Scott is Innocent

[S Lyster]

> S Lyster, regarding Fladager's comment that it just takes time
> for the circumstantial evidence to sink in, I don't think what's what
> the founding fathers had in mind. I think they had in mind that guilt
> is much more obvious than that.

I am one who can be convinced by overwhelming circumstantial evidence, so Fladager's comment makes some sense to me - just not in this case. Legal systems descended from British law all accept the weight of circumstantial evidence - although in murder cases the lawyers admit to the practical impossibility of going to trial without at least a dead body in possession of the authorities.

It's just that in this case, for me this is where the circumstantial stuff diverges. The few bits of "hard observable evidence" all has multiple explanations associated with them, and a few explanations which tend to exonerate Peterson. I am with Fladager in saying that not all loose ends need to be tied up, and that there can be an overwhelming sense of, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck."

In the Peterson case, practically everything circumstancial diverges.

So far the following is the sum total of the hard evidence against Scott. 1) two deceased bodies, found on the shore of a Bay (note I did not say, "washed ashore"). 2) Four months' previous to the finding of the bodies, Scott fished in the very same Bay. 3) He straightened a rug in the presence of police. 4) He "seemed" to be hesitant to explain why a mop and pail were out the night of Dec 24, when the floor had been cleaned on Dec 23 by a maid. 5) A hair matched to Laci was found on pliers in Scott's boat. 6) He had an affair in the weeks' prior to Laci's disappearance. 7) He had a remarkably calm, somewhat distracted and "flat" public demeanor in the face of stress, and a weird "disconnect" to events around him. 8) Scott has no eye-witness alibi to his activites from the night of the 23rd to the night of the 24th, save for a parking receipt from the Berkeley Marina and Cell phone records.

No doubt many here can drive trucks through the holes in all the assumptions made by those who believe Scott to be guilty, based on these bits of hard evidence. But that is my best effort to distill the case to the unquestioned "hard evidence" that's there. It's pretty slim pickings for a conviction, circumstantial or otherwise.

BTW - on another issue - dropping the civil suit: I had not though of something posted on this board. Given that the plaintiff bears the total cost of bringing evidence to trial, a reason for dropping it is also that nothing might be gained by the Rocha's. I had assumed they simply feared a finding on behalf of the defendant, but that is not necessarily the case.

[Hipcheck]

Diane Jackson saw 3 men, but only 2 men were arrested for the burglary.

I don't believe the three men that Diane Jackson saw had anyhing to do with the Medina burglary and I believe that crime happened after Christmas and not on the 24th of December.

[JackIsBack]

I believe that crime (Medina burglary) happened after Christmas and not on the 24th of December.

When then.... if not the 24th. Maybe when Todd first said he did it, on the 27th, a day AFTER the robbery was reported to the police. Why did Todd lie... if he already admitted to the police that he was there, what would he be gaining by changing the date. Maybe he was confused... but I have another issue with that, tell me what you did on May 2 of this year... now tell me what you did on December 26th, the day after Christmas - my point is, since Christmas is a memorable date, people tend to remember that date and what they did around it and are less likely to forget. If not on the 24th, then when.... maybe when the BIGGEST news story hit about a missing pregnant women directly across the street... when there was no less then three police cars parked right in front of their robbery target. Maybe they just passed by the reporters and a television news truck right outside the Medina house with the safe... they probably waved to the CSI officers doing a search of Scott's house on the 26th.

It was impossible to be any other date then the 24th, Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce maybe be criminals but they aren't that stupid. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

[marlene]

Diane Jackson saw 3 men, but only 2 men were arrested for the burglary.

I don't believe the three men that Diane Jackson saw had anyhing to do with the Medina burglary and I believe that crime happened after Christmas and not on the 24th of December.

what is the evidence that compels you to believe so? This is why I believe it was the 24th . . .

*I don't see any consistency at all in their statements
*their alibis were not checked out by anyone
*Todd couldn't have seen the mail in the mailbox on the 26th because the mailbox was of the type that you can't see incoming mail without unlocking it and opening it up, and the outgoing mail was picked up on the 24th
*it's impossible for him to have carried everything that was taken in the burglary, with the exception of the safe, on the bicycle in one trip - the sight of him riding that bike laden with all that merchandise is just hilarious.
*it's ludicrous, IMO, to think that they would carry on that burglary the morning of the 26th, carry a safe from the bushes and load it into a car, with media trucks sitting on the street. I know the intelligence of 3rd-class burglars isn't that high, but this is beyond stupid

[S Lyster]

Related to the Peterson case what's happening here in Canada with the Tori Stafford disappearance. Stafford is an eight-year old who was escorted away from school last April 8 by (then) an unknown woman. The scene of the two of them leaving was caught on grainy security video.

During the police investigation, the mother was accosted three times with the statement, "Look, we know you did it, let's end this now." When the mother asked why she was under suspicion, she was told by police that she was acting strangely, what with her daughter missing and all.

The mom snapped back, "'Maybe somebody should have dropped me off a handbook on how to behave when your child is missing."

This week an eighteen year old woman and her twenty-eight year old boyfriend were arrested in circumstances unknown to the media, and the young woman is helping search for a body in a rural part of Ontario.

But when I heard the mom's comment about being under suspicion, I thought of this case and how weird Scott acted. He should have read the manual on what to do when your pregnant wife goes missing.

On another matter, I've started an annoying habit of checking the time-stamp on receipts for purchaces. My watch is set to the atomic clock in Fort Collins, Colorado, so I have a good standard to compare. So far about 40% of the receipts are within 2 or three miniutes of Standard Time. About another 40% are within eight minutes. The other 20% are all over the map, although I've yet to get one with the wrong day-stamp, but at this rate I would not be surprised.

As Scott might know, at least the ones a day off would be discarded as having little evidentary value. It's the ones that are 10 or 15 minutes off that really kill you.

[marlene]

S, as you continue your experiment with the receipts, pay attention to the store clock, and how does it compare to the time on the receipt and the correct time?

thanks . . .

[Moolah]

I checked my receipts on our trip to hawaii. NONE not a one of the rental car receipts were correct. Some were on hawaii time, but off by a hour and some were set on pacific time.

When we went to the international market place, most had the wrong days on them. This actually made it VERY difficult come the end of the trip when I was checking receipts VS CC card transactions to see if I was over charged or mischarged for items, deposits and such.

CC statement would say such and such hotel deposit on this date.. but the receipt I had to submit to the CC company to prove it was a deposit that was to be credited back to the card and not a charge didn't match up with the statement

[JackIsBack]

S, as you continue your experiment with the receipts, pay attention to the store clock, and how does it compare to the time on the receipt and the correct time?

Also temporary cash registers are off even more... so note that. Around here they open up garden centers that have registers that were in storage and are often wrong. Also shops that bring out tills for seasonal sales, one problem is they don't reset the clocks after daylight savings because those tills are in storage when the clocks are springing ahead or falling back an hour... so they are often out the hour.

[sadie]

Scott is innocent! I have believed this from day one and no one can change my mind on this.

Scott loved Laci and could not wait for Laci to give birth to Conner. He made a mistake and this is why he went to trial and found guilty. From the very first date with Amber, Scott let her know he was going to be out of town a lot. This was his way of hoping Amber would not want to date him. Then he tried to convince her he did not want children beause he knew she did, but she still hounded him. Most women would not hang in a relationship like this. Why did Amber?

[marlene]

Scott is innocent! I have believed this from day one and no one can change my mind on this.

Scott loved Laci and could not wait for Laci to give birth to Conner. He made a mistake and this is why he went to trial and found guilty. From the very first date with Amber, Scott let her know he was going to be out of town a lot. This was his way of hoping Amber would not want to date him. Then he tried to convince her he did not want children beause he knew she did, but she still hounded him. Most women would not hang in a relationship like this. Why did Amber?

We don't actually know that she would have hung around very long. I really think she knew who Scott was very soon after Laci disappeared, but once that happened -- well, it changed everything, and we really don't know if she would have waited out a whole month with just phone calls -- and very staticy phone calls to boot.

Just like we'll never know if Scott would have called Amber again if Doug Sibley had not called and chewed him out on the 25th, and Amber had not made so many calls to him on the 26th.

I do think for Amber, it became a spy girl in danger fantasy for her.

She certainly has difficulty maintaining a long-term relationship. Maybe some day she'll figure out, hey, maybe some this is my doing!