If you're following the Scott Peterson trial...

[grinningghost]

... I have a question.

There's alot of buzz saying the prosecution has killed itself by the lead detective leaving out a certain piece of info from his report. He left out the fact that Laci DID know about Scott's boat.

I say, who cares if she knew? Yes, the detective should not have left it out in his report, that's a mistake, but I don't think the actual info means much anyway. Just because she knew about the boat doesn't mean he didn't kill her.

Am I missing something else?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I thought the Detective left out the info of Scott Peterson's "stalker". I didn't hear anything additional about the boat, but maybe I just missed that.

 

[grinningghost]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
I thought the Detective left out the info of Scott Peterson's "stalker". I didn't hear anything additional about the boat, but maybe I just missed that.

OK, I didn't hear the stalker part. What's that about?

 

[missy28]

I'm a DV prosecutor, and what makes it significant that the detective left it out of the report is that it looks like the prosecution is purposely deceiving the jury, and juries don't like that (who does?)...

It COULD be factually significant, if they are proposing that she never knew anything about the boat (which I heard previously) but it's more strategically significant, because it looks deceitful. 2 things could have happened, and hopefully it's the 2nd-- the first is that the prosecutor knew about the missing information and didn't do anything to correct it, and the 2nd is that the detective never told the prosecutor about the missing info and then he was blindsighted at the trial. (It's happened to me more than once...)

 

[grinningghost]

Originally posted by missy28


It COULD be factually significant, if they are proposing that she never knew anything about the boat (which I heard previously) but it's more strategically significant, because it looks deceitful. 2 things could have happened, and hopefully it's the 2nd-- the first is that the prosecutor knew about the missing information and didn't do anything to correct it, and the 2nd is that the detective never told the prosecutor about the missing info and then he was blindsighted at the trial. (It's happened to me more than once...)

If I heard right, the detective said he didn't include it in his report because another detective put it in his. Kind of a dumb reason if you ask me, considering he WAS the lead detective. But again, maybe I misunderstood.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Brocchini testified that a woman admitted robbing the Petersons' home and said she was infatuated with Scott Peterson. Geragos pointed out several lies the woman told Brocchini, including details about items she stole from the house and how she said she was working on Dec. 24 when, in fact, she wasn't.

Trial watchers say Geragos is working to create other reasonable explanations for Laci Peterson's murder and trying to undo the prosecution's case.

"Now, he's got this woman who was obsessed with Peterson ... maybe it could cast a little doubt," said Robert Talbot, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law. "But his strategy also forces the prosecution to deal with all these other avenues and breaks up their case."

I got this info from the Fox News website.

 

[palmtreegirl]

I haven't followed it that closely but here's what I heard.

I think it was also that a witness saw Laci down by the docks(using the bathroom of a warehouse nearby?) near the boat on another occassion. The prosecution has always said that Laci didn't know about the boat, therefore she couldn't have been on it before so the hair found must be from the night she was murdered and when Scott dumped her body.

 

[marymrg]

I think when Amber Frey takes the stand, the rest of what has happened won't matter and she will be the one that seals his fate. JMHO though.

 

[grinningghost]

Thanks Jasmine.

For me, all the attempts at casting doubt are overshadowed by the fact that the bodies were found 2 miles from where Scott was fishing and I can't get past him dying his hair and having $10,000 cash in his pocket near the Mexican border. That's just odd. Who carries that much cash to go golfing?

And all the lies he told Amber Frey. About his wife being dead, about not being married, that he was in Belgium when he was in California. That he was in Maine for the holiday. It's just too much to shrug off as him just being a cad when his wife has been murdered.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Oh I believe he is totally guilty. But there isn't a lot of hard evidence, mostly circumstances. And we already had a preview of WHAT is on that jury when that one dude was excused.

 

[SC Minnie]

Did anyone see exerpts from an interview he gave while Laci was still missing-- during the interview his cell phone goes off in another room while he is in mid sentence. He stops apologizes for the interruption and goes to turn OFF the cell phone. He then picks right back up where he left off. I am sorry but if a loved one is missing who would turn off a cell phone and then apologize to a reporter for the interruption???? If you thought they where still alive you would jump everytime the phone rang and forget about the apologies. His whole interview sounded very rehearsed.

 

[4cruisin]

One piece of crucial evidence is one of Laci's hairs being found on a pair of pliers in Scott's boat. If the prosecution's case is based on that physical evidence, then the defense can say since she was at the storage garage and knew about the boat, then her hair may have gotten on the boat before she was murdered.

I still think he's guilty as can be.

 

[Disney Doll]

I don't care how much circumstantial evidence the defense brings up,...that man killed that woman. He never behaved like someone whose wife was missing, he never appeared concerned about his missing wife, the blond dye job and $10Kin his pocket with a fake ID on his way out of the countryare a dead giveaway for me, the lies, the deceit, the selling her car 2 weeks after she was missing.

He's guilty.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Disney Doll
I don't care how much circumstantial evidence the defense brings up,...that man killed that woman. He never behaved like someone whose wife was missing, he never appeared concerned about his missing wife, the blond dye job and $10Kin his pocket with a fake ID on his way out of the countryare a dead giveaway for me, the lies, the deceit, the selling her car 2 weeks after she was missing.

He's guilty.

I think he's guilty too, but proving it is another thing entirely. Another thing to keep in mind, while I believe there is enough evidence (that we know of, but nothing concerning this matter has been brought out in the trial yet that I'm aware of) to prove he was maybe thinking of fleeing the country, I highly doubt it will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He was arrested in San Diego, but remember, he was born and raised there. His parents reside there as do many other family members. So, he wasn't running to get across the border when he was arrested. Anything the prosecution says on this matter could only be considered speculative.

I can only hope and pray that those jurors keep an open mind in light of all the evidence that has come out so far. The prosecution is hurting right now, but someone still murdered Laci and Connor. As a juror, I might be a little suspicious of the evidence that the prosecution would put forth, so I can understand why everyone is so concerned. Actually, if I were a juror, I would want someone to put that woman on the stand that has claimed to have seen Laci at the storage facility and in that boat. If both sides fail to do that, as a juror, I really can't say how I'd feel about it. Heck, as a private citizen, I now what to hear what she has to say!!

At the end of the day however, all I can hope for is that this juror doesn't get prejudice in their beliefs and that they allow ALL the evidence in before coming to a final conclusion.

I am glad juror #5 is gone.

 

[crz4mm2]

Can you give me the link where I can get more info on the trial?
THanks.
(He is definately guilty, IMHO)

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by crz4mm2
Can you give me the link where I can get more info on the trial?
THanks.
(He is definately guilty, IMHO)

Seach google, you'll come up with MANY hits. I'd also suggest courttv.com. They're really good about keeping up to date on various trials through out the country. You can also look at Fox News, CNN, CNBC, probably ABC, CBS and NBC.com too. I'm sure they all keep their sites updated with news that comes out on this trial. I doubt there is any one site that is really better than the other. Unless of course, someone has dedicated a site just for this case. I'd be very interested in a site like that if anyone knows of one?

 

[beattyfamily]

Guilty as sin but i'm so afraid it will be like the OJ case.

 

[grinningghost]

Juror #5 is such a bonehead. I am very glad he got booted. Here's a guy that goes on national TV and says that "pregnant women are crazy". Then he recants it by saying he knows that the hormones are flying around and they're energetic one minute and collapsing the next. Well, that's just great. I'm glad he's an expert.

Now he manages to get his face on every single talking head show there is. And he's considering writing a book. A Book???? Hello, you weren't even on the jury long enough to hear the Prosecution's star witness, how on Earth can you write a credible book?!

And he had the nerve today to say that another witness came forward only to "get their face on TV". Ain't that calling the kettle black?

 

[IamTink]

Originally posted by grinningghost
OK, I didn't hear the stalker part. What's that about?

I haven't heard of the stalker either. I haven't read through all the posts & don't know if I can. Haven't heard of that story yet. I have already judged him as guilty though. He shows no sadness, leaving the country w/a differentl color of hair w/a boatload of cash to get him on his way. Not exactly looking like a mourning husband & father.

 

[Randi]

I'm only half following it, but my guess is that they had an argument, he shoved her and she fell & hit her head. He doesn't seem to be the sort of person who committs to anyone so I doubt he murdered her on purpose so he could go with Amber Frye. I think he panicked, and started trying to cover things up in a most bizarre way.
Time will tell. I do feel sorry for both families.