Alternative Suspects & Theories

[marlene]

If you think Scott is innocent, share your opinion on who you think is responsible for Laci's abduction and how it went down. All opinions are welcome. If you do not agree with an opinion, feel free to say so, and why, but don't be ridiculous about it and demand that the person prove the opinion with evidence. After all, no evidence was necessary to prove the State's opinion.

If you libel or slander someone, you will have to pay the piper, not this forum.

[introspectre]

If you think Scott is innocent, share your opinion on who you think is responsible for Laci's abduction and how it went down. All opinions are welcome. If you do not agree with an opinion, feel free to say so, and why, but don't be ridiculous about it and demand that the person prove the opinion with evidence. After all, no evidence was necessary to prove the State's opinion.

If you libel or slander someone, you will have to pay the piper, not this forum.

I disagree with your statement Marlene: "After all, NO EVIDENCE was necessary to prove the State's opinion." I respect those who disagree with the State's evidence, but to say there was NO evidence is foolish and misleading, since there was a prelim where the State presents their evidence and a judge rules. I don't mind for NGs to come up with other suspects, but I do demand reasonable alternatives that make sense with the evidence such as autopsy reports, timelines, and witnesses that either took the stand or not. There are witnesses that didn't take the stand, but their info (or lack of info) is important as long as it is reasonable and not some far out in left field argument (for example: Laci's baby was cut out; when the autopsy report does not state there was a cut on Laci to suggest a botched C-Section).

[marlene]

If you think Scott is innocent, share your opinion on who you think is responsible for Laci's abduction and how it went down. All opinions are welcome. If you do not agree with an opinion, feel free to say so, and why, but don't be ridiculous about it and demand that the person prove the opinion with evidence. After all, no evidence was necessary to prove the State's opinion.

If you libel or slander someone, you will have to pay the piper, not this forum.

I disagree with your statement Marlene: "After all, NO EVIDENCE was necessary to prove the State's opinion." I respect those who disagree with the State's evidence, but to say there was NO evidence is foolish and misleading, since there was a prelim where the State presents their evidence and a judge rules. I don't mind for NGs to come up with other suspects, but I do demand reasonable alternatives that make sense with the evidence such as autopsy reports, timelines, and witnesses that either took the stand or not. There are witnesses that didn't take the stand, but their info (or lack of info) is important as long as it is reasonable and not some far out in left field argument (for example: Laci's baby was cut out; when the autopsy report does not state there was a cut on Laci to suggest a botched C-Section).

the purpose of the is to indicate you are teasing. Lighten up.

I disagree with your assumption that because an autopsy report doesn't specifically state something, that it didn't happen. Perhaps you are unaware that in the Drew Peterson case, the body of his 3rd wife was exhumed and another autopsy conducted, and its findings differ from the first.

Dr. Peterson's testimony fully allows the possibility that Conner was cut out. There was a hole in the uterus, large enough for the baby to slip out without the presence of any pressure pushing him out. When people who do not care for the life of the mother cut a baby out, that is where they cut. Through the process of time, the cut would decompose, and thus the obvious evidence of the cut would be lost.

But to say there was no evidence presented at trial allowing for the possibility that Conner was cut out simply is not correct. You can interpret the evidence your way, that's fine with me. But don't be irritated when I interpret it differently.

[JackIsBack]

When people who do not care for the life of the mother cut a baby out, that is where they cut. Through the process of time, the cut would decompose, and thus the obvious evidence of the cut would be lost.

But to say there was no evidence presented at trial allowing for the possibility that Conner was cut out simply is not correct. You can interpret the evidence your way, that's fine with me. But don't be irritated when I interpret it differently.

Exactly... to look for a C-section the way a doctor would do it to a patient that was alive and then claim that since it wasn't done this way, there is no evidence that Conner was removed from Laci by human force is not reasonable.

There are some many little things that exonerate Scott... the problem is that there is a conviction, so now we need a BIG thing to exonerate Scott... our burden is no longer just "reasonable doubt" unless of course the case gets overturned on a legal technicality or violation and then the burden is back down to reasonable doubt for the new trial.

[marlene]

I received an email recently from a Robert Higgins. He insisted that the 10:08-10:18 timeframe the State produced is infallible evidence. He rejected the Aponte tip information about Todd's confrontation because the Medina burglary didn't happen till after McKenzie was found, after 10:30 -- and anything that happens after 10:18 is irrelevant to Laci's disappearance.

Well, Mr. Higgins is a fool for deeming the 10:08-10:18 timeframe infallible, and he is also incorrect in assuming that the only time Laci could have confronted Todd is after the Medina's left.

Tenbrink said Todd had the confrontation with Laci while doing the burglary. However, casing the neighborhood is part of a burglary. The 10 minutes does give Laci enough time to follow Scott out of the house, leash up McKenzie, head out the gate, and then see Todd lurking around the neighborhood. He knows what he's up to, but she doesn't -- she just thinks he is snooping around where he doesn't belong. She tells him to get lost, and he threatens her. Obviously, she didn't know he was a real danger, and she continued on her walk. Todd (or someone that is with him, such as someone sitting in the van intended to carry away the stolen goods) worries that she is going to call the police on him, so he follows her from a distance. Laci spots him, another confrontation and Todd abducts her to keep her quiet. If Laci was put into a vehicle, and that vehicle returned to the Medinas, then McKenzie would follow.

So, the 10:08-10:18 timeframe does not eliminate Steve Todd as a suspect, nor does it exclude all of the eye witnesses that saw Laci walking that morning. It may eliminate some of the eye witnesses who truly believe they saw Laci that morning, but it does not eliminate Todd as a suspect.

[JackIsBack]

The police should have verified the cash register as soon as possible... I mean they are set by human hands and therefore never infallible. Karen's transaction was cash, but some transaction before or after could have been made through an automated payment method and those times could have been used to further narrow done any correction factor on the time (if need be).

It only takes seconds to grab someone.... so a 90 second window could be big enough and surely there is reasonable doubt with a 10 minute window, but I also think Karen's time is out.

OT: My wife rented a car at Budget Rent a Car... after having the vehicle for two days, she returned it before the time she checked it out, I made sure of that. When she got home, I immediately questioned why we were charged 3 days since we returned it before the check out time, she told me that they told her she rented it on Friday... I told her she was at work on Friday at the time and actually rented it Saturday... the date was wrong, I mean who verifies that a computer has the right date. Well after some arguing with Budget and a call to Visa, who verified our date, we got our refund back - their computer was set wrong at the time we rented it... by a DAY.

[Lsmith510]

The police should have verified the cash register as soon as possible... I mean they are set by human hands and therefore never infallible. Karen's transaction was cash, but some transaction before or after could have been made through an automated payment method and those times could have been used to further narrow done any correction factor on the time (if need be).

It only takes seconds to grab someone.... so a 90 second window could be big enough and surely there is reasonable doubt with a 10 minute window, but I also think Karen's time is out.

OT: My wife rented a car at Budget Rent a Car... after having the vehicle for two days, she returned it before the time she checked it out, I made sure of that. When she got home, I immediately questioned why we were charged 3 days since we returned it before the check out time, she told me that they told her she rented it on Friday... I told her she was at work on Friday at the time and actually rented it Saturday... the date was wrong, I mean who verifies that a computer has the right date. Well after some arguing with Budget and a call to Visa, who verified our date, we got our refund back - their computer was set wrong at the time we rented it... by a DAY.

Wow! Thanks for sharing that Jack! I check my time stamp receipts everywhere I go now.....and they are often off.

Excellent point how they could have checked transaction times of other customers who had paid by credit card!

[Hipcheck]

Wow! Thanks for sharing that Jack! I check my time stamp receipts everywhere I go now.....and they are often off.

Excellent point how they could have checked transaction times of other customers who had paid by credit card!

Didn't Karen Servas get another receipt from her bank which confirmed the first receipt was accurate and thus the 10:18 time was also correct?

[marlene]

Wow! Thanks for sharing that Jack! I check my time stamp receipts everywhere I go now.....and they are often off.

Excellent point how they could have checked transaction times of other customers who had paid by credit card!

Didn't Karen Servas get another receipt from her bank which confirmed the first receipt was accurate and thus the 10:18 time was also correct?

She did give the bank as one of her errands that morning, and said she had a receipt. However, the receipt was never presented as evidence, it was just talked about. So we only have her word for it that it confirmed her time. She also used a phone call, and the MPD made no effort to track her location at the time of the call, like they did with Scott.

But my point is that even the 10:08-10:18 timeframe does NOT automatically eliminate Todd as a suspect. I have no doubts that he was lurking around in the neighborhood, waiting to see who was leaving for Christmas holidays. The Medinas were loading up their car behind the gate, but he probably could hear their conversation by hiding in the bushes.

[JackIsBack]

I have no doubts that he was lurking around in the neighborhood, waiting to see who was leaving for Christmas holidays. The Medinas were loading up their car behind the gate, but he probably could hear their conversation by hiding in the bushes.

Good point.

Or across the street.... and when he saw Scott leave, he could have thought that nobody was home there and started casing Scott and Laci's house just as Laci was leaving for (or returning from) her walk. He could also have been just waiting near or in Scott's yard for the Medinas to leave...

These theories or stories are just as credible and just as plausible as any told by the state.

The time of the robbery: Todd lied about the time once... was caught in the lie and then told another alternate time... what makes the police think his second attempt is truthful... he obviously had a reason to lie the first time and that reason didn't just go away for his second more thought out attempt at lying about the time. I wonder what that reason was.... it wasn't trying to hide the robbery because he was admitting to doing that and what difference would the time make in that. It was also not practical or do I dare say possible to rob the house when he said they did, there were cops right in front of the house not to mention all the reporters and television trucks. Them confessing to the robbery and then lying about the time just would set off red flags for me all over the place if I was the police investigating Laci's disappearance... they (Todd, etal) obviously saw (or did) something.