Conversations About Scott And Laci Peterson Today

Another discussion about the Peterson case is under way on the "InjusticeAnywhere.com" forum.---------------Blogger Page Breaks Still On The Blink-----------------ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo So, using the letter 'o' as a breaker-upper, let me suggest a great old website for those whose experience of the Peterson case is mainly through the various outlets of mainstream media. (A lot of folks.) This is one of my favorite Peterson sites. "Vance Holmes," "Poetic Justice." Lots and lots of photos and colored type: excellent and easy on the eyes._______________Murdoch says, citing as his source:First interview with Brocchini on the 24/25th"she was pretty fastidious about cleaning" and "yeh, she always had the vaccum and mop out"Scott asks nothing about finding Laci in the interview and when Laci's sister calls, he asks her nothing about whats been going on back at the house and their searching efforts. He finishes up enquiring about counsellers for Laci's family when she hasn't been missing 24 hours. He promises to take a polygraph. He declines Brent's request to go be with the family and instead goes home even though they want to see him.My note: I have been wondering and wondering and waiting for a videotape or the transcript of that interview to be made available. Maybe I've missed it somehow and it is up on Marlene's site, but the last I heard, Facebook's "Justice For Scott Peterson" page last year suggested that it would be posted, but then if it was posted, I never was able to find it, though I've followed that discussion pretty closely.____________________________Jane responds:By the time the interview was recorded, Scott had been with Brocchini for at least 2 hours at the house, at the warehouse and in between. Do you really think it would have been appropriate for Scott to have a long conversation with Amy while he was in the middle of a tape-recorded interview with a detective. Brocchini didn't drop him off at home until approx 2 am. Would that have been a good time to go to Sharon's house? We've already discussed why he didn't take the polygraph on the 25th. He did, however, submit to a 2-3 hour interview on that day with the DOJ polygraph examiner Doug Mansfield and lead detective Craig Grogan.There were dogs searching the park and the neighborhood on the night of the 24th-25th. Brocchini made arrangements to have cadaver dogs brought in on the 26th. How many civilians know the difference between trailing/tracking dogs and cadaver dogs? Nothing was found in the vacuum that was incriminating. There were lots of people tracking in and out of the house. Why would he ask the media for help? He believed that the police were there to help him.He was concerned about Sharon's emotional state. She was hysterical.-----------------At this point I might lurk, but I don't think I'll be joining the conversation. Here's an example of why.-----------------A poster named Cliff Wismayer is asking Jane what her source is for her assertion that Scott Peterson usually put his clothing in the washer when he came home after work (he worked as a fertilizer salesman...as we all know). -----------------Jane answers with an opportunity for a nuanced glance at testimony that explains:__________People's Exhibit 68Taped interview, Det. Brocchini with Scott, December 24/25, 2003 PDFThis is an interview between Det. BROCCHINI and Scott PETERSON taking place 12-25-02 from 0001 to 0100. [With redacted polygraph portion added back in for completeness.]________Link:http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-68.htm -----------------Here's Mr. W's response: __________________Clive Wismayer Location: Surrey, England ----------------That's not helpful Jane because:a) it's too long andb) his own evidence on the point is completely worthless because he a guilty person would say the same thing and also because we know from the rest of his life he is a pathological liar anyway.___________________(Testimony by investigating police officers suggests Scott Peterson was not a pathological liar. He lied by not revealing his connection to Amber Frey, and when he was on an open radio (cell phone) getting death threats daily, with media packs on him like flies on sugar, he did not disclose his true location several times. This was used against him at trial, as evidence that he was a liar. To understand why Peterson did certain things at certain times, one has to drop all the things the TV hammered into one's head about this case, because these things were wrong. They were lies. They were flat-out, bullshit lies. Don't believe it? That the TV would lie with impunity, and be protected legally for this, even? If you don't believe this---if your premises differ that dramatically than mine--then the discussion cannot be had. It can--but it will not be productive and there will be no communication.)________________This forum is (apparently) very important. (Influential.)________________________The people who have researched and believe in Scott Peterson's innocence are posting there, each with his or her own inimitable style. Voice of Sanity is clanging and banging like he does, and Marlene is patiently explaining (for the millionth time) the details of the case to folks who have not read her site, SII. ______________________________For those not familiar with the site, it is citizen journalism of the most painstaking nature. Complete transcripts are posted, an entire media reference library is posted, and individual testimonies are broken down and analyzed, for example, the testimony by Dr. Allison Galloway about the fetal development of Baby Conner. This was testimony that I myself had difficulty understanding, and I printed out Marlene's explanation and pondered over it for, literally, days.______________________________Meanwhile, you have folks who just want to chat like they're at the coffeehouse about the Peterson case, and they're not interested in reading the links or doing the homework, or don't have time. (Not interested enough.) _________________________________Considering Marlene has done SO MUCH of the homework, I'm amazed at her patience over there, but I'm also completely and totally uninterested in having those discussions anymore. Say whatever you want to say about Scott Peterson, but if we're going to talk about why this case is bad law, something that affects all of us in California, then understanding why it's bad law is going to require a complete re-framing of everything you know about the case. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________And that's going to take reading. (Damn this lack of page breaks.)_____________________________________I too would like a bigger forum for understanding of this case, but if it's a forum with people who get their information primarily from broadcast media, then it's a forum where a true discussion of the evidence is virtually impossible._____________For me---there's too much that's too important in the world, to spend time arguing over whether Mr. Peterson is a "pathological liar" or not._____________It's just a waste of time, which is rushing, so short._____________If one is curious, one can read the material. For example, the testimony._____________If one is not curious enough to read the work that took so many years by so many people to do----------a shouting match will ensue. _____________Especially if I participate._____________So I'll let VOS do the shouting, though I wish he'd save his voice. It's like Edward Humes said in the title of one book, "No Matter How Loud I Shout," .....it's a tree falling in the forest if no one hears. _____________You may as well be speaking in a foreign tongue. These are different realities, shaped by dramatically different modes of thinking. Conversation is one thing; reading another. Midnight Oil"Read About It"