Peterson seen driving to marina 3 times

SFChronicle.com ^ | November 14, 2003 | Henry Lee

[Devil_Anse]

Geragos also suggested in his questions that the witness Campos said 9:45. It turned out that the witness Campos never said anything but 10:45--and Geragos knew this.

But we're supposed to take Geragos' verbal meanderings as gospel truth on the matter of who knew what about the life insurance policies? It would be better to consider only the witness' answers--not the lawyers' questions--when looking to get facts from the transcripts.

[Devil_Anse]

"Aren't you the least bit interested in why Geragos didn't badger Brocchini about the results of the gunshot residue test?"

Maybe that doesn't fit in with the "cops are all liars and are pulling the wool over our eyes to gratuitously hang this innocent man" theory.

[Devil_Anse]

Thank you for pointing that out. I would also like to see a source for that. B/C the Rochas have been straight-up throughout this. Furthermore, I think the Rochas wanted very badly to believe that this was NOT done by a family member. If anything, they were (at least in the beginning) biased in FAVOR of Scott's innocence.

[Devil_Anse]

But where's the rest of it? That quote from the transcript ends with an assertion by Geragos. Did he ever back up that assertion? What Geragos says isn't testimony.

[Devil_Anse]

Really Co, it is not my intent to upset a good conviction, but at this point there is no good conviction and Anse has agreed to that off-line. Normally I would not relate that but she/he has gotten very aggressive. I mean, she/he has invited me on-line to kiss his/her ass simply b/c I offered advice...;-0). She did apologize off-line (character shows).

So you are forced to "relate" that I was trying to be fair to the defendant by trying to honestly evaluate the evidence we've seen so far? Gee, I really lived in fear that you would relate that. Not. Are you finding fault with my having found the evidence (some two weeks or more ago) to be thin? So what? Since when am I the person who will be deciding this case? It's an opinion, and yes, I'm trying hard to just go by the actual evidence. Thanks for complimenting me by pointing that out.

When I invited you to kiss my derriere, it was b/c you aimed one of your bitter posts at me, one which said, among other things, "Go back to bed and this time try to get out on the right side...I despise [Nancy Grace]... you will end up just like her..." and then you called Nancy Grace, whom you do not know personally, some sort of nasty name, I don't remember what it was but will be glad to go back and get your post.

Yeah, that was your "advice". And of course it was given with your usual "I know better... you people don't know about these things but I do" air. Okay, Expert--if you say so!

You may want to know that "off-line" is taken to mean off the internet. You know very well that you and I have never met except on the internet. Do me a favor and learn to express yourself more clearly. What you meant to say was that I had made these comments to you in e-mail or freepmail.

I'm getting kind of sick of your gratuitous insults like "GEEZ! me hopes it's she". Where are you getting that stuff?? From your own convoluted mind, "METHINKS".

You came out of nowhere, and joined in the discussion of this case. Many of us viewed you as a harmless and somewhat amusing older man. Then we began to notice that your thought processes left something to be desired. But we continued to treat you with cordiality, b/c you were just one of the gang, one of the Peterson thread posters. Inwardly, though, I began to realize that there are some missing synapses there. I persevered, but when you got all bitter and personal with me, I had had enough.

Now you get obscene with me, and attempt to get personal with me--with someone you only know as words typed on a screen. Your dirty little sexual references are by way of getting you branded as a "dirty old man", STOCKHRSE.

Why are you taking this case so personally? And why are you so insistent on trying to prove to everyone that you know things that the rest of us don't know? It's bunk, bunk coming from a mind that is not all there. JMO.

"Aggressive". Puh-leese. Oh, wait, I get it: everyone who expresses a view that differs from yours is "aggressive", right? Your attacks on a bunch of people in the news, people you've never met, are what is "aggressive". If you don't like my views, don't read 'em. You think I'm "aggressive" just b/c I finally had had enough of your half-baked, inexplicably bitter, accusations, and stopped cutting you slack. Get over it. If you don't like my posts and opinions, don't read 'em. Killing the messenger will not make your "side" win.

[STOCKHRSE]

"And next time your blood pressure shoots up and you decide to make me the target of your anger, please try to keep it clean, okay?"

Ya mean thusly.....

Posted by Devil_Anse to STOCKHRSE
On News/Activism ^ 10/30/2003 11:05 AM CST #430 of 452 ^

Ray, dawlin', I don't need no advice from someone who can't write a sentence. You are cordially invited to kiss mah derriere, heart!

You remind me of someone who defecates in the middle of the room and then complains to all present about the smell.

You started this and you can stop it at any time!

[at bay]

There is a CA code section that allows police, without a warrant, to seize weapons when responding to any kind of domestic situation where they think the continued presence of a weapon may pose a problem….Anyway, thanks to the many excellent posts, it is all starting to make sense, at least to me.

Jacquelyn told Amber about the mailbox the same day he rented it, on that 23rd, but she was even more suspicious and told him so in no uncertain terms, so he told her he would call her later that day. He murdered Laci as soon as they got back from the hair salon, and he immediately called Amber and gave her his home number and told her she was welcome to call at any time. He even told her he was listed in the Modesto phone book, and the only reason for the private mailbox was because he was gone so often and mail and packages would get lost sitting on his porch, he not having any family and what not.

He challenged her to call anytime, and no one else answering would prove he was telling her the truth. As to the alibi, he had always planned on the golfing alibi, but couldn’t resist the compulsion to return in daylight to make sure the bodies had not surfaced. He may not have even launched the boat that second trip. When he first talked to the neighbors, he was still in the golfing alibi mode. As many lies as he tells, it is hard keeping them all straight.

What he had planned was dropping off the dog some distance from the house, but he never planned for the dog to return home so quickly, as he had doped the dog as well. But dogs apparently have a higher tolerance to GHB and unlike with Laci, he had never experimented with dosing the dog. JMNSHO. (Just my not so…)

[Devil_Anse]

Actually, no, STOCKHRSE, I didn't start it. You started it before I told you to kiss it--and in fact you did it to several people. My post you cited was just where I finally had had enough. And by the way, what I said in the quoted post came from the heart. Feel free to repeat it again and again.

But YOU started it. I am not surprised you got that wrong, since you do sometimes get the facts wrong.

By STOCKHRSE:

(10-30-2003 8:57 AM)

"Go back to bed and get up again, try to start your day happy.

Sure everything was returned just ask the thief. ;)

I guess she took the wedding dress and evening clothes, she just thought ahead. Go out to dinner get married and get pregnant in one neat package. She must have been flying on some dynamite stuff.LOL

The girl was being diddled by Scott Ah think, no one really knows what she took.

Ya know Anse, I think the maternity clothes were sent to the lab to be checked for blood and fluids etc. LE is just trying to obfuscate and aggravate Scott.Think, if you don't send her maternity clothes to the lab, what do you send? I would have sent them to the lab.

Scott probably did set it up but so what, they can only jail one of him. Na, I think SP was late for a rendezvous and she got drunk from the frustration etc.

Oh there will be another judge for the main trial just ask Nancy Grace. Everything she said last night was wrong so who knows, I think she is repulsive and very unhappy. Jmo...

You had better get a grip or that's what's gonna happen to you. Relax, and think instead of reacting to everything, take this hearing in stride.:-)

If the law can't handle him "someone" will, he is a marked man.

Ray"

Well, there you have it. It's a beaut, isn't it? The semi-literate, giving advice to other people. Next time, try to get your facts straight for a change.

[Devil_Anse]

Pretty good, pretty good! Ties up a lot of details, I must say.

Thank you for telling us about the CA law that allows the cops to simply seize the gun. Considering that they had a distraught husband, woefully missing his dear wife, on their hands, I think it was prudent of Brocchini to grab that gun, and that's probably one of the situations the statute was meant to address. (We won't go into whether CA's gun laws are reasonable, ha ha.)

Gee, imagine that! Brocchini, part of that criminal enterprise known as MPD, actually did something LEGAL??!

[pinz-n-needlez]

I don't have a source, I'm no cataloger *g*, but I recall reading in the last week or so a quote from Brent saying that he was asked by the cops to suggest that there was a new policy on Laci. I was under the impression that's the article Brochini used in questioning the friend.

My understanding is that cops can say anything during investigations. It's fine if they lie, testing respondants' stories and assertions

Brochini has no obligation to correct newstories, or to give any real info to Scott or anyone else. I think Scott's behavior set off all of Brochini's bells on that first night.

They weren't going to put much energy into any other leads until they pinned down Scott, imo. I don't think they ever moved a step in attempting to clear Scott. We mostly thought he was guilty, based on his own words and behavior in those first months. I think it looks like the cops felt the same way, and then they found evidence to support their suspicions.

Pinz
(Sorry for getting carried away, Hergus, this isn't an attack, just got on a roll there. lol)

[Sacajaweau]

The sad part of this is that if the bodies hadn't surfaced, Scott probably would have gotten away with this and got the $250,000 besides.

Mother nature did him in.

[at bay]

“Just one thing, tho’, Amber. When you call the machine might say “Hi, you’ve reached the Petersons, we can’t come to the phone right now. That…was….is….so hard to change. It’s a “man called monster” kinda thing.”

(Anyone up for freeping Jackie and Lee for running a phony tip center? If they’re not going to be charged for it, the least that could be done is run’em out of town. They’re all too“comfy on Covena” like Jacquelyn was until the media staked him out 24/7. Another potential freep site: The Red Lion, who terminated the general manager for doing nothing more than telling the husband wife con artist team of Jackie and Lee they were no longer welcome after they accused the Rochas of “burglarizing” their daughter’s home.

[pinz-n-needlez]

Remember that one press conference when Sharon said that she 'heard' Laci repeatedly calling her to keep looking to find her and baby? I believe mothers have incredible strength and power when it comes to protecting their children...

I'm not a religious person, but this does seem like the answer to a mother's prayer, doesn't it?

I think Brochini and the MPD were determined that Scott wasn't going to get away with it, and they weren't going to be distracted by non-credible witnesses and Geragos' side shows. :-)

Pinz

[Sandylapper]

Here you go, Anse, just a small portion of the testimony which can be found in its entirety on pages 130 and 131 of the transcripts. Sorry, I thought you had read them already!

18 A. Yes. I wanted him to see the article.
19 Q. Yeah. Well, the article -- well, you also
20 encouraged him or his wife to call Sharon Rocha for further
21 information.
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. You further said Scott is not welcome in any of
24 Laci's friends or family's homes right now; right?
25 MR. DISTASO: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.
26 Beyond the scope of direct.
27 THE COURT: Sustained. I think we're getting out of
28 the direct area, Mr. McAllister.
1106: 1 MR. McALLISTER: Well, this goes to -- I'll cut to the
2 aspect I want to get to, Your Honor.
3 Q. The information about the insurance policy, that
4 was part of The Modesto Bee article that you wanted him to
5 take a look at; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that was the article that said that Scott had
8 taken out an insurance policy on his wife last summer after
9 she got pregnant; right?
10 MR. DISTASO: Your Honor, I'm renewing the same
11 objection. It's basically been the same questions. The
12 objection was previously sustained.
13 THE COURT: I'm sustaining it again, Mr. McAllister.
14 Move on.
15 MR. McALLISTER: Q. Did you -- the information about
16 the insurance policy that you talked with Mr. Richardson
17 about, that was false, wasn't it, that the insurance had
18 recently been obtained?
19 A. I don't know when -- I don't know. Are you asking
20 me, when I said that to him, did I know it was false?
21 Absolutely not.
22 Q. Well, you learned it was false at some point,
23 didn't you?
24 A. I think he has an insurance policy out on her for
25 250,000.
26 Q. Okay.
27 A. I mean, I think he does.
28 Q. Right. I'm asking you about the "recently
1107: 1 obtained" aspect of it.

[Devil_Anse]

Thanks, Sandy! Yeah, I've read it, but I definitely don't have a photographic memory, lol.

McALLISTER: Did you--the information about the insurance policy that you talked with Mr. Richardson about, that was false, wasn't it, that the insurance had recently been obtained?

DETECTIVE: I don't know when--I don't know. Are you asking me, when I said that to him, did I know it was false? Absolutely not.

[Sandylapper]

Thanks, at bay! I really don't doubt that Brocchini had a right, without a warrant, to seize that gun. What I doubt, since they're arguing about the "seizing" of mops and bucket without a receipt and only verbal permission by Scott, is that Brocchini would have a right to take that gun without telling Scott that he was doing so. I hope that makes sense.

Interesting scenario that you have put forth, but has it been established that Scott and Laci got home at 8:30 p.m. on the 23rd? You know, Laci called Sharon at 8:30 that evening.

Now, that MG has subpoenaed Amber's telephone records, we might, perhaps, get to see if, when and what time on the 23rd that Amber called SP's home phone number.

[Sandylapper]

I don't have a photographic memory either, Anse, LOL, as I really thought that Merlin had tracked Laci to the park. Recently, I had to correct a post about that when I went back and reread.

You really need to go read the rest of that testimony. It was just too lengthy to post all of it. There is an admission later by Brocchini that they did receive copies of the policies early on--plenty of time to correct a rumor/lie that was floating around in the local newspaper, if I understood all of it correctly.

[Devil_Anse]

Perhaps they did get copies of the policies. But these are the same guys who left the videotapes lying on a desk unviewed for 3 months. And the part about the hand swabs for gunpowder residue--I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one.

Cops make mistakes like everyone else. But I still think that these have done everything they could. They have been pretty thorough.

And if it's all falsehoods or a frame-job by the cops or by whoever, why is it that just about everyone who comes on these threads begins by saying, "I personally think he's guilty"? I am one of those. I do feel sure that he is the one. I want to do more than FEEL that, though. So I trust that the proof will come.

[Howlin]

Judge rules hair IN!!!

[MEG33]

I heard that..Keep me posted.I have the TV on tracking tornadoes in the Houston,n and s area.It's flooding in areas,of course.