GUILTY CA - Laci Peterson, 27, pregnant, Modesto, 24 Dec 2002

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MyBelle said:
What exactly is being "tied up" in this case? The Court has granted the request to do additional testing and further investigation into evidence which wasn't handed over to the defense. If the testing doesn't prove anything, then SP will remain in prison.

JMO
Click to expand...
Resources, experts, analysis time, and monies that IMO would be available to assist other cases. MOO
 
lightofmine99 said:
And what was their supposed motive? What did they steal? Lol.
Click to expand...

Besides the jewelry etc mentioned before - weren't they going to steal a safe too?

PrairieWind said:
My guess is that they are looking for two things. First, test the DNA found in the van/mattress to see if any is Laci's. Second, they are asking to test items found with or near where Laci's body was found to see if THAT dna matches any found in the van. Again, that is just my guess.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this great explanation... :)

Smelly Squirrel said:
No, the judge hasn't ruled on any of the motions. The hearing was to schedule future hearing dates when the motions will be heard. See any of the links posted in this thread.

The state still hasn't filed any replies to the motions so we didn't don't even know whether or how much they will oppose.
Click to expand...

from my notes:
Judge Hill set the following schedule for Peterson’s future hearings with the LA Innocence Project: Hearing on motion to seal court records on 4/16/24 @ 9am, hearing on DNA testing motion on 5/29/24 @ 9am & hearing on 1054.9 motion on 7/15/24 @ 9am & Peterson will appear via Zoom at all hearings from Mule Creek State Prison.
 
lightofmine99 said:
Personally I find the assertion he did not get a fair trial because of Nancy Grace quite humorous, and I fail to see why we should waste more taxpayer dollars on giving a man with overwhelming evidence pointing to his guilt yet another day in court.

JMO!
Click to expand...
BBM. I think Modesto taxpayers should be more concerned at their woefully inept LE who totally ignored an abundance of evidence.

Nowhere in my post did I mention Nancy Grace. Nowhere in the LAIP filing does it suggest SP didn't get a fair trial. It makes it very clear there is new evidence that needs testing, old evidence that needs retesting, much evidence that the previous jury did not hear.

From the link below: The exculpatory evidence presented throughout this motion—some of which is newly discovered, some of which was suppressed, and some of which was available at trial—was not presented to the jury at Mr. Peterson’s trial. When all this evidence is viewed together, as set forth in the motion, it demonstrates that the police investigation into what happened to Laci and Conner Peterson was woefully deficient and guided by confirmation bias and tunnel vision.

JMO

 
MyBelle said:
BBM. I think Modesto taxpayers should be more concerned at their woefully inept LE who totally ignored an abundance of evidence.

Nowhere in my post did I mention Nancy Grace. Nowhere in the LAIP filing does it suggest SP didn't get a fair trial. It makes it very clear there is new evidence that needs testing, old evidence that needs retesting, much evidence that the previous jury did not hear.

From the link below: The exculpatory evidence presented throughout this motion—some of which is newly discovered, some of which was suppressed, and some of which was available at trial—was not presented to the jury at Mr. Peterson’s trial. When all this evidence is viewed together, as set forth in the motion, it demonstrates that the police investigation into what happened to Laci and Conner Peterson was woefully deficient and guided by confirmation bias and tunnel vision.

JMO

Click to expand...
They did not ignore an abundance of evidence, as Scott Peterson was charged and convicted. Had they done what you are asserting, the one man on planet earth who could have done this would be a free man right now.
 
RANCH said:
www.kron4.com

Scott Peterson case returns to court with Innocence Project

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (KRON) — What happened to Laci and her unborn baby, Conner? According to a San Mateo County jury, Laci was murdered by her husband, Scott Peterson, and dumped into the Sa…
www.kron4.com www.kron4.com
Click to expand...
I was here at WS following this case and recall a user named Scandi who sketched the once shown footage of baby Connor's remains, while still mostly in Laci's uterus. It haunts me to this day.
 
libraryg said:
I was here at WS following this case and recall a user named Scandi who sketched the once shown footage of baby Connor's remains, while still mostly in Laci's uterus. It haunts me to this day.
Click to expand...
I think baby Connor may be the most compelling evidence the LAIP now has. The expert testimony at trial as to his age was in error. He was also found with some tape tied in a bow around his neck. This ties in with Dec. 28 date a witness reported seeing Laci being forced into a van.

JMO
The post-conviction investigation in this case reveals that Dr. Greggory Devore used the wrong formula when he calculated Conner’s date of death. (95 RT 17861, 17868.) Dr. Phillipe Jeanty, who actually developed the formula and equation Dr. Devore testified he employed to do his calculations, reviewed Devore’s calculations, report, and testimony and explained in a postconviction declaration that Dr. Devore used the wrong formula and applied that incorrect formula to only one of the three long bones for which there were measurements. (Exh. 20 at ¶¶ 17–20.) Dr. Jeanty applied the correct formula to three bones and determined that Conner died on January 3, 2003. (Id. at ¶ 16.)
 
katydid23 said:
The witness reported this supposed kidnapping on Dec 28th. He admitted that he did not report it until AFTER he saw news reports of Lacey being missing.

If he and his wife actually saw a pregnant women being forced into a car on Dec 24th, why didnt they report it AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED?
Click to expand...
According to the LAIP filing, the witness, Tom Harshman reported that he and his wife saw Laci with the men near the van ON Dec. 28th.

JMO

begins on page 56:
And there is other evidence that Laci was seen alive after December 24, 2002, which the police, once again, failed to investigate. MPD Sergeant Cloward received a call from Tom Harshman, a former reserve police officer for the Martinez Police Department, who called to report that on December 28, 2002, he saw a pregnant woman with a scared look on her face alongside a road with two men and an older white van. (98 RT 18510–18511.) Harshman reported that the woman he saw looked like the photos of Laci Peterson that he had seen on missing person flyers. (98 RT 18510–18511.) Mr. Harshman called MPD two more times in an effort to report that he had seen a pregnant woman he believed was Laci Peterson being pushed into a van on December 28, just north of La Loma Park. (Exh. 19 at ¶¶ 3–11, Exhs. A–D.) As with the other eyewitnesses who reported seeing Laci Peterson alive after 10:18 a.m. on December 24, Mr. Harshman’s report was not taken seriously, nor was it investigated, nor did Mr. Harshman testify at trial.

Counsel for Mr. Peterson met with Mr. Harshman on October 6, 2023, and he confirmed that on December 28, 2002, he and his wife were driving on Scenic Drive and Claus Drive, north of La Loma Park, when he saw a woman he believed was Laci Peterson, who looked like she was in need of some help because there was a man standing by her looking like he was trying to control her. (Exh. 19 at ¶¶ 3–11, Exhs. A–D.)

Mr. Harshman stated that the woman he believed was Laci was squatting with her back against a chain link fence, possibly urinating, and he saw her walk to the driver’s side of the van with one of the male subjects she was with while a second male reached out the open driver’s door with his hand and held the female’s hand, pulling her into the van at the driver’s door. (Exh. 19 at ¶ 12, Exh. E.)

It looked to Harshman like the female may have needed assistance, and he thought the male was trying to stay close by her, trying to control her. (Ibid.) After Mr. Harshman called in his report, no one from MPD returned his call, so he went to the Command Post located in La Loma Park and again made a report. (Id. at ¶¶ 6–8.) Again, no one from MPD reached out to Mr. Harshman during the investigation to interview him about what he reported seeing.

Not until Mr. Peterson’s trial was about to begin did Det. Grogan finally contact Mr. Harshman on May 18, 2004, to interview him about his report. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.) Det. Grogan did not ask Mr. Harshman if he could identify the man he saw or the van he saw. Instead, Grogan asked Mr. Harshman if the pregnant woman he saw on December 28, 2002, had a dog with her.43 (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. F.)

As with the other eyewitnesses who reported seeing Laci alive after Mr. Peterson left home on December 24, Harshman’s report was not taken seriously, and he did not testify at trial. As occurred with eyewitness Diane Jackson, the jury only heard about Mr. Harshman’s report through Det. Grogan, who testified about his interview with Mr. Harshman, but he did not explain why Mr. Harshman’s report was not investigated or taken seriously at the time Laci Peterson was missing. (99 RT 18670–18671.)
 
NuttMegg said:
No, that's not the way it works. Maybe he would win a new trial, but he won't just be released. The "evidence" to be tested doesn't open his cell door, regardless of what is found by these people. It will have to be presented in court, both sides will have a chance to debate the "evidence" with experts and there will be judgments on whether the "evidence" will even be allowed in court in the first place.

Imo
Click to expand...
BBM. I didn't suggest that is the way it works.

JMO
 
Niner said:
Besides the jewelry etc mentioned before - weren't they going to steal a safe too?



Thanks for this great explanation... :)



from my notes:
Judge Hill set the following schedule for Peterson’s future hearings with the LA Innocence Project: Hearing on motion to seal court records on 4/16/24 @ 9am, hearing on DNA testing motion on 5/29/24 @ 9am & hearing on 1054.9 motion on 7/15/24 @ 9am & Peterson will appear via Zoom at all hearings from Mule Creek State Prison.
Click to expand...
BBM. Yes, the safe is mentioned in the LAIP filing. In fact, Steven Todd rode his bicycle to the Medina's home, stole nearly 200 pounds of items, and then called Pearce to drive to the residence so they could steal the safe.
Mrs. Medina noticed items that had been moved around and asked LE why they weren't dusting for prints and the response was that she "watched too much CSI." LE also didn't bother to investigate the alibis of the burglars. It begins on page 38 of the LAIP filing.

JMO


According to Todd, he rode his bike to the Medinas’ home, packed up over 50 items into his backpack, including heavy tools, a large rolling toolbox full of tools, and large gardening equipment, among other items, collectively weighing about 200 pounds, and carried them away on his bike.27 (107 RT 20019-20020.)

Pearce told police that at about 6:30 the morning of December 26, 2002, Todd woke him up and asked him to drive to the Medinas’ home in Pearce’s car so they could transport a safe from the Medinas’ home; Pearce agreed. (107 RT 20050–20051.)
 
Smelly Squirrel said:
No, the DOJ gave the LAIP a general grant for their work not a grant for this case specifically.
Click to expand...
I didn't say or even imply the federal grant was for only the SP case. Innocence Projects receive funding from many sources and far more than just one case is investigated.

JMO

gandernewsroom.com

Federal Grant Helps Free Four Innocent Michigan Men from Prison

A three-year project funded by a federal grant helped prosecutors review hundreds of criminal convictions in Michigan—and four innocent prisoners were set free.
gandernewsroom.com gandernewsroom.com
In 2019, the US Department of Justice awarded a $735,000 grant to Nessel’s office, which then partnered with Cooley Law School’s Innocence Project, to review 300 cases and determine whether DNA testing could help corroborate claims of innocence. All told, the Conviction Integrity Unit was able to review 620 cases—more than double their initial goal under the grant.

Of those reviewed, nine cases involving physical evidence were submitted for more DNA tests. And for four Michigan men, the efforts led to their criminal convictions being vacated altogether.
 
katydid23 said:
The witness reported this supposed kidnapping on Dec 28th. He admitted that he did not report it until AFTER he saw news reports of Lacey being missing.

If he and his wife actually saw a pregnant women being forced into a car on Dec 24th, why didnt they report it AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED?
Click to expand...

Right. Why wouldn’t they report it no matter who it was?! If you see anyone being forced against their will you call the police. You describe the car, the victim, the time of day, etc.

SEE SOMETHING-SAY SOMETHING

I find it very hard to believe a husband and wife would sit on that information. If their family member was missing they would be angry if no one reported it. That would bother someone’s conscience if you could have intercepted it.
 
MyBelle said:
According to the LAIP filing, the witness, Tom Harshman reported that he and his wife saw Laci with the men near the van ON Dec. 28th.

JMO

begins on page 56:
And there is other evidence that Laci was seen alive after December 24, 2002, which the police, once again, failed to investigate. MPD Sergeant Cloward received a call from Tom Harshman, a former reserve police officer for the Martinez Police Department, who called to report that on December 28, 2002, he saw a pregnant woman with a scared look on her face alongside a road with two men and an older white van. (98 RT 18510–18511.) Harshman reported that the woman he saw looked like the photos of Laci Peterson that he had seen on missing person flyers. (98 RT 18510–18511.) Mr. Harshman called MPD two more times in an effort to report that he had seen a pregnant woman he believed was Laci Peterson being pushed into a van on December 28, just north of La Loma Park. (Exh. 19 at ¶¶ 3–11, Exhs. A–D.) As with the other eyewitnesses who reported seeing Laci Peterson alive after 10:18 a.m. on December 24, Mr. Harshman’s report was not taken seriously, nor was it investigated, nor did Mr. Harshman testify at trial.

Counsel for Mr. Peterson met with Mr. Harshman on October 6, 2023, and he confirmed that on December 28, 2002, he and his wife were driving on Scenic Drive and Claus Drive, north of La Loma Park, when he saw a woman he believed was Laci Peterson, who looked like she was in need of some help because there was a man standing by her looking like he was trying to control her. (Exh. 19 at ¶¶ 3–11, Exhs. A–D.)

Mr. Harshman stated that the woman he believed was Laci was squatting with her back against a chain link fence, possibly urinating, and he saw her walk to the driver’s side of the van with one of the male subjects she was with while a second male reached out the open driver’s door with his hand and held the female’s hand, pulling her into the van at the driver’s door. (Exh. 19 at ¶ 12, Exh. E.)

It looked to Harshman like the female may have needed assistance, and he thought the male was trying to stay close by her, trying to control her. (Ibid.) After Mr. Harshman called in his report, no one from MPD returned his call, so he went to the Command Post located in La Loma Park and again made a report. (Id. at ¶¶ 6–8.) Again, no one from MPD reached out to Mr. Harshman during the investigation to interview him about what he reported seeing.

Not until Mr. Peterson’s trial was about to begin did Det. Grogan finally contact Mr. Harshman on May 18, 2004, to interview him about his report. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.) Det. Grogan did not ask Mr. Harshman if he could identify the man he saw or the van he saw. Instead, Grogan asked Mr. Harshman if the pregnant woman he saw on December 28, 2002, had a dog with her.43 (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. F.)

As with the other eyewitnesses who reported seeing Laci alive after Mr. Peterson left home on December 24, Harshman’s report was not taken seriously, and he did not testify at trial. As occurred with eyewitness Diane Jackson, the jury only heard about Mr. Harshman’s report through Det. Grogan, who testified about his interview with Mr. Harshman, but he did not explain why Mr. Harshman’s report was not investigated or taken seriously at the time Laci Peterson was missing. (99 RT 18670–18671.)
Click to expand...

WEll, well, this is a problem in the timeline if he is trying to claim he saw her with the burglars and was shoved in their van on Dec 28th.

That van was found burned out on THE DAY AFTER Lacey was reported missing. So that was three days before this new claim that she was forced into the van on the 28th.

abc7chicago.com

Former investigator says key evidence wasn't properly investigated in Scott Peterson case

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, a former California Fire official says key evidence wasn't properly investigated in Scott Peterson case
abc7chicago.com abc7chicago.com
Spitulski investigated that van in December 2002, which was found the day after Laci disappeared and was less than a mile from the couple's home.

So whatever it is that was just linked above is incorrect info.

Everything I have read about the witness to her supposed kidnapping says he reported the tip on Dec 28th---and he has seen the kidnapping 3 or 4 days earlier.
 
Last edited:
I do not necessarily believe anyone other than Scott Peterson was behind the deaths of Laci and Connor. However, if there is any new potential evidence that can be brought to light, and I do mean any, it must be investigated. I believe the victims and their families deserve to know the full extent of the crimes committed against them. I am not saying this is actually what happened in this case but what if Scott hired someone to abduct and murder Laci and he just disposed of her remains? If this had happened to my loved one you had better believe I would want to know every minuet detail of the crime, especially if new information became available that might alter those facts.
 
katydid23 said:
WEll, well, this is a problem in the timeline if he is trying to claim he saw her with the burglars and was shoved in their van on Dec 28th.

That van was found burned out on THE DAY AFTER Lacey was reported missing. So that was three days before this new claim that she was forced into the van on the 28th.

abc7chicago.com

Former investigator says key evidence wasn't properly investigated in Scott Peterson case

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, a former California Fire official says key evidence wasn't properly investigated in Scott Peterson case
abc7chicago.com abc7chicago.com
Spitulski investigated that van in December 2002, which was found the day after Laci disappeared and was less than a mile from the couple's home.

So whatever it is that was just linked above is incorrect info.

Everything I have read about the witness to her supposed kidnapping says he reported the tip on Dec 28th---and he has seen the kidnapping 3 or 4 days earlier.
Click to expand...
Also, LE had already arrested 2 of the burglars right after the burnt out van was found.

Are the defense attorneys now saying that there were accomplices, that were holding a 9 month pregnant lady, IN THE SAME EXACT NEIGHBORHOOD, at the SAME EXACT PARK, in the 3 days following the high profile kidnapping?

And they somehow got a different old white and tan van to all hang out in, in the exAct same neighborhood, where the FBI and the Federal Marshalls were scouring the area for Lacey and her baby? WHY would they do that?

And they kept her alive in that van in that area for a few more days and then killed her and attached her to concrete blocks and dumped her in the SF Bay? Did they have a boat?

There is evidence that she and the baby were underwater for quite a long time until they finally rose to the top and washed ashore. So these burglars could not have just driven there and dropped her on the beach.

Did these burglars get a boat, carry her dead body to the ocean, WHILE THE FBI WAS CONDUCTING SEARCHES ALL AROUND THERE?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 4,375 (members: 198, guests: 4,177)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
4,177
Total visitors
4,375
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,401
Messages
17,986,424
Members
229,121
Latest member
Sandraca
Back
Top