Distaso, in his rebuttal closing argument, scorned the notion that Deanna Renfro only got $20 for a very expensive Croton watch.
But first he made a total fool of himself with this statement: "They brought in this pawn slip from Deanna Renfro, where supposedly she, does say brand Croton? I'm looking for a second. Wait a minute. It's not even a Croton watch. The brand name is, Croton on this pawn slip."
Yes, Mr. Distaso, it was indeed a Croton watch. Croton is given for the brand and Croton is given for the make -- how many times does it have to say Croton for it to be a Croton watch?
Then he said: "The reserve is 750 bucks. Look at it. It's a nice gold diamond watch. Now, I know you don't get a lot of money when you pawn things, but you get better than twenty bucks on 750."
Pawnshops typically pay about 10% of the resale value of an item. $20 would be 10% of $200.00. Was that reasonable for a $750 watch? Yes, because $750 is the assessed value of the watch, but resale value is something entirely different -- that depends entirely on market demands. Scott and Laci offered this item twice on Ebay, during the Christmas shopping season, and the highest bid was $100.00. Scott and Laci chose not to sell the watch for the current resale value of $100. To make the anticipated profit on the item, The Pawn Shop would have to sell it at $200, more than twice the highest Ebay bid.
As for the scratches on the watch -- that's evidence that Laci struggled with her abductors.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
It's been a long time and much has happened
Yes, indeed, much has happened. In April, after many weeks of discomfort and suffering, I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure. I will not relate all the details but I was told that I had but about 6 more months to live, and those 6 months would be filled with increasing pain and decreasing mobility. My heart was pumping at about 25%. On May 1, I had open heart surgery to replace the faulty aorta valve and to do some repair to my ascending aorta. My recovery has been miraculous, much faster and much more complete than expected. I have indeed been given a new lease on life, for which I am very grateful.
The same cannot be said for our dear friend, Jackie Peterson. Her years-long battle came to an end on October 2nd. Thankfully, the family enjoyed some measure of privacy before an uncaring and hateful person leaked it to an uncaring and hateful media. As a person with faith in God and knowing there is an afterlife and Jackie is enjoying a sweet rest from her troubles, I have absolute confidence that she will do what she can on the other side of the veil to help correct her son's wrongful conviction. I know her reunion with Laci and Conner was truly joyous. And with her parents, and other loved ones.
And there is a new kid on the block -- someone that you've not likely seen before posting the questions that plague him about this case. He's not certain Scott is innocent, but he is very uncomfortable with the case against him. You can find George Barwood at https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScottPetersonOpen/. I have not signed up because you've all heard what I have to say, and if I have anything more to add, I will say it here. But do check him out and join in the discussion.
The same cannot be said for our dear friend, Jackie Peterson. Her years-long battle came to an end on October 2nd. Thankfully, the family enjoyed some measure of privacy before an uncaring and hateful person leaked it to an uncaring and hateful media. As a person with faith in God and knowing there is an afterlife and Jackie is enjoying a sweet rest from her troubles, I have absolute confidence that she will do what she can on the other side of the veil to help correct her son's wrongful conviction. I know her reunion with Laci and Conner was truly joyous. And with her parents, and other loved ones.
And there is a new kid on the block -- someone that you've not likely seen before posting the questions that plague him about this case. He's not certain Scott is innocent, but he is very uncomfortable with the case against him. You can find George Barwood at https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScottPetersonOpen/. I have not signed up because you've all heard what I have to say, and if I have anything more to add, I will say it here. But do check him out and join in the discussion.
Monday, March 4, 2013
What you will never see on this blog . . .
Every once in a while a naysayer makes some comment here or on the Scott Peterson, Truth be Told Facebook page, that demands answers to certain questions which would require the disclosure of new evidence and new witnesses.
Let me make one thing very clear. I will never identify new evidence and new witnesses on this blog or anywhere else on the internet. That would be the stupidest, most foolish, and blatantly irresponsible thing I could do. Evidence must be protected to be preserved; witnesses must be protected against intimidation and contamination.
What I and others do is discuss the exonerating evidence that was readily available for the first trial but was not used. Evidence that is readily available to the general public, and which does not require much more than a 5th grade education to obtain.
We discuss witnesses that have already made themselves known but were ignored by the MPD, and for some strange reason were not called as witnesses by the Defense.
We discuss evidence, again easily available even to the general public, that the alibis of the burglars are not reliable, indeed outright lies. This is evidence that should have been discovered by the Defense in preparation for the 1st trial, but wasn't.
We discuss several items of evidence, facts and measurements that were recorded, but overlooked by all of the experts; deal-breaking evidence.
We discuss evidence that was presented at the trial but was ignored by the jury.
If through our research we discover new witnesses or new evidence, it's certainly not our place to make that public, and we wouldn't do so. I'm not saying we have, but if we have, we'll never say so.
As lay people, we are not equipped to carry on private investigations to discover new evidence or new witnesses. That is the purview of the appellate attorneys and the private investigators they hire. And from all previous indications, the appellate attorneys are going to keep everything very close to the vest. So whatever new evidence and new witnesses are discovered will only be revealed at the very last minute.
Naysayers are not going to accept this explanation, dismissing it as just an excuse for not having every answer to every question, suggesting that there will be no answers to those questions because Scott is guilty.
Reasonable people, however, will understand that this is a process that must be governed by common sense and discretion.
We are still years away from the CA Supreme Court decision, and that deals only with the trial record. The habeas appeal, which will introduce new evidence and new witnesses, will not even begin until after the CA Supreme Court has made its decision. That's just the way it works -- a tediously slow process.
Let me make one thing very clear. I will never identify new evidence and new witnesses on this blog or anywhere else on the internet. That would be the stupidest, most foolish, and blatantly irresponsible thing I could do. Evidence must be protected to be preserved; witnesses must be protected against intimidation and contamination.
What I and others do is discuss the exonerating evidence that was readily available for the first trial but was not used. Evidence that is readily available to the general public, and which does not require much more than a 5th grade education to obtain.
We discuss witnesses that have already made themselves known but were ignored by the MPD, and for some strange reason were not called as witnesses by the Defense.
We discuss evidence, again easily available even to the general public, that the alibis of the burglars are not reliable, indeed outright lies. This is evidence that should have been discovered by the Defense in preparation for the 1st trial, but wasn't.
We discuss several items of evidence, facts and measurements that were recorded, but overlooked by all of the experts; deal-breaking evidence.
We discuss evidence that was presented at the trial but was ignored by the jury.
If through our research we discover new witnesses or new evidence, it's certainly not our place to make that public, and we wouldn't do so. I'm not saying we have, but if we have, we'll never say so.
As lay people, we are not equipped to carry on private investigations to discover new evidence or new witnesses. That is the purview of the appellate attorneys and the private investigators they hire. And from all previous indications, the appellate attorneys are going to keep everything very close to the vest. So whatever new evidence and new witnesses are discovered will only be revealed at the very last minute.
Naysayers are not going to accept this explanation, dismissing it as just an excuse for not having every answer to every question, suggesting that there will be no answers to those questions because Scott is guilty.
Reasonable people, however, will understand that this is a process that must be governed by common sense and discretion.
We are still years away from the CA Supreme Court decision, and that deals only with the trial record. The habeas appeal, which will introduce new evidence and new witnesses, will not even begin until after the CA Supreme Court has made its decision. That's just the way it works -- a tediously slow process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)