GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #5

[Kapua]

Thanks Nikki, and appreciate much you sharing from your background. I definitely am not interested in sticking on labels that don't fit, simply because they are popular.

on a side note, given your background, I wonder if you are familiar with the work of my godfather, Dr. Peter H. Wolff. He is very old now, but still working and writing in the pediatric psychiatry field.

I do not have any medical background at all. None. My focus in graduate school was psychoanalysis. I spent five years while in a Ph.D. Program participating in an interdisciplinary "working group" with teaching and practicing psychoanalysts from the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute and Clinic and the Wright Institute in Berkeley doing cross-discipline work with U.C. Berkeley professors from various departments from sociol sciences and humanities. Our focus was object relations psychoanalytic theory (pioneered by Melanie Klein). My interest was very serious, but, as said, not a medical background.

I am seeking to understand Steven as he is, not to overlook behaviors in order to force a fit. That is a good point about his calmness. Scott Peterson's crime has many similarities. How did he behave? Kapua? You said you followed that one closely.

As far as not speculating on Steven's psyche and its twists, I don't see the harm in putting out thoughts on this any more than with speculating on what was meant by the skull painting. We do both spec and deduction here. Most importantly we are not influencing the jury. The jury should absolutely only hear from medical experts, if any. When we speculate and people rebut our ideas, that is part of how our perceptions evolve. To shut our thoughts down completely, as opposed to correcting and informing why, because we lack the proper degree so we should not have thoughts in that area, seems to me counter productive of learning, but that is MOO.

I have zero background in psychology, but I consider anyone capable of such a brutal, monstrous murder to be in the abnormal range, to say the least. SC pegs the meter, IMHO. The fact that these types of killers think that they can just bluff their way through a polygraph exam, and charm their way through a police interview and media appearances just fascinates me. Like RDS said, SC thinks he is smart and the rest of us are stupid. BTW, I did some research on "eraser killers". Marilee Strong started researching eraser killers starting with the Peterson case and she's now done years of research on the topic.

Yes, I followed the Peterson case very closely. I own 3 or 4 books about the case! Scott Peterson's behavior was very similar to SC's in that he was unemotional for the most part and wasn't able to convincingly act concerned for Laci. A Modesto Bee photographer captured him smiling and laughing with friends at the candlelight vigil that was held for Laci about 1-2 weeks after she went missing and some of the jurors mentioned that picture after the trial. It reminds me of what Kimberlyn Scott said, “His tone was out of context for being in a room full of people that were afraid for someone. He was being a smart *advertiser censored*.” They both had that lack of empathy. I also remember that SP went out to play golf instead of posting missing person flyers and that there were a pile of them in his car. Both SP and SC had that "they'll never catch me" mindset.

 

[Nikki Lisette]

Pua, I wasn't singling you out. I haven't read your dad's work... yet. I'll add it to my reading list for sure. I know we all bring something to the table, at this point we're like a family having dinner, trying to talk over each other. Pua, your input on Charli's disappearance has been invaluable, you know this!

I never expected Adam's testimony to be so damning. I remember reading on FCS facebook that he couldn't wait to tell the truth. Wow.

I thought witnesses couldn't repeat what the defendant told them without it being hearsay? Did something change?

 

[puakenikeni]

The court is reviewing more than 120 juror questions for Adam Gaines.

I have washed my car in the driveway quite a few times. I use dish soap if I don't have cleaner formulated for washing cars on hand. Not once have I used bleach. TWO bottles? Hmmm. Very suspicious, IMHO.

:cow:

agree very suspicious. The only thing I use bleach for is mildew and mold. Quick online research tells me that chlorine bleach won't hide blood from luminol, but oxygen bleach will. Recognizable bottled bleach would be chlorine bleach, no?

Date note: The article says they searched SC's neighborhood on the 13th. AG says he didn't know anything had for sure happened yet. Well, they had found the torched SUV the night before, so I think they were pretty darned concerned for her at that point.

Anyhow, we had been going on Monday as the truck detailing date, but this is Thursday. So I wonder if Steven's truck had been involved in torching the truck, because if the murder and not the arson, why would he wait until Thursday? Unless he hates to clean just that much. ;-)

Note for timeline: washes truck while search focuses on his neighborhood, but is back out Keanae way until sunset with searchers (per Kaiser or AG, forget which). SC also did the news interview that day.

 

[puakenikeni]

Pua, I wasn't singling you out. I haven't read your dad's work... yet. I'll add it to my reading list for sure. I know we all bring something to the table, at this point we're like a family having dinner, trying to talk over each other. Pua, your input on Charli's disappearance has been invaluable, you know this!

I never expected Adam's testimony to be so damning. I remember reading on FCS facebook that he couldn't wait to tell the truth. Wow.

I thought witnesses couldn't repeat what the defendant told them without it being hearsay? Did something change?

Thanks Nikki. (That his my godfather, actually. He and my dad were lifelong best friends, so I grew up seeing him a lot. Peter is a neurologist/pediatric psychiatric doctor, who gave up the department chair in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and went to Eritrea Africa to work with studying orphans and children of war zones. He is known for his work on the very earliest stages of infant cognitive and emotional development as well.)

I have been wondering about the hearsay, but apparently it does not apply to the defendant, because they have allowed it, and in fact Rivera has answered objections by saying the testimony relates to the defendant's statements. I am not sure how the rule is worded though.

What is sad to me is that witnesses can't testify as to Charli's words because she is gone.

 

[Kapua]

Pua, I wasn't singling you out. I haven't read your dad's work... yet. I'll add it to my reading list for sure. I know we all bring something to the table, at this point we're like a family having dinner, trying to talk over each other. Pua, your input on Charli's disappearance has been invaluable, you know this!

I never expected Adam's testimony to be so damning. I remember reading on FCS facebook that he couldn't wait to tell the truth. Wow.

I thought witnesses couldn't repeat what the defendant told them without it being hearsay? Did something change?

Yes, Adam's testimony blew me away, too! Just from the articles, I feel that he made a very credible and influential witness. And he saw the bleach...

Witnesses can't say what other people told them, but they can say what the defendant told them directly. If SC doesn't like it, he can take the stand in his own defense. LOL.

 

[Nikki Lisette]

What is sad to me is that witnesses can't testify as to Charli's words because she is gone.

Right. She can't validate their testimony. Ok I get it now. So if SC wants to tell his version, he has to do it through his lawyers or testify.

 

[Kapua]

agree very suspicious. The only thing I use bleach for is mildew and mold. Quick online research tells me that chlorine bleach won't hide blood from luminol, but oxygen bleach will. Recognizable bottled bleach would be chlorine bleach, no?

Date note: The article says they searched SC's neighborhood on the 13th. AG says he didn't know anything had for sure happened yet. Well, they had found the torched SUV the night before, so I think they were pretty darned concerned for her at that point.

Anyhow, we had been going on Monday as the truck detailing date, but this is Thursday. So I wonder if Steven's truck had been involved in torching the truck, because if the murder and not the arson, why would he wait until Thursday? Unless he hates to clean just that much. ;-)

Note for timeline: washes truck while search focuses on his neighborhood, but is back out Keanae way until sunset with searchers (per Kaiser or AG, forget which). SC also did the news interview that day.

Actually, Thursday makes more sense, because he was busy earlier in the week, stripping and burning Charli's 4Runner, being interviewed twice by the police, showing Brooke where his truck wasn't stuck, and probably doing some additional clean-up work at the crime scene. And he was holding down his day job as well, not to mention his after-hours sales activities.

 

[puakenikeni]

Nikki, the hearsay rules make my head hurt.
But I remember they were allowed to say he hated babies and lots of other quotes from people who interacted with.

 

[puakenikeni]

Actually, Thursday makes more sense, because he was busy earlier in the week, stripping and burning Charli's 4Runner, being interviewed twice by the police, showing Brooke where his truck wasn't stuck, and probably doing some additional clean-up work at the crime scene. And he was holding down his day job as well, not to mention his after-hours sales activities.

ha ha ha lol and don't forget he hated cleaning ...

 

[PeterTosh]

ha ha ha lol and don't forget he hated cleaning ...

Thinking thinking thinking... ... So if he killed her in his car that would have been the one to torch right? Covered in blood. Hide hers until it could be properly stripped. I think they took her car(No gas??) and he was cleaning his car because of secondary blood that might have gotten in there. He torched the murder car I would think.

 

[puakenikeni]

Somewhere in the back of my head I'm wondering. Like Pua said when he watched the pictures of her remains he seemed to react like that's what happened!!?? I just don't know if it was an act or true shock from him. I wonder if someone else finished for him and he didn't know that's what was done to her.

What is this big lie Apo speaks of?

I think someone else said that, but I also did wonder that same thing. I'm not convinced that the person who managed to do that to her body would be horrified later on, but someone who ordered it done because he was not capable of it could certainly have a hard time seeing the aftermath left at the scene.

Like MamaMerced, I'm very skeptical about his mouth covering moments.
We have heard that he showed basically no concern for Charli or Joshua, but he had lots of concern for how people would see him. Like when his supervisor reported him agitated that he wasn't out there searching because it would look bad.

It's also possible that his counsel encouraged him in advance to show distress because they would be watching him closely during that reveal. May have told him it's good to sit quietly most of the time, but if he shows no emotion for that part they will judge him for it.

I didn't see the degree of distress in his whole face that Nicki saw, but I only saw what the camera showed and she was in the room. What day and part was that, if anyone knows?

 

[puakenikeni]

Thinking thinking thinking... ... So if he killed her in his car that would have been the one to torch right? Covered in blood. Hide hers until it could be properly stripped. I think they took her car(No gas??) and he was cleaning his car because of secondary blood that might have gotten in there. He torched the murder car I would think.

yes, if she was killed in a car. I am not so sure. The prosecution does not seem to be putting forth that theory.

when I first heard of the car being found, it seemed the story people were supposed to buy into was someone waylaid Charli, abducted her, abandoned her car and took Charli into the jungle; then the car strippers and torchers found it and do what they do.

Another act in the play of Maui women Disappear ... So it was necessary for her car to be torched and in a place known for that.

 

[puakenikeni]

I have zero background in psychology, but I consider anyone capable of such a brutal, monstrous murder to be in the abnormal range, to say the least. SC pegs the meter, IMHO. The fact that these types of killers think that they can just bluff their way through a polygraph exam, and charm their way through a police interview and media appearances just fascinates me. Like RDS said, SC thinks he is smart and the rest of us are stupid. BTW, I did some research on "eraser killers". Marilee Strong started researching eraser killers starting with the Peterson case and she's now done years of research on the topic.

Yes, I followed the Peterson case very closely. I own 3 or 4 books about the case! Scott Peterson's behavior was very similar to SC's in that he was unemotional for the most part and wasn't able to convincingly act concerned for Laci. A Modesto Bee photographer captured him smiling and laughing with friends at the candlelight vigil that was held for Laci about 1-2 weeks after she went missing and some of the jurors mentioned that picture after the trial. It reminds me of what Kimberlyn Scott said, “His tone was out of context for being in a room full of people that were afraid for someone. He was being a smart *advertiser censored*.” They both had that lack of empathy. I also remember that SP went out to play golf instead of posting missing person flyers and that there were a pile of them in his car. Both SP and SC had that "they'll never catch me" mindset.

Thanks, I knew you would make a great comparison. Another eerie coincidence is he told police he had gone fishing in SF Bay which was what, 50 miles from home, and that is where her body washed up. And he had beheaded her, IIRC. And the fetus Connor washed up. And he had volunteered that he had gone there for his alibi.

I decided today I will forego trying to come up with a label for what is wrong with SC, because I am not qualified, and instead I will compile a list of the ways his behavior is off from the norm, from testimony. Some of which you have already listed so well. I just want to see it in one place.

 

[heartgoesout]

I'd like to see that laid out too. Good idea.

 

[Kapua]

Thanks, I knew you would make a great comparison. Another eerie coincidence is he told police he had gone fishing in SF Bay which was what, 50 miles from home, and that is where her body washed up. And he had beheaded her, IIRC. And the fetus Connor washed up. And he had volunteered that he had gone there for his alibi.

I decided today I will forego trying to come up with a label for what is wrong with SC, because I am not qualified, and instead I will compile a list of the ways his behavior is off from the norm, from testimony. Some of which you have already listed so well. I just want to see it in one place.

Scott didn't behead Laci. He put homemade cement weights on her head, hands, and feet and when she decomposed, only her torso washed up due to the weights. That's one big difference between the Peterson and Scott-Capobianco cases. Another is that we don't know exactly how or where Scott killed Laci, but we assume it was in their bed (a comforter was missing) and that it was a bloodless killing (smothered or strangled).

If there is a hell, there is a special place in it for men who kill their pregnant wives, girlfriends, or ex-girlfriends.

 

[Kapua]

Thinking thinking thinking... ... So if he killed her in his car that would have been the one to torch right? Covered in blood. Hide hers until it could be properly stripped. I think they took her car(No gas??) and he was cleaning his car because of secondary blood that might have gotten in there. He torched the murder car I would think.

That's why I've always thought that they rode in her car - so that he could burn the vehicle with the evidence in it. Whether or not he killed her in her car is debatable, but at the point in time that he butchered her, he certainly got some blood on his clothes. When he said in a police interview that Charli hated his lifted 4Runner, that became another reason that I think they rode in her car down to Nua'ailua. He had a gas can or two at the ready, since he was planning to do some burning, and he had 2 vehicles that probably had gas in them and could be siphoned. Someone posted that it's not unusual to store gas for lawn equipment, too.

He went down that road at least once more - and there was another pair of pants found there. He may have done the butchering in two visits. He must've got some blood in or on his car, too.

 

[PeterTosh]

That's why I've always thought that they rode in her car - so that he could burn the vehicle with the evidence in it. Whether or not he killed her in her car is debatable, but at the point in time that he butchered her, he certainly got some blood on his clothes. When he said in a police interview that Charli hated his lifted 4Runner, that became another reason that I think they rode in her car down to Nua'ailua. He had a gas can or two at the ready, since he was planning to do some burning, and he had 2 vehicles that probably had gas in them and could be siphoned. Someone posted that it's not unusual to store gas for lawn equipment, too.

He went down that road at least once more - and there was another pair of pants found there. He may have done the butchering in two visits. He must've got some blood in or on his car, too.

We dont know if he planned on torching the SUV but to think he had gas on hand(enough to get a SUV to Hana) is not a far notion if he did. But why would Charli sit around and let him put a can a gas in her car? He had already taken her down there once against her will let alone late at night. I dont know about Charli but I know my wife and daughter are connected to the hip with their phones and to sit around for five minutes while he put gas in without texting someone is near impossible.

Maybe he wanted to blast his stereo with her and talk? Used that as an excuse and thhey took his.

 

[puakenikeni]

Good stuff ... Kapua, thanks for those details on the Peterson case that I did not know. I remember at the time that her head was missing and drew the wrong inference. The bloodless killing is a big difference indeed.

I am totally on board with the Forerunner burning because it had evidence, how much we dont
know but it takes so little if it is good evidence. I just think there was also a plan to make it seem like a local style strip and burn, which is part of Steven's world. He had even burned a car before. I saw one of those the other day on the main highway. First a car, then parts began to disappear. Each day there would be less until the bare frame was all, and then it was gone. I have seen the burned husks out on old cane roads. I always thought that's why some parts were missing, to make it look like local youths found the car after "someone" mysterious like a serial killer did away with her. Opportunism after the first crime.

The idea did take off in the media comments, but Nala being found just wrecked that idea, as you all likely recall.

Regardless, AG's testimony is more great stuff. I think it's all coming together now to remove doubt. There's really nothing to cast doubt either.

 

[puakenikeni]

We dont know if he planned on torching the SUV but to think he had gas on hand(enough to get a SUV to Hana) is not a far notion if he did. But why would Charli sit around and let him put a can a gas in her car? He had already taken her down there once against her will let alone late at night. I dont know about Charli but I know my wife and daughter are connected to the hip with their phones and to sit around for five minutes while he put gas in without texting someone is near impossible.

Maybe he wanted to blast his stereo with her and talk? Used that as an excuse and thhey took his.

Agree that the availability of gas is not a problem, but her agreeing to go with him is, and great point about her sitting and not doing any texting, even more so if she was uneasy. There is not one text or call from her to anyone (other than possibly SC) after she said goodbye to her sisters. Nothing, no one come forward in two years. This makes me think she was surprised and incapacitated and did not make any choices or permissions.

The reasons I think they took her truck not his:
1) Nala already in her truck.
2) The blanket and DVD lived in her truck, and there is no reason at all to transfer a Twilight DVD into his vehicle.
3) He did plan to burn her truck, and didn't want to mess up his beloved truck.
4) His truck was prone to getting stuck/breaking down (per Kaiser), and he made a point in his interview of saying her truck was regularly maintained and in best condition it could be, like that had mattered to him perhaps?

Another point that just occurred to me is his answers when asked what she was wearing. He said she was driving and he couldn't see all of her, which is dumb. I am thinking he doesn't have a good mental image from memory of that scene. Did he know what she was wearing? If he handled her body after stabbing her, of course. But I feel like the image of her driving is made up because very fuzzy and does not ring true. She could have been ziptied and gagged and put in the back lying down where no one would see her as they would in the passenger seat.
Nala would go nuts if Charli were being harmed; maybe Nala was flipping out. Maybe he stopped and let Nala out to get rid of the annoying dog once he was well away from his home turf. Maybe near Twin Falls and maybe he didn't exactly remember where. But would Nala attack him if he did that? Would she get out willingly? I don't know.

 

[puakenikeni]

Another unanswered question I have:
Why was the blanket not bloody. The proliferation of maggots all centered on this blanket points to close contact with her body. But no word about any blood on it, and the photo shown at trial didn't have dark areas, did it?
I had wondered if it was used after she stopped bleeding and the blood dried. Sorry that is so gruesome. Or after dismemberment. I have yet to hear a theory that puts the whole murder and dismemberment into one night and reconciles with the condition of the blanket, so if you have one please share.

Also, what about these pants and hoodie that were found next to the blanket, but no mention of blood? Assuming the simplest answer, these items were together because they were all involved in one stage of activity -- the blanket, the men's clothes, the zipties (I think), and the rolls of tape, one empty. Separate from her clothes, separate from the remains that were identifiable. My thought is that this group of objects related to the rest of her remains after the identifying factors (teeth, fingerprints, piercing) were removed. That the blanket was used to wrap them and the clothes were worn during the process. And they were at the river.