Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.
Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The prosecution’s only piece of physical evidence is a single hair which somehow became two hairs when Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee opened the evidence envelope in February 2003. The chain of custody of this hair is very suspicious as is the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair sample. It is also suspicious that Detective Brocchini kept Laci’s blue-black hairbrush in his desk drawer for some time after it was collected during the search warrant of December 26-27.
Distaso falsely states that the hair was wrapped around the pliers even though Detective Hendee who collected the hair says definitely that the hair did not wrap around the pliers.
Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.
The only piece of physical evidence was Laci’s hair on the pliers found in the fishing boat.
The prosecution ignored the witness who said Laci was at Scott’s job/warehouse on December 20th so presumably she saw the new boat. Scott purchased the boat from a joint account he shared with Laci. Detective Brocchini admitted he omitted that witness’ statement on his police report.
Brocchini also kept Laci’s hair brush collected as evidence in his desk drawer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The prosecution’s only piece of physical evidence is a single hair which somehow became two hairs when Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee opened the evidence envelope in February 2003. The chain of custody of this hair is very suspicious as is the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair sample. It is also suspicious that Detective Brocchini kept Laci’s blue-black hairbrush in his desk drawer for some time after it was collected during the search warrant of December 26-27.
Distaso falsely states that the hair was wrapped around the pliers even though Detective Hendee who collected the hair says definitely that the hair did not wrap around the pliers.
Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.
The only piece of physical evidence was Laci’s hair on the pliers found in the fishing boat.
The prosecution ignored the witness who said Laci was at Scott’s job/warehouse on December 20th so presumably she saw the new boat. Scott purchased the boat from a joint account he shared with Laci. Detective Brocchini admitted he omitted that witness’ statement on his police report.
Brocchini also kept Laci’s hair brush collected as evidence in his desk drawer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.
The fleeing to Mexico thing happened later on long after he was already a suspect. He was a suspect on the night of because the house had cleaning supplies out and he went fishing but didn’t know much about fishing (well that was why he researched fishing online). If he was a novice at it, how would he dump a body overboard in broad daylight in a tiny fishing boat?
Why did he call Lacis mom to ask where Laci was? Laci was planning to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas with her parents. He chose that day to kill her? If this was premeditated, he could’ve killed her in January and escaped to Mexico.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The prosecution’s only piece of physical evidence is a single hair which somehow became two hairs when Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee opened the evidence envelope in February 2003. The chain of custody of this hair is very suspicious as is the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair sample. It is also suspicious that Detective Brocchini kept Laci’s blue-black hairbrush in his desk drawer for some time after it was collected during the search warrant of December 26-27.
Distaso falsely states that the hair was wrapped around the pliers even though Detective Hendee who collected the hair says definitely that the hair did not wrap around the pliers.
Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.
Anonymous wrote:On December 26, 2002, Cindee Valentin, volunteer lieutenant with the Contra
Costa County Sheriff's Department was called in with her trailing dog, Merlin. In her testimony, trainer Valentin told of her work with this purebred bloodhound who had demonstrated the ability to run trails up to 14 days old. This skill certified the dog with the California Rescue Dog Association.
Valentin was the first to scent a trailing dog in the Laci Peterson disappearance. She used Laci's sunglasses which she had collected and placed in an evidence bag. Merlin took the scent directly from the sunglasses, and per Valentin's testimony, followed the freshest scent. Rather than heading into the park or northwest towards Scott's warehouse, Merlin consistently exhibited the desire to trail south and west. Even when Brocchini had the dog brought to the warehouse, he headed out of the lot, south, and west. On January 4, Detective Brocchini would stop the trailing team on the ramp from Maze Boulevard to US 580, disregarding the fact that Merlin was insistent and pulling hard on the leash. In her testimony, Cindee Valentin revealed that she knew on December 26 the Detective was focusing on Scott.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.
Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.
Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The prosecution did not put Deanna Renfro, the woman who sold the watch to the pawn shop, on as a witness because MPD ignored her connection to Laci’s disappearance. If they had investigated her thoroughly, they would have found a link between her family and that of Steven Todd, the burglar, and her family and the Medinas. Deanna Renfro was not investigated because Scott was the one and only focus of this investigation within 24 hours of Laci’s disappearance. MPD knew this watch was missing early in the investigation because Scott gave this information to Chris Boyer during the search warrant December 26-27; and Craig Grogan definitely learned about it on December 30, 2002, during his taped phone conversation with Scott. However, the only information about this very significant piece of evidence that was given to the defense in discovery was the pawn slip—no reports, no follow-up information.
Distaso makes it appear that the pawn shop people who testified were the ones involved in the transaction with Deanna Renfro and the Croton watch. They were not. They were involved in a totally separate transaction with Laci and Scott involving other jewelry that Laci had inherited from her grandmother.
Scott and Laci tried to sell the Croton watch on e-bay, but they were not successful. Distaso suggests that he’s sure they sold the watch when there is no evidence to support such a claim.
Laci inherited 2 gold watches from her grandmother. The one that she had repaired and wore to the Christmas party was recovered at the Peterson house during the search of December 26-27. Laci was not wearing that watch on the day she disappeared. She was wearing the Croton watch which was never recovered.
Why didn’t the defense call her as a witness?