The investigation and prosecution of Scott Peterson cost Stanislaus County CA $4.13 million dollars. It is impossible to understand why virtually none of this money was spent following leads to find Laci while she was still alive. Within 3 days after they were notified that Laci was missing, the MPD detectives decided that Laci was dead and that Scott had murdered her. Approximately 24 hours after the Laci Peterson tipline opened on December 26, the MPD was ignoring tips that proved Laci was alive at the time Scott Peterson left home on December 24.
These were the only people contacted by MPD about the sightings:
Mike Chiavetta:
• Interviewed by motorcycle policeman (Officer Nicolai) on 12/25/02
Victoria Pouches
• Contacted by Officer Beffa 12/25/02
Chris Van Sandt
• Spoke with Detective Brocchini by phone 12/25/02
John and Karma Souza
• Interviewed by Detective Phil Owen on 12/27/02 (taped phone call)
Diane Campos
• Personal interview with Phil Owen on 12/27/02
Scott’s defense attorneys did not have access to the MPD tip sheet until May 2003. However, they did learn about some of the other sightings. Tony Freitas called a defense investigator on January 20, 2003. Homer Maldonado called Sharon Rocha and Brent Rocha. An article about Vivian Mitchell appeared in the Modesto Bee on February 27, 2003. Martha Aguilar lived only two blocks from the Peterson’s house on Covena. The defense also learned about Gene Pedrioli and Grace Wolf through sources other than MPD.
Grogan’s testimony and the questions asked by Birgit Fladager imply that following up on the sightings was an impossible task. Take a good look at People’s Exhibit 267-3.
In the area within a 1 mile radius of Laci’s house there were 26 sightings. Within a 3 mile radius, there were an additional 7. This is a total of 33. What possible excuse did MPD have for not investigating each and every one of these sightings to determine exactly what was seen by each of the witnesses?
Grogan excuses the MPD failure to follow up on tips by citing Karen Servas’ 10:18 timeline for finding McK. Even if Karen Servas’ timeline were accurate, which it is not, MPD did not have information about her reinvented timeline until January 3. The detectives did nothing to confirm that her time source was valid.
Grogan also says tips were not followed up because phone records indicate that Scott was still in his neighborhood at 10:08. This theory did not take shape until shortly before trial. Two prosecution witnesses stated that cell phone records were not designed to be used to identify location.
Grogan also uses the excuse that tips were not investigated because witnesses reported Laci wearing black pants and her body was found wearing tan pants. MPD did not have this information until mid-April when Laci’s body was found.
Then Grogan indicates that sightings outside of the park were discounted because Laci was planning to walk in the park. This is blatantly false and Grogan knew it. Grogan had been present on December 26 when Chris Boyer interviewed Scott Peterson at his home. Scott clearly stated that Laci sometimes walked in the neighborhood. He told Boyer, in Grogan’s presence that Laci had walked on Sunday, December 22, in the neighborhood.
At the time these sightings were coming in, MPD still believed that Scott had left home around 9:30 a.m. and that Karen Servas had found McK around 10:30 a.m. Each and every one of these sightings should have been investigated thoroughly. MPD’s failure to do so is inexcusable.
52 comments:
Wearing A Halo said...
Jane, what were these tips that "proved" Laci was alive when SP left for his "fishing trip"?
WAH, for starters check the blog article "Laci's Walk."
Wearing A Halo said...
Jane, I had already read the article "Laci's Walk." There is nothing in that article that the tips "proved" that Laci was alive. In fact, the article(s) proves that these tips are erroneous.
WAH, do you approve of the MPD ignoring these sightings? Is that the way you would want an investigation into the disappearance of your loved one to be conducted -- for the police to ignore every lead that doesn't point to their suspect?
You, of course, believe they came to the right conclusion. That still doesn't justify their failure to follow-up. Grogan certainly couldn't justify it -- the only excuses he could come up with was information that they received after the decision to concentrate solely on Scott was already made.
They couldn't even claim the hair was a justifiable reason -- only Hendee knew about it before February, and it wasn't even sent in for testing until February.
They had no evidence whatsoever pointing to Scott. Right now, you and the majority of the country who believe Scott is guilty, are perfectly happy to settle for "gut feeling" as the only justification for the MPD's decisions, but when Scott is vindicated, that will change.
Credible witnesses who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood do prove that Laci was alive after Scott left home.
Geragos assumed that the jury would listen to the details of the sightings in Grogan's testimony. He assumed they would understand that the MPD detectives ignored exculpatory information from multiple witnesses. On this basis alone, Scott should have been found not guilty.
Wearing A Halo said...
As credible witnesses as you, Jane, want them to be, they did not see Laci. They all had the wrong time(s). If you want to believe the witnesses, then you would have to disbelieve SP. So, which do you believe Jane, the "credible witnesses" or SP? Pick one.
WAH, you can be in denial all you want, because obviously if even one of those sightings was legitimate, then the case against Scott comes crashing down.
I've been pretty tolerant allowing your comments on this blog. Heretofore, all your comments amount to is to say, I don't agree with you. Jane has provided the reasoning for her conclusions. You have provided none for yours, except state them.
Don't bother posting another comment unless you are going to PROVE Jane is wrong. That's how you debate, WAH -- you present arguments that prove the other side is wrong, you don't just make categorical statements that they are.
So, go ahead, engage the debate, tell us specifically which sightings DO NOT fit in with Scott's statements and why they do not.
Wearing A Halo said...
Marlene, it is tedious to debate (as it has been now for four/five years) with NGs because each and everytime that any G proves them wrong, the NGs scoff. I have been debating and stating on various forums for nearly three years and others have done the same with much more accurate information which includes statements from the very "credible witnesses" that they themselves know that who they saw was not Laci. There are websites, including the trial transcripts on SII, with their recounts and not a single one can say that who they saw was Laci. It is not me who is in denial, in fact, I am reasonable. To find someone in denial, first you have to go to Death Row in San Quintin and look for Inmate SP, then go on the net to find his minions, including his parents, who try so desperately in vain to help someone who would not even help himself in his ordeal.
WAH, which of the 33 witnesses said they knew for sure who they saw was not Laci? Cite me some quotes and sources. I know of only one, Chris Van Sandt. Refresh my memory, and cite specific statements by the other 32 witnesses that they knew for sure it wasn't Laci.
Specifically, which of the witnesses in Jane's article, "Laci's Walk," ever came forward and said they knew for sure it wasn't Laci.
This is your chance, WAH, come on with the evidence, quote me some statements in their own words, admitting they knew it wasn't Laci.
WAH,
Who was the woman seen walking with a golden retriever by Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas, Martha Aguilar and Gene Pedrioli? It was not one of the other regular dog walkers in the neighborhood. No other woman ever came forward to identify herself as that woman. And MPD did interviews with all the dog walkers. It was the witnesses who saw Laci Peterson walking in the neighborhood with McK who were totally ignored by MPD.
1. Mike Chiavetta: Wrong Time and wrong women and wrong climate--NOT LACI, NOR MACKENZIE!
KING: Joining us now in Modesto, and our panel may have some questions for him as well, is Mike Chiavetta, who lives in the Laloma district of Modesto. He teaches history and coaches water polo at Modesto High School. All right, Mike. What did you see and when did you see it?
MIKE CHIAVETTA, NEIGHBOR, MAY HAVE SEEN LACI DAY SHE VANISHED: Well, I was walking in -- I was running in the park on Christmas Eve, about 9:00, in that range, and I finished my run. And I was -- I had my dog with me, and we decided to play catch or fetch. And I was kind of off the main path and making sure my dog wasn't going to affect other people, because there were quite a few people in the park. And I looked across at a place really close to where I go down to the park and where Laci would go down to the park, and I saw -- I saw the dog. I was looking out for other dogs, and I can almost -- I'm certain I saw their dog down in the park.
And as I looked, I was trying to focus on the dog. I might have seen a round person. I mean, I can't say. It was about 30 yards away. In a white smock and black leggings walking with the dog. But I'll be honest with you -- and I told this to the police -- my focus was really on the dog and not the person, again, because my dog was off its leash and we were -- didn't want him to go and run after somebody.
KING: Mike, do you know Laci?
CHIAVETTA: No. It's unusual that we live only two houses away, but the way the flow pattern is in the neighborhood, they kind of went south on Covina to leave the neighborhood, and we went west on Edgebrook and didn't really know them. I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
KING: But you knew the dog?
CHIAVETTA: When I -- actually, when the dog was in the paper the next day, I said to my wife, "I saw that dog in the park. I'm almost positive." You know, he's a golden retriever. He's a little bit older. He had kind of long hair. And I feel pretty certain I saw the dog. And there might have been ... KING: So you can say -- go ahead.
CHIAVETTA: I was just going to say, and then, in that picture in my mind's eye, I see somebody walking the dog. It appeared to be a woman, again about 30 yards away, and she was large, meaning she could have been pregnant. And I do remember the white smock and black leggings. That's what the vision I have in my head, or the memory I have.
KING: And you told the police, in your opinion, that was the dog that you knew as the dog that belonged to the Petersons?
CHIAVETTA: I felt pretty certain that that was the dog. I talked to the police either the day after Christmas or two days after Christmas. We had a motorcycle policeman come around and he was asking questions, and I had told him what I had seen and what I thought, I said I can't be definitive if I saw Laci Peterson, and I don't know her by seeing her. But this is what I saw.
KING: The weather was clear?
CHIAVETTA: Yes. You know, I read in the paper they said it was foggy. It was actually a really nice day. It was, you know, in the winter here, we get a lot of fog where we really get socked in. But it was kind of hazy, and the sun was breaking through at about the time I was done with my run. And what amazes me, Mr. King, is there were dozens of people in the park that day. I mean, we have a frisbee golf course, and there had to be 25 people playing frisbee golf. Lots of people walking in the park and running.
KING: And other people say they saw Laci on that day, Homer Maldonado (ph) and Vivian Mitchell. Let's see if anyone on our panel has a question for mike. Ted, do you?
ROWLANDS: Well, I think Mike represents a potential problem definitely for the prosecution in that there are other people like Mike that think they saw Laci. And unless the prosecution comes up with an alternative to it, it could pose a problem, because as you hear, he's fairly believable, and he honestly believes he saw that dog. You talked to Vivian Mitchell. She honestly thinks she saw it. Mr. Maldonado (ph), the same. And there is another key witness too that has the same experience. Unless there's a viable explanation for it, it may go a long way in providing some doubt.
KING: Nancy, do you have a question for Mike?
GRACE: Yes, I do. I noticed in an earlier statement of yours you stated that you think you saw the dog around 10:45 a.m. Is that correct?
CHIAVETTA: No. I'll be really honest with you. I've been thinking about this. "The Modesto Bee" reporter asked me yesterday, as I was driving in the car, can you give me a definitive time? And I'm thinking 10:30. Now I'm not sure. It's the one thing I'm sketchy on. I do know -- and this sounds kind of convoluted -- but the police talked to me two days after, and I knew exactly when I got home from my run. I just can't remember when that time was, because I told the policeman...
GRACE: I was just wondering about the 10:45, because the woman took the dog back into his yard no later than 10:17. My only other...
CHIAVETTA: And I'm thinking I'm too late. I think that my timing is off. You see, it was Christmas Eve, and our family has a lot of activities. I went on a run. I was paying attention to the time. I know I looked at the clock when I walked in. I'm just getting old, I guess. I can't remember exactly.
GRACE: You just said something interesting. You said, I went home, and I told my wife, "I saw that dog in the park." But you didn't tell your wife ...
CHIAVETTA: That was the next day.
GRACE: ... I saw Laci, did you?
CHIAVETTA: No, that's really true. We had this conversation, and I basically said that I -- I saw the dog. Can I say I saw the dog or no?
KING: All you're telling us today is, all you're telling us today is, tonight is you saw the dog and you saw a woman with the dog, but you couldn't positively say it was Laci. Right?
CHIAVETTA: No. I couldn't definitely say it was her. That's probably the safest way of saying it.
KING: Chris, you have a question?
PIXLEY: Yes, absolutely, Larry. You know, Mike, I think it's a really brave thing to not only come forward and talk to the police -- I understand that you did that the day after Christmas -- but now, in the face of all of this publicity, much of it against Scott Peterson, to come forward and talk to the press. What made you decide to come forward and speak publicly about this?
CHIAVETTA: Well, I teach political science at the junior college, and I teach history to my students. I think it's my responsibility to get this information out there. I sure don't like doing this. I would much rather be out tonight, like I normally go out on a Friday night, but it's what you have to do. I mean, we have a man's life at stake here, and I'm not trying to color that in any other way than what I saw. And I think, again, it's my responsibility as a citizen to come forward and say this is what I saw. I can't be sure, but I think it's, again, the right thing to do.
KING: Thank you, Mike. Thanks for spending time with us. Mike Chiavetta, who says he's pretty sure he saw the dog, saw a woman with the dog, can't positively identify who the woman was.
1a. Mike Chiavetta-once again:
"I wish I could say, 'Yeah, I saw a pregnant woman in the park,'" Chiavetta said. But he cannot be certain and told police as much, he said.
www.modbee.com/local/story/6911305p-7847019c.html
WAH: Chiavetta said over and over again that he is certain he saw McK, but he wasn't certain he saw Laci. He couldn't make it more clear than that.
It is your opinion that he didn't see McK, and you are entitled to that opinion, but Chiavetta is certain he did.
As for the "wrong time," well, we don't know what time we told the police, do we, when he called in the tip. Why not?
WAH, Jane didn't claim, in her articles, that Chiavetta saw Laci -- she claimed he saw McK.
Can you explain why the MPD didn't follow-up with Chiavetta? I mean, after all, it was in the park. But he had to go public to the media because the MPD ignored his tip.
You lose on this one, WAH, because you can't possibly justify MPD ignoring a tip of someone who saw McK in the park.
2. John and Karma Souza
• Interviewed by Detective Phil Owen on 12/27/02 (taped phone call):
They never reported seeing Laci nor Mackenzie. Instead they reported suspicious persons and never seeing Laci ever.
3. Diane Campos
• Personal interview with Phil Owen on 12/27/02:
Diane Campos has never said she saw Laci. She said two men and a women with a dog at 10:45.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Prelim/owen.htm
Nope, I lose nothing MN. Mike Chiavetta did not see Mackenzie either. As sure as he was, he was not sure at all. Go figure.
4. Vivian Mitchell was wrong as well, her husband Bill concurred with MPD.
"However, Vivian died in February after a short illness, and now her husband, who has said the woman
walking the dog resembled, but was not, Laci Peterson, has been subpoenaed by prosecuting attorneys."
www.findlaci2003.us/witness-bill-mitchell.html
Chiavetta was certain about the time he saw McK in the park. It was 10:45 a.m. on the 24th. He was sure only that he saw McK. Various media people tried to get him to remember seeing Laci. He tried to cooperate with them, but says the only thing he was sure of was that he saw the dog.
A motorcycle policeman (Nicolai) interviewed Chiavetta on December 25. But there was no contact from the detectives. Chiavetta thought his information was important; so he did an interview with the Modesto Bee and also with Larry King on June 6.
From the Modbee article, June 6, 2003:
A high school teacher says he may have seen Laci Peterson and her dog in East La Loma Park on Christmas Eve -- the day family members reported her missing.
Mike Chiavetta, a neighbor of Peterson's in the La Loma district of Modesto, said he told police that he clearly remembers seeing the golden retriever, McKenzie, at about 10:45 a.m. as Chiavetta played catch with his own dog. That time is about a half-hour after another neighbor says she returned McKenzie to Scott and Laci Peterson's back yard.
Chiavetta, a history teacher and water polo coach at Modesto High School, described McKenzie's long hair and said: "It's a pretty distinctive dog."
He said he cannot be sure, but someone may have been walking the dog along a fence next to an orchard. "I remember looking over, and, in my mind, I see a woman with a big white smock and black leggings."
Reward posters noted that Peterson was last seen wearing a long-sleeved white shirt and black pants.
"I wish I could say, 'Yeah, I saw a pregnant woman in the park,'" Chiavetta said. But he cannot be certain and told police as much, he said.
WAH, I think you need a remedial reading course. Chiavetta wasn't sure of the time, he wasn't sure he saw Laci, but he was absolutely sure he saw McK.
WAH, I agree with you that the sightings of a woman walking a dog in the park on the 24th were not sightings of Laci. IMO, Laci did not walk in the park on the 24th. She walked in the neighborhood on a route which was described in "Laci's Walk."
However, I do think that Chiavetta saw McKenzie in the park at 10:45 and that his timeline proves that Karen Servas' timeline for finding the dog was incorrect.
Marlene, Chiavetta was sure of the time when he gave the report to the motorcycle officer. On LKL, Nancy Grace was telling him that 10:45 couldn't be correct because Karen Servas had found the dog earlier. She made him doubt himself. But shortly after he saw this he was sure his time was correct.
WAH wrote:
4. Vivian Mitchell was wrong as well, her husband Bill concurred with MPD.
"However, Vivian died in February after a short illness, and now her husband, who has said the woman
walking the dog resembled, but was not, Laci Peterson, has been subpoenaed by prosecuting attorneys."
WAH, your wording really gets down to the nitty gritty of this case -- Bill Mitchell concurred with the MPD. Just like Todd and Pearce concurred with the MPD that the Medina burglary happened on the 26th.
Sounds like a whole lot of police intimidation going on. Thanks for making the case so well for PWC.
Wearing A Halo said...
There was no "police intimidation going on." Just sane people who came to their senses and realized that SP murdered Laci and Conner. So no, I am not making any case for PWC, in fact, it is the opposite, I am making a case "so well" against PWC.
There were several things about Vivian Mitchell's sighting that made me put in it the category of "very questionable" even before Bill Mitchell was influenced by the PD. Grace Wolf IMO is a "possible" but there are some problems with her story also.
The 4 that I find completely credible regarding the walk on the 24th, as I've mentioned before, are Maldonado, Freitas, Aguilar, and Pedrioli. These witnesses all saw someone they identified as Laci Peterson in the same area in the same time frame. The details of their sightings corroborate each other. These 4 people should have been called to testify.
Let's move on -- you've given us articles that prove Chiavetta was certain he saw McK, but uncertain that he saw Laci.
You've given us quadruple hearsay that Bill Mitchell said that it was a look-alike that he saw, and not Laci.
You've told us what we knew long ago about Campos's sighting not being specifically of Laci, but of a woman in trouble. Also the other couple who reported suspicious behavior.
Now, how about getting to the sightings that you claim the people said were of Laci, but then admitted they were not.
Marlene please reread my post from above:
I have been debating and stating on various forums for nearly three years and others have done the same with much more accurate information which includes statements from the very "credible witnesses" that they themselves know that who they saw was not Laci. There are websites, including the trial transcripts on SII, with their recounts and not a single one can say that who they saw was Laci.
I never claimed that they said it was not Laci, I claimed that they cannot say that who they saw was Laci and they know that it was not Laci. Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone bumped into her or crossed paths as she would be walking Mackenzie. No one has ever come forward that had an actual conversation with Laci during her alleged walk that morning of 12/24/02.
One more on Mike Chiavetta:
In a November 22, 2004, Modesto Bee article, (Mike Chiavetta)reacted to the fact that he was not called as a defense witness: "I guess I didn't fit in; I'm happy I wasn't called"; resident of Modesto.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/who/who2.htm
Now we will move on to Mr. Harshman.
WAH, it doesn't matter what you have stated or argued on other forums. You've come her to post comments arguing that the information in Jane's article is not correct. The burden is on you to state HERE why it is not correct, with credible sources and specific quotations.
Again and again you fail to do that. The information you gave about Chiavetta, Campos, and the other couple does absolutely nothing to refute either of Jane's 2 articles.
It sure does refute, you just refuse to accepted it. The burden is on you to free SP. He has been convicted and is serving a death sentence for the murders of Laci and Conner. It is you who has put it upon yourself to convince me and others that SP is innocent and you have failed to do so.
I doubt very much that you will ever change your mind about Scott's guilt, even after he's exonerated. You will just claim it was a technicality that got him off.
What we do is expose the inconsistencies, deception, lies, contradictions, and junk science used to convict Scott Peterson. We publish it publicly for anyone who is interested enough to read it.
We accept comments to this blog for anyone who disagrees with us. Reasonable people can interpret the same facts differently.
However, you repeatedly claim that our information is inaccurate or incomplete. We have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence that it is. You have repeatedly failed to do so.
Let me make my distinction clear with an example. You can say that the witnesses Jane cites in her article, Laci's Walk, are not convincing to you that Laci was alive when Scott left for the warehouse. That's fine. However, you make the bald-faced argument that every one of those witnesses have recanted and said that they knew it wasn't Laci. You have provided no evidence of such.
I repeat, you can disagree with our conclusion, but if you are going to attack the quality of our information, claiming it is inaccurate or incomplete, then the burden is on you to prove it.
I saw a golden retriever on my walk from the subway to my office in center city this morning, sure looked like lil roc, exactly the same...problem is, lil roc died in december 2010....texted my wife and told her i saw lil rocs twin on my walk....i think that dude saw a golden, just a different golden....i wonder howmany goldens are in modesto?
Okay, all the witnesses describe lacis clothing a black pants, white top, just as scott had described to police, and what was reported to the public in an effort to find her....how can this be?
Bruce, do you mean, how could she be seen walking in black pants and white top and then be found in tan pants and no top?
Here's one easy explanation. After she returned from her walk she changed clothes in preparation for the rest of the day's activities, which included shopping.
does the time frame allow for that? per the witnesses, she seemed to be walking all over the neighborhood, as well as the park, i assume at that point she walks past the burglers, goes in and gets changed, then confronts the burglers? maybe i'm off...i didnt sleep well last night..lol
so, i guess the harshman sighting is out the window, as he said she has black pants on......
Bruce, you seem unable to distinguish between witnesses that are credible, and witnesses that are not credible. We've made no secret of the fact that ALL witnesses obviously were not correct, but that didn't mean that NONE of them were. Jane has written an excellent article on Laci's walk -- highlighting the witnesses that we believe are credible because they corroborate each other but at the same time, and this is very important, were totally unknown to each other. I suggest you review that article, Laci's Walk, April 18, 2008. Laci had plenty of time to take that walk and return home, change clothes, see something suspicious going on across the street, and go over to see.
not saying that you are saying that ALL the witnesses were correct, but they do have her all over the place....whether they are right or wrong...seems to me most just were looking for their 15 minutes.....but we can eliminate harshman, no?
so, she gets to her house at 10:38, she gets abducted, hence the dog barking heard by the lesbian couple....but then how does she get seen by Mike Chiavetta 7 minutes later walking the dog along a fence in the park that she was staying away from due to attacks....would like an exact time the truck driver saw her, that should be no problem as truck drivers are extremely time concious...because wasnt scott still home at 10:08, or in his front yard checking his voice mail? if so,, then she would have left before scott
38 minutes for a pregnant woman to walk that distance that is mapped out,let the dog "do his business" which includes sniffing, pooping, pissing multiple times on multiple trees..etc...then come home, change clothes, releash the dog, and go confront the burglers? would love to see that time put to the test...takes me 25:52 to run a 5k race which is 3.1 miles, that route looks like about 2 miles total...sorry, i'm just not seeing that as plausible....
Eliminate Harshman? Most certainly not! You have not made the case for eliminating him. The only fault you can find with his sighting is that he didn't immediately call 911. That's not good reason. He did call the police that very day -- and if the Modesto police can't work within their own department to coordinate reports of suspicious behavior, that's not Harshman's fault.
Bruce, I suggest you read Jane's article, and make any comments related to it there. That would be a great help. Thanks . . .
BTW, Chiavetta didn't say he saw Laci, he said he saw McKenzie.
the article on the blog? or the one on the sii site? i'm not seeing a place to write notes on that section.......like i said need a nap....lol
but anyway, he did say he saw a person with the dog.. from LKL:"And as I looked, I was trying to focus on the dog. I might have seen a round person. I mean, I can't say. It was about 30 yards away. In a white smock and black leggings walking with the dog. But I'll be honest with you -- and I told this to the police -- my focus was really on the dog and not the person" .... so there was a person with the dog, same description as the others except he didnt say pregnant, he said round....AND with the same color clothing as every other description...
The article I referred you to is on this blog. Go to the list of articles on the right, click 2008, and then go to the date.
Chiavetta has always been certain he saw McKenzie -- he's never been certain he saw Laci, or any other person with McK. He says "might have seen." And I attribute that to pressure from the media to have seen someone with the dog, not just the dog. You might be familiar with that particular interrogative process -- it's called, leading the witness.
So you can't say there was a person with the dog, because he's not sure he saw a person "I might have seen" is not being sure. He is sure, however, that he saw McKenzie.
There was a person, he was saying that he was more focused on the dog and not on the person...so he couldnt say if it was or wasnt laci.... strikes me though that the white top and black pants comes up again....was HE looking for that must sought after 15 minutes?
"my focus was really on the dog and not the person"
"I might have seen a round person. I mean, I can't say. It was about 30 yards away. In a white smock and black leggings walking with the dog."
If "might have seen" and "I can't say" means certainty to you, then so be it. It doesn't mean that at all to me.
how about:
"my focus was really on the dog and not the person"
if there was no person, why say this? and as a dog owner, if the dog was roaming alone, that would be a big red flag...and he would surely state that the dog was alone dragging a leash...but i guess you can't budge an inch as you are locked into your report, i understand...Have a great weekend Marlene!! :)
Bruce, that's exactly what he reported, a dog alone -- McKenzie alone -- and not until the media kept questioning him about seeing a woman with the dog did he say he might have seen a woman. I don't know why that's so hard for you to see. But, so be it . . .
if the dog was mckenzie walking along the fence at 10:45, so when did karen servas actually put him back in the yard? would have been closer to 11?
if laci was abducted while walking the dog, how would she have changed her clothes? and if it happend in front of the house, then the dog witnessed her get snatched, then went to the park, then came back and stood in the street in front of the house? or, she got done her walk, changed her clothes, re-leashed the dog, THEN got snatched, and the dog abandoned his owner(which i find incredible for a golden who was raised by her from a pup)THEN went fro a walk in the park by himself, then came back and stood in the street in front of the house? do you actually believe that?
Bruce, take remedial reading. You obviously are not able to get the correct content from the articles you read. I know 3rd graders with better reading comprehension. Unless you are intentionally twisting everything that's said her into so much nonsense because that's the only way you can justify your unreasonable conclusion that Scott is guilty.
No more. If you can't ask questions that accurately reflect the content of the articles, then you won't be allowed to publish comments.
just trying to understand how a kidnapping could happen the way you say it did....just asking question...in the third grade, sister shiela used to always say, "the dumbest question is the question that is not asked"
the guy in the park only says he may have seen a woman because the media pressured him into saying it? isnt that twisting things a bit? and personal attacks are not nice, i have not personally attacked you at all.
Bruce, I've said it before, if you want to discuss what I believe happened, then go to Jane's article Laci's walk, and make your comments about what that article says.
This asinine habit you have of addressing everything except the point of an article bespeaks a desperate attempt to rationalize an irrational conclusion.
Any comment that doesn't address the content of the article it's posted to will be deleted. That goes for everyone else, too. Comments about comments are not exempt -- this isn't a discussion board -- address all comments to the content of the article. Is that plain enough?
okay i will try again...i copied and pasted this DIRECTLY from "laci's walk" i beleive this follows the parameters you have set forth.
"We do believe that she arrived back on her block on Covena around 10:38 a.m. where she was abducted, and where McK was heard barking aggressively by the Krigbaums and was seen in the park at the north end of Covena by Mike Chiavetta."
so, i ask again,will all due respect, if she got back from her walk, the walk that she was wearing black pants and a white top,that all the witnesses reported her to be wearing, when did she change into the tan pants that her remains were found to be wearing?
Your question has nothing to do with this article. Post your questions about Laci's walk on that article. This isn't rocket science, Bruce.
Post a Comment