really think that they had no regret at the loss of their grandson; their own dear son's son ?
Its easy to attack their motives - but be fair; perhaps they wrote that letter because the media had been rehashing the trial again; this time with the excuse that Laci's birthday was coming up - perhaps the Petersons had been reading more days of 'Scott's a vicious evil killer' news articles; and Nancy Grace reports; and were simply speaking of in pain and in defense of their son. Of course they would write and respond at a time when it is being discussed again. Who says Lee Peterson was sitting there with the letter in his hand; watching the calendar; waiting to mail it when it would get the most attention.
I think we need to be fair.
I don't think any of us can truly put ourselves in their shoes. They are victim family members as well as defendent family members and no matter how much people don't want to accept that or want to belittle that; its a fact. I think its a shame if they are to be attacked; for defending their son.
I would defend my son no matter WHAT day of the year it was or who didn't like it; if I believed that he was innocent sitting in San Quentin.
They wrote a letter to the newspaper; they didn't write it to Lacy's family. The newspaper could have waited a week to print it if they thought it not appropriate - it would have been just as newsworthy then. Who knows if Lee even wrote it then; maybe he wrote it weeks before ( I have to go re-read it)...
anyway ---
we can ascribe all kinds of motives to people but I think Lee Peterson seems a kind man.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoonRiver on May 14, 2005 10:19:50 GMT -5
Thanks for your post, CCADP! Agree whole-heartedly with the "marching of Scott to D.R." Those sorts of banners are counter-productive. No person should be .... taunted and paraded around like a freak-show en route to their ... whatever their incarcerated future holds for them  These people are alive, they're real, they have feelings and loved ones. Some admit their crime and do the time and don't whine. Others scream innocence despite being guiilty and all too sadly, innocent people also go to the gallows and that's just atrocious! I'm going to look at some more pages here then sign out. Really enjoyed my first session and will respond to those wonderful 'welcomes' in the Intro Threads. Take care, Moon. |
|
|
|
Post by MoonRiver on May 14, 2005 10:31:24 GMT -5
GREAT, GREAT POST, CCADP! All of it. This part hit me the MOST and made me button my lips instantly, when you wrote to the effect of: "The Modesto Bee didn't have to print it, they could have waited a week..." You are sooooo-ooo right! That was a pretty thoughtless and senseless thing to do! They're equally to blame and I genuinely feel someone ought to write to them and bring it to their attention! I've never written to any paper in my life and don't intend to, but SOMEOEN SHOULD!!!! Forget the who's right or wrong, just cut to the chase and tell them they 'picked a fine time to leave me, Lucille!' Love - 15, CCADP. Your service! Back later. |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on May 14, 2005 10:55:32 GMT -5
Sorry I'm multi-tasking here and jumping around quite a bit.... Catz and Moon, about the vigil..... Scott didn't call Amber from the vigil. Amber called him earlier in the day. She kept trying to talk to him. During the 3:30ish call when he called her and said something about the crowd noise, he wasn't at the vigil. (There was no vigil at that time). But, he called her immediately after she called him. She prompted those calls that day. She knew there was a vigil going on, because she admitted to that on one of her interviews. So, it was a setup through and through. Amber’s interview with Matt Lauer: Lauer: "You were listening to him say things like, I'm at the Eiffel Tower. The celebration's unreal. By this time you knew there was a vigil that night for Laci Peterson. Are you thinking, I'm dealing with a sociopath here." Frey: "I was very much afraid." Lauer: "For your own safety?" Frey: "I still at that point had not been home. I was afraid to go home." msnbc.msn.com/id/6786634/As for Scott laughing at the vigil..... my guess is you seen the cropped picture the media put out-- I sent Tracy the original- I don't know how to post a pic... the original picture puts a different spin than the media did  The media did things like that all through this case. A popular published picture is Laci at the Christmas party while Scott was with Amber.... the original photo shows her shoes, VERY high heeled shoes, the media version cropped it so the shoes were not shown. Until it was completely debunked at trial, the media spin was that Laci was so advanced in her pregnancy she couldn't walk (the dog).... again.... who is really manipulating here? (I can send that pic too- althogh these pics are out there on the internet). Somebody mentioned the clothes.... Laci was not found in the same clothes she wore 12/23, even though Distaso actually said that in open court during the 995 hearing... in other words he blatantly lied..... And as far as what Scott saw her in when he left..... those were the clothes she usually wore around the house- (see the maids testimony)... plus why would Scott lie about what she had on?? That makes no sense. Also- Scott had changed his hair color long before the bodies were found so I'd like to know who reported different??? Same with the goatee..... This was NO joke to Scott. He was practically living out of his car. He was so harassed in Modesto- he had a mattress up in front of the main window while he was still staying there because of death threats.... yet, you can't understand why he would want to change his appearance?? As for Conner-- Scott wanted Conner enough to arrange his schedule around Laci's ovulation, at times coming home on a moments notice. He did the woodwork in Conner's room. He went to every appointment with Laci. By ALL accounts Scott was looking forward to being a father. |
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 14, 2005 11:14:00 GMT -5
Just got this from Maggie and uploaded to the server so you can now view the following relating to this case : DEFENSE MOTION PDF FILE : ccadp.org/scottpetersondef.pdfPROSEECUTION MOTION PDF FILE : ccadp.org/scottpetersonpros.pdfMaggie also makes a good point about how the media is able to manipulate what we see; and how we feel about it. The pic of Scott the media showed us to illustrate how heartless he was at the vigil for Lacy :  The pic of Scott at the vigil before it was cropped by the media. I think it paints a different picture. Who knows what it was that was making them smile? I think its a huge unfair leap to say Lacy is missing and he is smiling for a minute so there fore he killed her!  |
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 14, 2005 11:17:58 GMT -5
i just learned how to add a pic. what u do is abve where u type messages when u are adding a post there above the smilies row there are two rows of boxes. The bottom row; fourth box from the right clck that and a little html tag comes in your message. replace the word URL with the url where the pic is and u got it...
|
|
|
|
Post by catskillz on May 14, 2005 11:18:21 GMT -5
Maggie,
No doubt, i fully agree with u as far as the way the media behaved however i don't believe this leaded up to him being found guilty or not, at least for me personally. In all honesty i also don't believe that the general public opionion of guilt (at least largely) can be (substantially) credited to the media. I think this truly is a two way street, issues attract media attention, media attention creates issues.
There is so much information that can be read and viewed, i think that everyone that is willing to take the time to go through it all (and not just browse CTV) eventually will be able to make a judgement not only based on incorrect facts and portraits by the media.
Best, catz
|
|
I'll read it in depth shortly, suffice to say:
Doesn't make sense to me.
No - you're not on trial - not even being brought down to the station for questioning - smile.
