10 minutes could be lifetime

By JOHN COTÉ and GARTH STAPLEY
BEE STAFF WRITERS

Last Updated: November 20, 2003, 06:26:50 AM PST

The case against accused double-murderer Scott Peterson could come down to roughly 10 minutes.
That's the amount of time from when someone used Peterson's cell phone in or near his home the morning of Dec. 24 until a neighbor said she found the Petersons' dog standing in the road, its leash dangling from its collar.

If the 10:08 a.m. call indicates the time Peterson left his home, his alibi appears to hang on his pregnant wife mopping the floor, leaving to take the dog for a walk and being abducted during that 10-minute stretch.

Neighbor Karen Servas testified that she found the Petersons' golden retriever standing in the street at 10:18 a.m. She deduced that time after checking a time-stamped receipt and clocking how long it took her to retrace her route.

Peterson told police he left home about 9:30 a.m. Dec. 24 to go fishing in San Francisco Bay, stopping at a warehouse he used in his work as a fertilizer salesman to get his boat and to check his e-mail, Detective Al Brocchini testified during Peterson's preliminary hearing.

Peterson said that when he left, his wife was preparing to mop and planning to run errands before walking their golden retriever, McKenzie, Broc- chini said.

"Laci asked the defendant to bring in a bucket," Brocchini testified. "She was going to mop, clean up the kitchen, go shopping for a dinner or a brunch they were going to have, and then walk the dog."

Prosecutors contend that Peterson murdered his wife and unborn son late Dec. 23 or early Dec. 24. He could receive the death penalty if convicted on both murder counts.

The bodies were found in April along the bay's eastern shore, less than two miles from where Peterson said he went fishing.

The 10:08 a.m. call from Peterson's cell phone to his voice mail appeared to show the caller driving westward from the Petersons' home because it switched to a different cell phone tower, district attorney's Investigator Steve Jacobson testified.

Peterson's Emerald Avenue warehouse is northwest of his home.

"Does it appear that he's driving from the house and that, while making the phone call, that the cell phone site switches?" defense attorney Mark Geragos asked.

"That would be my understanding," Jacobson said.

General area indicated by tower

Cell phone tower data cannot pinpoint a location, Jacobson acknowledged; it can only indicate that the call came from within the area it covered.

The cell tower serving the Petersons' home has a radius of 1.42 miles, Jacobson said, meaning the call could have come from anywhere in that distance.

But the defense questioning did not pursue the possibility that Peterson left at 9:30 a.m., drove elsewhere, then went back through his neighborhood on the way to his warehouse.

"You're familiar that (Peterson is) at the warehouse sometime shortly after 10:08, if you believe that he's the one that accessed the computer at the warehouse, correct?" Geragos said.

"Yes," Jacobson said.

A computer expert who examined Peterson's computer at the warehouse found that someone accessed it shortly after 10:08 a.m. and used it until nearly 11 a.m., Geragos said in court.

THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND AT WWW.MODBEE.COM
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/7776760p-8669077c.html

I believe Karen Servas- she has her own cell phone call and her receipt to verify her time on finding McKenzie.

Edited to add: the warehouse is obviously quite close to the house. Does anyone know where it is located?

I've used mapquest alot, and their estimated times are usually over-stated, especially between local sites....you can usually trim between 1/3 and 1/2 off of their time in my experience, which would make a travel time of between 5 and 7 minutes....

Unless the time was off on the computer, I don't see how he could be 2 places at one time.

"Yes," Jacobson said.

A computer expert who examined Peterson's computer at the warehouse found that someone accessed it shortly after 10:08 a.m. and used it until nearly 11 a.m., Geragos said in court.*****

Okay, you say "they" are playing with words- but this is Scott's OWN ATTORNEY who says "shortly after 10:08", not the police!

Note the order:

1. mop
2. clean the kitchen
3. go shopping for a dinner
4. THEN walk the dog.

If she was to follow this sequence of events, the neighbor would NOT have seen Laci at that time with the dog on that day.

The maid said Laci didn't mop between visits.

My guess is, Laci was already in the bay at the time that cellphone call was made.

I never said who "they" was.

I too believe she was already in the bay. I'm just not sure Scott physically did it himself.

Not necessarily, Laci may have been shot similar to Morris Black (Durst-Texas) couldn't find his head either. Laci also may have been hung (i.e. Sharon Tate, CA ), poisoned or electrocuted even, a vehicle or any other accident or bound and thrown into the bay alive and drowned. So far as we know, there is no proof of how/where or when Laci died.

As for the clothing Laci was wearing on the 23rd same clothing (* as seen on the survalence tape @ Salon-Salon dated 12/23) her body was found in April...how many times might she have changed between December 23-April? Also would need to know what Laci's wardrobe consisted of, but Laci's personal belongings, including shoes were removed by Sharon Rocha, family and friends in that break-in raid of the Peterson home.

How many 'pants' (they are special made ) does an 8 month pregnant expectant mom have? Too many questions still unanswered and many of them will never be.

Ah, the coroner said she was dead or in the bay three to six months. So, it is a good chance she didn't change them at all.

I'll bet that she changed into those clothes on the day of the 23rd and NEVER changed again.

My own belief is that Laci was killed during an argument late the night of Dec 23 by Scott, and I believe he struck her in the head, and possibly broke her neck (which might also explain why her head is missing- after decomposing it came off because the neck bones were broken). I think he had been considering killing her, maybe fantasizing about getting rid of her and being free, and even doing some "loose planning" of it but I think it actually surprised him somewhat when he actually did it.

Why else is it that he told Amber he had "lost his wife" and this would be his first christmas without her? And then why did he tell her he'd be able to be with her more exclusively after Jan 25th (and from the phone transcript from Jan 6th, it seems he had promised to tell her about what had happened to his wife also after Jan 25th).

The only explanation for these lies from Scott is that he was involved in what happened to Laci.

How many kidnappers do you know that would say, hey, grab some clothes and you can change?

They don't give a crap if you have no clothes on... let alone letting someone change clothes, that leaves a trail of evidence.

I just don't buy that she was there that morning at all.

The pictures I saw of the house didn't look any different than mine or any of my friends homes and we all wear the same clothes more than one day. A person can be neat and clean and still were a pair of slacks more than once, even two days in a row. I would even venture to say that her maternity clothes may have been limited, so wearing the same pair of pants two days in a row wouldn't be out of the question.

However, when you factor in the following:

Scott claims to have left the house at 9:30 am, last seeing Laci (wearing black pants and white top in Scott's words) as she prepared to mop, shop, and walk the dog, but a cell phone call places him within 1.42 miles of his house at 10:08am, making it more likely that he left the house just moments before that call was placed. Neighbor Karen Servas finds dog & places him back in fence with muddy leash attached at 10:18. No way could Laci have finished mopping, changed pants, walked the dog & been kidnapped in 10 minutes.

edited to add: she was already dead (IMO).

I have 3 cell phones in my name. I carry one, my son carries one, and my friend carries the third. We also are free to use any of them if it is the only one around.

If there were to be some 'situation' surrounding me, it could be said that 'my' phone was used when in fact it was actually my son or friend that placed a call...

I still think someone else was involved.... I don't think Scott had the guts, and that's why he can separate himself from it so easily.

These are the stupid moves that make me believe he wasn't capable of murdering her and hiding it so well.

When people learn to leave their cell phones alone when they are committing murder??

JMO

Scott doesn't seem the type to let anyone else, not even Laci, check his voicemail. In fact, especially since the guy was having an affair would he be less likely to do such a thing.

No, face it, it was Scott himself, checking his voicemail on his way to the warehouse, where he logged on to his computer (probably to check email)....

Laci has had the same 38 minutes to finish the floor, slip on tan pants, and go outside with the dog.

That may not be what happened, but is is possible. IMO

http://www.lacipeterson.com/whatshappening/page01.html

And by the way, he never unloaded those umbrellas at his warehouse- the layout of his warehouse and home on modbee.com show that the police found the umbrellas leaning against his backyard fence on Dec 27th.

Note above numbers 15 & 16- the umbrellas were still in his truck on the evening of Dec 24th when police were there. Then they were in backyard on Dec 27th.

For the warehouse:

Police found the umbrellas exactly where Scott said he put them on Dec 24th, in the truck.

If we are to believe every time that a witness has stated, exactly as they stated, (ie. before 9AM) then we have to believe that the witness's that stated that they saw Laci in the park or walking down the street are correct as well.

I won't do what MPD has done, pick and choose what fits their theory.

The neighbor says that she found the dog in the street with it's leash on at about 10:15 AM and she put the dog in the back yard.

My question is, was Laci still home at this time? Everyone assumes that this was after Laci left her house for the walk, but what if it was before she left.

The neighbor said she put the dog in the yard and thought nothing of it. I seem to remember that at the time it was not thought unusual. I too have put my neighbor's dog back in their yard because their dog gets out all the time.

What if..... Laci puts the dog's leash on because they are going for a walk. She is delayed, maybe she desides to change her clothes because she got dirty washing up the floor or has to go to the bathroom real quick. McKenzie(?) thinks OH BOY A WALK and gets out of the yard while Laci is buzy. The neighbor sees the dog, puts her in the backyard where Laci finds her and goes for her walk. Other people then see her and the dog after 10:15AM.

Has this been bought up before?

I would suppose any scenario is possible, but I do not recall the above ( your post ) being brought up before on this board. The mopping of the floor was perhaps of something spilled or the animals tracked in mud or (?)when Scott was preparing to leave for the day. I doubt Laci was 'mopping', generally speaking as 'mopping' is understood by viewers. We have read that Laci was fussy, neat. I refuse to discredit the witnesses that said they saw who they believe was Laci walking her dog that morning. IF we did, we would have to discredit the neighbor SERVAS and her timeline may be way off.

NOTE As for the time to arrive from Peterson Covina Ave. home to Emerald warehouse: Mapquest may have set an example, however that would be a straight shot being the only vehicle on the path, that would never happen in or around Modesto.

Scott recreated for Detective Brocchini the last morning
that Peterson said he saw his wife. She awakened before him,
they both had a bowl of cereal and watched a portion of
Martha Stewart on television - "Laci's favorite show,"
Brocchini said. He said Peterson remembered "cooking,
something to do with meringue" on the show.
-Only problem is, the Meringue was on the 23rd!-

http://www.marthastewart.com/page.jhtml?type=tunein-cat&id=cat5208&strRangeStart=12/23/2002&strRangeEnd=12/23/2002&isWknd=false&navLevel=3&navHistory=
Dec 23, 2002
-Seafood Shooters

-Peppered Filet of Beef

-Nutcrackers

-Holiday Conifer Arrangement

-REINDEER FARM

-Chocolate Dacquoise
Dacquoise is a famously light and crispy cake
made of meringue disks sandwiched between
layers of sweet, rich whipped cream or butter
cream. This version of the French classic,
brought to us by pastry chef Bill Yosse, has
tiers that are cushioned with alternating
layers of ganache and halvah cream.

http://www.marthastewart.com/page.jhtml?type=tunein-cat&id=cat5208&strRangeStart=12/24/2002&strRangeEnd=12/24/2002&isWknd=false&navLevel=3&navHistory=

Dec. 24, 2002

- Gumdrop Ornaments

- Gift Wrapping Contest Winner

- Book Gift Ideas

- Clip-Art Labels

- Japanese Gohei Masters and Kazari Exhibit

- Roasted Almond Milk with Honey Drink

- Cioppino

The only way they both could be right is if the dog was put back in the yard first and then Laci took her for a walk, otherwise we have to believe either the neighbor is wrong about the time ... and she has a receipt which supports her... or ALL the eyewitnesses who saw her with the dog are wrong about the day or person.

My favorite line from CSI (Las Vegas)is "follow the evidence" and in able to account for all the accounts from that morning to be true we have to rethink the sequence of events.

There is no proof that Servas put the dog into the back yard BEFORE or AFTER her trip to the store and the cell phone call. It's only her word and she was probably so upset by the mistake she made, feeling somewhat responsible when she came to the conclusions that she did...and we also don't know what pressure Servas was under with the questions by LE or how-who-when the questioning took place.

Keyo asked if Servas could have found the dog BEFORE Laci took him for a walk- possible, but unlikely. Why? because it's EXTREMELY doubtful that Laci would have left the leash on the dog- and Scott said the dog's leash was still on when he arrived home that afternoon.

I also have a problem with those who say that if we don't believe the witnesses who "saw" Laci, then we cannot believe Karen Servas either. Excuse me, Karen actually PUT HER HANDS on the dog. These others saw whatever they saw "from afar". Statistics say that eyewitnesses are the most unreliable form of evidence in a case- and the farther away they are, the more unreliable they are. But Karen is of a different sort- she did not see Laci (and if she had, she personally knew her, whereas these other people did not actually know Laci). Karen is helping to establish a timeline- and she TOOK IT UPON HERSELF to double-check the info she had initially given police. I will have to find the article, but I remember it being stated that way- that after a day or so, SHE remembered she had placed a phone call from her cell phone immediately after putting the dog in, so she checked that time, and also used the time on the reciept and another call she placed from the store to establish her timeline. Her time changed by 12 minutes as a result. She initially told police she put the dog in at about 10:30, then after the re-check she amended the time to 10:18.

Servas changed her timeline, however if she testified that she ' actually PUT HER HANDS on the dog' that testimony would't be important, proves nothing. The lady was confused there is proof she was upset on record. Taking her word for her reciepts and cell phone records is like reaching into a hat taking one entry out for the answer.

Anyone could have let the dog out to give the "appearance" that Laci had walked the dog...setting the stage so to speak.

She could have been attacked as she was getting ready to take the dog out. There are many possibilities here.

Personally, I think that the dog was hooked to the leash and let out to make the story or alibi look real.