Monday, January 17, 2011

Todd didn't notice all the activity on Covena on Dec 25

In it's last posting on the Facebook page, Scott Peterson Page: Truth be Told reviewed David Corder's testimony. In that testimony, Corder described all of the activity on Covena Avena December 25th because of the effort to find Laci. The activity included lots of uniformed police searching the park and the neighborhood, police cars parked on the street, and civilians working the area putting up Missing Persons posters.

Steven Todd told Officer Hicks that he rode through the park on his bicycle and then onto Covena where he observed signs that the Medinas were not home. I ask the same question that Truth be Told asked, How is it possible that Todd was in the park and on Covena on the 25th and didn't notice all the search activity? How is it possible that he then would be brazen enough to rob a house on that very block, exactly across the street from the Petersons, the very next morning? And as we've noted before, when there were satellite trucks parked on the street.

The State's own witnesses demonstrate how preposterous it is to believe that Todd and Pearce robbed the Medina home on the 26th. All reasonable people will admit they robbed that home on the 24th, and the burglary was in progress at 11:40 when Diane Jackson saw the van, the 3 men, and the safe being removed from the home. How plain does it have to be?

Here is Officer Hicks' testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. So then you asked him again to tell you about the burglary; is that right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he said that he rides up and down Covena hundreds of times because it's a shortcut for him, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he rides from a place called at the airport district; is that right?
HICKS: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he says then he goes down Covena to the dirt path to the foot bridge and back up Covena because it's some kind of a shortcut for him?
HICKS: It's an indirect shortcut to his mom's house without going around the river.
GERAGOS: And then he told you that on Christmas, 12/25, that he was riding from his mom's house to his place at the airport district; is that right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he says that at that point when he road by he noticed, and this is on Covena, he says I'm riding my bike on Covena, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. Then he says on Christmas day when he road by he noticed that 516 Covena appeared to be empty; is that right?
HICKS: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And 516 Covena is the Medina's house, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he says he noticed it because there was only one car in the driveway, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Which he described as being either a Mercedes or a BMW, right?
HICKS: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he said he also noticed that the mail in the mail box; is that right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And he could see when he's riding his bike down the street, not only the car, but that he could see mail in the mail box, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And that led him to believe that nobody was home; is that right?
HICKS: That's correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And then he stated that he road home to his residence and eventually met up with his friend Pierce, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: And then after he did a couple of other things that he road back to his house and stayed there until about 3:00 in the morning on December 27th, correct?
HICKS: He was confused about the date initially. It was clarified later it was actually the day after Christmas, which would have been the 26th.
GERAGOS: When he first gave you the story he told you the 27th, right?
HICKS: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he didn't say that he was confused the first time he gave you the story, did he?
HICKS: Yes, he did.
GERAGOS: Did you put that anywhere in the report?
HICKS: No.
GERAGOS: Okay. The first time you report, at least I'm looking at your report, you don't have a supplemental, well, you do have a supplemental, but in the initial report he says he didn't go back until December 27th, right?
HICKS: Right. The date was clarified in a separate property done by Detective Stough.

When her turn for cross examination came up, Birgit Fladager asked Hicks if Todd owned a car:

FLADAGER: How did you know Mr. Todd?
HICKS: I have known Mr. Todd for about seven years.
FLADAGER: And is that as a result of your being a police officer?
HICKS: Yes it is.
FLADAGER: Your contact with Mr. Todd over the course of those seven years, did you ever know him to have a car?
HICKS: He's never had a car. He's always road a bicycle.
FLADAGER: In fact, with his riding a bicycle, you have been aware of that for seven years?
HICKS: Yes.

One might think her point was that Todd couldn't have abducted Laci because he didn't have a car, except that she immediately followed it up with this:

FLADAGER: Did Mr. Pearce indicate that he had -- he agreed to assist Todd in taking Todd back over to that Covena address?
HICKS: Yes, he did.
FLADAGER: What did he tell you happened when they got to the address?
HICKS: He said they pulled up to the front of the house with the passenger side towards the front door. Mr. Todd got out of the vehicle, went to the front of the house where the safe was on the dolly. He wheeled it to the front passenger side. And then Mr. Todd actually rolled it into the front seat, because it was so heavy. To close the door, Mr. Todd actually got into the back seat, they drove away.
FLADAGER: Do you know what kind of car it was that Mr. Pearce was driving?
HICKS: Yes. It was a small four-door Honda.

No, Todd didn't have a car. But Pearce did. Didn't she just prove that Todd most certainly could have abducted Laci?

If you aren't following Truth be Told, please go to its Facebook page and review all of the Notes. It reviews each of the witnesses in their order of appearance.

28 comments:

Bruce Dombrowski said...

so, where is the van?

Burkey said...

Well, they surely didn't get all that stuff into a four-door with a safe in the front seat. I think the testimony doesn't cover the van which was seen by Diane Jackson.

Burkey said...

So Todd is known to law enforcement and they believe he had nothing to do with/knows nothing about what happened to Laci.

I wonder what their reasons for that are, considering the dog that trailed to the airport district, the Aponte tip, the complete lack of evidence that something happened in the Petersons' house, the jewelry that was thrown back in the lobby, and the pawned gold Croton watch that may have been Laci's (which I don't believe really sold for twenty dollars, but then the whole watch thing is a little too mysterious, as in information is missing about it).

Bruce Dombrowski said...

oh, i agree that safe was rolled into the car, and they beat feet outta there...that's what i would do, forget tools!!...precisely why these guys couldnt possibly pull off the abduction, the killing, and the planting of the bodies, not even with help. lol

Burkey said...

So Bruce, how do you explain the Aponte tip? Assuming you have read about it?

Bruce Dombrowski said...

I think those guys thought diane jackson ws laci, i figure she drove by and was looking at them, i can picture one of them staring back, and maybe saying, "what are you looking at?" confusing the two women...

Jane said...

MPD Press Release Tuesday, December 31, 2002 7:30 p.m. (not admitted, no foundation)

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/D-M.pdf

...Police announced the reward of $1,000 for information leading to the identification of the person(s) who burglarized a residence in the 500 block of Covena on December 24th to 26th of this year...........
**********
MPD made no effort to look for the burglars until 7:30 p.m. on December 31. When the burglars claimed that the burglary took place on the 27th or 26th, nothing was done to investigate their alibis for those days or for December 24 when the van, 3 men, and a safe were seen in front of Medinas.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

jus tbecause they issued a press release 4 days after thefact does not mean they were not inestigating the burglary, they found no leads and went to the public...and if the van, the men and the safe were seen at the same time, and the safe was taken away in a car, was the car there? or did they stand there waiting for the car, with a van already sitting there(with laci in it) so, instead of just putting the safe in the van, and getting the hell outta there, they waited for a car to come and move the safe?

Jane said...

Bruce, I can see that you believe everything Todd and Pearce said. Of course the safe was taken away in the van, and Pearce was probably the driver.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

"No, Todd didn't have a car. But Pearce did. Didn't she just prove that Todd most certainly could have abducted Laci? "

Evidently someone else believes pearce had a car....

Jane said...

Why would Pearce have used his mother's car to transport the safe if he had access to a van? He and Todd had to admit that they transported the safe from Medina's to Pearce's residence because they were caught with the safe in their possession. But they didn't have to tell the truth about how they transported it. Since the police showed no real interest in locating the 3 men or the van seen by Diane Jackson, any old story would do.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

OKAY, SO IF WE KNOW THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A VAN, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? WHO'S VAN IS IT?

Bruce Dombrowski said...

sorry about the caps...i'm not yelling...lol

Marlene Newell said...

Bruce said:
"No, Todd didn't have a car. But Pearce did. Didn't she just prove that Todd most certainly could have abducted Laci? "

Evidently someone else believes pearce had a car....

*****

Bruce, there's no dispute that Pearce had a car, whether it was used in the burglary or not, he had a car. My point was that Fladager, immediately after pointing out that Todd DIDN'T have a car, pointed out that Pearce DID, and claimed that Pearce's car was used to move to safe to Pearce's house. So therefore the argument that Todd couldn't possibly have abducted Laci because he didn't have his own transportation is ludicrous as proven by Fladager.

Burkey said...

Bruce, regarding Diane Jackson being mistaken for Laci, at the time the conversation was recorded (early January) Laci's face had been literally everywhere. If it had happened the way you explain it, they would have figured out by the time of the conversation that it wasn't Laci.

Burkey said...

I can see them having to use a car because if the safe was so heavy it took two to lift and roll it, the van's height might have made the lift difficult. But there's no way they took all that stuff away in a sedan that was already occupied by the two of them and the safe.
It was a huge amount of stuff and it was a major burglary.

Jane said...

The safe was not as large as we originally thought (from testimony). It was a Firefyter Model 2500, an easy lift for 2 men into any vehicle:

Exterior Dimensions - 17.25" W X 21" H X 26.25" D
Interior Dimensions - 13.5" W X 16.25" H X 19.75" D
Capacity - 2.5 cu. ft.
Weight - 175 lbs

Burkey said...

I see ..interesting..and it doesn't appear that police went very far to determine which vehicles were actually used in the burglary, which seems like a logical avenue to pursue..sigh..

Jane said...

But we also need to remember that Diane Jackson's 11:40 a.m.sighting of the 3 men with the van and the safe in the front yard at Medina's was probably the last step in the burglary--picking up the safe.

The van most likely had been there about an hour before, within a few minutes after the Medina's left home. Laci was probably abducted at that time; and the few items that had been gathered from the tool shed may have been taken away at the same time.

Burkey said...

Jane,
That makes sense to me. I don't think Jackson saw the van at another time. It seems pretty clear the robbery was on the 24th at this point. It's too much of a coincidence. Man decides to kill wife coincidentally within hours of a major burglary right across the street? I remember first hearing about it on the news and thinking, "oh, that must be it."

Bruce Dombrowski said...

gotcha...thank you for clearing that up

Bruce Dombrowski said...

so laci was in the van for an hour or so??

Bruce Dombrowski said...

by then she had already changed in to the tan pants she was found in right? but the harshman guy saw her in black pants....so i guess that sighting in eliminated...

Burkey said...

The pants are one thing that does baffle me, I admit. But, she could have changed pants before she went walking. In my view the pants don't loom large when it comes to determining Peterson's guilt. People who said they saw her described black pants, but then black pants and white top were described on the flier with Laci's info.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

tickshanthey all saw what they wanted to see, oh, sure some may have seen her, or someone who looked like her, but not on that day...

Burkey said...

Christmas Eve is not a usual day. And one of the people who saw Laci was her neighbor, who knew who she was and shared the same doctor.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

soory, the logistics just do not fly for me, she takes this massive walk, this after she has already showered, and dressed, then goes home, changes into the tan pants she is found dead in, releashes the dog, goes out to confront burglars, gets kidnapped, the dog does nothing but barks, then runs to the park, then comes back and stands in the street, all the while laci is in the van for almost an hour, THEN hours later she is spotted urinating along the side of a road, back black pants that everyone saw her in...whiel interesting, with all due respect, this is just not feasible for me....

Burkey said...

What if she changed pants into the tan pants before walking? People might have seen her in that outfit but when the fliers came out saying "black pants" that might have had an effect on their memory.
It's also possible that whoever burgled the Petersons' house may have been connected with her abduction and may have taken the tan pants. Either of these strikes me as possible.