Prosecutors want autopsy results unsealed

The Modesto Bee ^ | May 29 2003 | John Cote' and Garth Stapely

[joyce11111]

You meant to say that JP took the Tiffany Lamps??????

Boy, this is getting really down and dirty.

The rochas will have the support of 99% of the people I betcha

[spectre]

Stupid quote of the day, by the famed criminal defense Lawyer, Jeralynn Merritt on FNC to John Kasich.

"How do we know that Laci didn't committ suicide?"

Let me count the ways, Jeralynn...

sw

[Devil_Anse]

And don't forget the tabloids who went on the property to sneak photos of the inside of the house. The place has been like Grand Central Station. There was even the Jan. break-in by that neighbor who walked the dog for Scott.

Scott declined to press charges against the neighbor/dogwalker. So it sure would look funny if he decided to press charges against the Rochas.

[BunnySlippers]

So what would you rather have? An eyewitness who can't see very well in the dark from a car parked across the street ...and can't tell the difference between two black men? Or a strong circumstantial case?

The answer is that a circumstantial case can be just as strong as direct evidence.

[Jhoffa_]

No, although you were not courteous to wait for me to answer. My mother was ... but that was many, many decades ago.

Is this addressed to me? I was "not courteous to wait"

If you re-read the thread, you will see that no one asked you if you were a lawyer. Carolina Mom addressed that question to me.

I do know that I have heard repeatedly that circumstantial evidence can be as strong as an eyewitness.

It's still circumstancial. And, as far as that goes eyewitness accounts are as unreliable as evidence get's.

Ever play that game where someone walks through the room, says "hello" and then you get to describe what he was wearing?

I'm still wondering why you see yourself as the last word on this.

Because I have common sense.

"Circumstancial" evidence is called "circumstancial" for a reason. Didn't you read my previous post on the subject?

[Devil_Anse]

That idiot? Yeah, right!

Any opponent of his could hide all sorts of stuff from him--just hide it in a law book.

[Wednesday's Child]

Mother of the year? lol she probably thinks she deserves it!
There's seriously something "not right" with Jackie . She seems to have no feelings for anyone but herself. And probably doesn't even realize nor care how awful she is being to the Rochas. They are unimportant to her. She's like her son......everythings all about him/her.

[BunnySlippers]

Thank you for your correction. :)
My apologies to JH.

[spectre]

Yes it will be. I'm pretty sure they had more than "circumstancial evidence" to charge and hold Scott for murder.

We don't know everything yet...praise God.

sw

[BunnySlippers]

See 428.

[Carolinamom]

The return of the 2 lamps and 3 presents was the most niggardly act Jackie could have done other than setting Laci's plants out by the curb. (She probably didn't want to water them, so the latter was for HER convenience.) Her "story" about the lamps will probably be that she was safeguarding them from future thefts. (More likely they would have been sold to defray ScottyBoy's expenses.)

[Jhoffa_]

So what would you rather have? An eyewitness who can't see very well in the dark from a car parked across the street ...and can't tell the difference between two black men? Or a strong circumstantial case?

I don't know why you insist on continuing to dredge up this "eyewitness" strawman.

It doesn't matter. It's not an either/or situation.

You can have evidence without it being circumstancial or having an eyewitness.

The answer is that a circumstantial case can be just as strong as direct evidence.

That's meaningless.

[uvular]

Good question; I'm not sure that JP took the lamps and gifts that were returned today, or if it may have been Scott's attorney/investigator?

My guess is JP did take them perhaps claiming she took them so they didn't get stolen? She had to know they were inherited from Laci's grandma, and why not just give them to Rocha's? I see in the pic of the lamps runningbear posted above, the harp on one of the lamp is askew, and finial is missing...

[NewsGal]

Why in the world do you think Jackie told Greta there was not a single thing of Laci's left in the house? How stupid. I hope Greta quits kissing up to Jackie and quits trying to put her on the same moral setting as Sharon. They are not both suffering the same loss. Jackie still has her psycho son and Laci and her baby are gone.

[MEG33]

Put me on the ping list please!

[Devil_Anse]

And thank YOU for telling the thread about it as it was happening! I'm getting here late, and when I saw your first posts about it, I couldn't believe it!

[BunnySlippers]

You are welcome to your opinion.

[Devil_Anse]

LOL! He started out in NY. I wonder if he even ever HAD a CA license.

[Jhoffa_]

PS: Think about this..

If someone is shot, the weapon is recovered and balistics prove that weapon was the same one used in the crime..

That's hard evidence. No witnesses or "circumstancial" stuff required.

The tape (for example) is evidence.

[runningbear]

Ruling on Motion To Seal Documents

A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS ISSUED TOO

"Court Documents Sealing Decision

Posted on Friday, May 30 2003 at 3:48 PM PST ----

A new Superior Court document was added. Click on “Court Docs” menu bar on the left side of this page.

The public document is a “Minute Order” detailing the courts decision (Judge Girolami) on sealing several documents. The court finds that the following documents “Shall Remain Sealed.”

1. Search Warrant and Return of Search Warrant dated April 24, 2003;

2. Affidavit in Support of the Ramey Warrant;

3. Search Warrant, Addendum and Return of Search Warrant dated April 21, 2003;

4. Search Warrant, Addendum and Return of Search Warrant (30-day extension) dated February 27, 2003;

5. Autopsy reports of Laci and Conner Peterson

It is further ordered that the prior orders remain in effect. Specifically, that all of these documents now in the possession of the Prosecution and Defense shall not be released, conveyed, or disclosed to anyone outside of their respective trial teams without further order of the court