1. "The Peterson Case"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Apr-21st-03 at 2:08 PM

I've been wondering if Scott Peterson's whole fishing story was concocted along the lines of Lizzie's barn story; that is, the theory that Lizzie was out in the yard disposing of a weapon, or in the barn destroying one.  As she walked back to the house (as the theory goes), she realized she was being watched by ice-cream vendor Lubinsky, and was forced to come up with a none-too-convincing story about what she was doing out there in the vicinity of the barn (tin...lead...sinkers....pears). 

So, did Peterson sneak that boat out for a body-dumping jaunt (whether or not the crime was pre-meditated murder, or sudden manslaughter), hoping no one would see him on a holiday afternoon?  Then, was he recognized somewhere along the way, and did the need to explain what he was doing out on the water arise, I wonder?

The parallel to the O.J. case in the attempt to get away (a disguise, money in pocket) is also worth thinking about.

The "Jay Leno" show has an opening monologue. He said it didn't make sense for Scott to bleach his hair to hide in Mexico. (Maybe if he dyed blonde hair black?) Most important is the fact that Scott is from the San Diego area, which is still "15 miles?" from Mexico.

ANY famous person will either use a disguise when "travelling incognito", or stay in foreign areas where they are not recognized. There are better things in life than signing autographs, or being pointed at by fools.

After seeing the Dr Sam Sheppard case, for one, I would not presume to offer an opinion based on ignorance of the case. Remember him?

Good question. From what the police have indicated the murder was premeditated and happened in the house. If so then he could have either planned in advance the story about going fishing or come up with it after the fact to cover him. All the business of him having tide information on his computer could be either in an effort to pre-plan a dumping site for the body or not.  The date of the information obtained on the computer might tell more about that. Also we don't know if he was a big fisherman, went often, and went to that area.

Do you think Lizzie murdered the Borden's was premeditated? Also, the Borden case didn't have the victims moved from the murder site to another location in an effort to cover up the crimes.  Also consider that Lizzie did plan to go to Marion, a confirmed trip, people knew about it and expected her to appear at a location where fishing occurred, whereas Peterson's trip seemed contrived, being as it was on Christmas Eve.

I think, whether or not he was a fisherman, he dumped the body there and figured it wouldn't surface, which is why he used fishing as an alibi complete with a receipt for the dock!  I don't think Lizzie, if she did it, was that cocky.

I was discussing the issue of premeditation vs. crime of passion/manslaughter with one of our lawyers, a lady who appears regularly on Court TV and Fox, and she said the police must have some evidence (which the legal community is dying to find out about) to indicate premeditation.  I said that I supposed it would have to be something like a bill of sale for tarps (for example) that Peterson purchased the previous day, or the like, which would go to show that he knew he'd be needing to wrap a body the next day, but she told me that the law is stickier than that.  It's still considered pre-med even if there are only a few moments between the forming of intent and the commission.  So, even a receipt for a tarp bought AFTER the murder was committed can still be part of the body of evidence for a pre-med charge.

I've pretty much thought that, along the lines of Victoria Lincoln's theory, minus the temporal lobe epilepsy, etc., Lizzie may have been sadistically playing with poison, but that her slaying of Abby that morning was not planned.  I do think she killed her father either to prevent him from finding out about the crime, or because he, suspecting something, started to ask her questions she couldn't answer after Bridget had gone up for her lie-down.  I think Lizzie hoped everyone would believe that "someone came in" and murdered both of them at the same time, while she was out in the barn (she was no forensic expert as, ahem, we all are today - or, at least, those of us on this site!).  Who knows - if good ol' Bowen actually did at first say he thought Mrs. Borden had "surprised the murderer at his bloody work," and had been chased upstairs, maybe our girl overheard him and thought "Good!  They bought it"  Unfortunately, the discovery of the difference between the condition of Abby's body and Andrew's pretty much queered that idea.  I don't think Lizzie would have been so quick to suggest to Alice and Addy and Bridget that she had heard Abby "come in" if she had known that a general idea of the order of the old folks' death would become apparent all too soon.  Then she would have come to realize she'd had to have to have an alibi for the period during which Abby was killed, as well.  Oh, bother!   

I agree with the connection you make between the two cases. The part about being seen and having to offer up details like that is most telling and I hadn't thought of that before in relation to the Peterson case.

Let's see, he had changed his look (goatee, blondish hair), was in San Diego (where he was raised they say), had $10,000 on him, and was carrying his brother's id. I'd say he was just about to make a run for it. I think I heard on the news that the police arrested him BEFORE they had the DNA back on the bodies as they thought he was about to make a run for it.

There is something about his looks that affects me. You know how some people are what you would call nondescript or ordinary? How you can see somebody and you forget their face immediately? They sort of blend into the crowd? And then there are some people who look famous? Or distinct in some way? Scott Peterson looks like that to me. Like he is super famous. Like he is very familiar to me.

I can't say it is the media coverage that did that. I haven't actually been watching a ton of stuff, other than the war coverage, lately. I just can't put my finger on it. But he is certainly distinct looking.

I am sure if he was sighted at the water that day, he would have to tell his whereabouts. Maybe because of this very thing. You remember his face.

Well, with the blonde hair and the goatee he did look a little like Mike Piazza, when HE went blonde!

Natasha, the lawyer of whom I spoke, told me this morning that another point against Peterson is that if the killing was a spur-of-the-moment blow, Scott never called for an ambulance, claiming that it was an accident.  This is especially sinister in view of Laci's pregnancy.

Tuesday night's news said the waters were very choppy that day, and no other small boats were out! That says that going out on the sea was VERY IMPORTANT at that time. Knowing a little about the treachery of a stormy sea for a small boat upset, I think that is incriminating. But we will hear a lot more in the future.

Isn't it funny that we are discussing murder in a topic area titled STAY TO TEA? Certainly not the prim and proper thing to do!

We sure love a good mystery, don't we?

I think that whoever killed the Borden's pre-planned it or premeditated it further in advance than a couple minutes because of their being a hatchet involved. The reason is that I don't think there were hatchets lying about in various rooms of the Borden house for use reasons. So whoever did the crimes brought the weapon with them or put the weapons in easy reach beforehand. Especially with Abby. If Abby was killed first, which by the evidence she was, then someone had to bring the hatchet into the guest room and why would they do that if not for the purpose of inflicting harm (except for the possibility that it was someone who just happened to have a hatchets with them wherever they went, such as in the Billy Borden did it theory). This person who killed Abby then might have held on to that weapon and killed Andrew with it too. Or else there would have to have been another hatchet under the sofa or somewhere easy to get ahold of at the right time.

In Peterson's case his weapon might have been his hands and so getting rid of a weapon wouldn't be necessary. His boat trip was to get rid of the body. And he had to do that so that no one would know the weapon was his hands, such as bruising on the neck, etc. If it was an accidental fight and she died by her being tipped over and striking her head then he might have pulled off that defense but not telltale signs of strangulation.  Just speculating.

No one from that time would consider it premeditation because of the hatchet. True, it was not likely to be found inside a house, except for storage. (Does anyone else here keep a hatchet and hammer, etc. in their cellar like the Bordens did?) But many men then did carry a small knife around, as far as I know.
AR Brown makes this point: William S Borden was in the habit of carryin around the tools of his trade in a sort of cloth bag. Like some of today's men carrying around a calculator. Or cell phone?

I once read one book of non-fiction. If getting rid of a person, make sure the body is found. There is more police activity in searching for a missing person, than a person murdered in a stick-up. If his wife did drugs, and was found in a seedy part of town, he might not be under suspicion. IMO
...
Note that Andy kept a club under his bed; he KNEW he had enemies. I used to know of a relative who did this.

(Message last edited Apr-26th-03  2:43 PM.)

That all depends on if premeditation carried the same meaning and qualifications in Massachusettes in 1893 that it does today.
I think that people had hatchets in their houses more often then than today, but they were in the kitchen or basement not in guest rooms, sitting rooms, etc.

Interesting about that club Andrew had under his bed. I mean the fact it was under his bed, a room where you would not expect someone to be except that they weren't up to any good.  And if he kept his room locked that is even stranger because the perp would have to get past that lock first to enter the room. So a case could perhaps be made that Andrew WAS aware that his business practices did create annimosity and he might have to deal with the consequences some day.

Am not sure about the theory that it is better to have the body found than not. It does seem to fit the Borden case.  After Lizzie was acquitted the police didn't seem to want to follow up on finding the real murderer.

ANYONE who keeps a club or other weapon by his bed DOES have at least one enemy. What is your experience?

I don't think people who keep weapons near their bed necessarily have a known enemy. It would mean they felt more secure having something they could use to protect themselves in case someone came in unawares.
That someone could be an unknown...,i.e. if Andrew was on the outs with several people and built up animosities with them over time that he even forgot about, one of them could have it in for him, which one, he wouldn't necessarily know. But I DON'T think that Andrew kept that club under the bed in case Lizzie came in at night to kill him and his wife. So therefore, I somewhat discount that Andrew believed the police when they inferred that it was Lizzie that broke in.

In today's society with so many more people living close together not knowing one another, it is more likely to me that many people sleep near a weapon of some kind.  For instance, you ask for my experience, I have a heavy flashlight on my bedstand which could be used for light but also as a weapon should such a situation occur. I also walk with an umbrella as much for the prospect of rain as for protection.  However, I don't have anyone particular in mind that I need protection from.

I know of two men who kept a weapon by their bed.
One was a former policeman; need I say any more?
The other was a man whose son was killed by a drug dealer. (How his son got mixed up with this is another story.)

Andrew kept a club under the bed; Andrew may have had an enemy in mind, or he may have been being prudent, or he may have been slightly paranoid.  The sheer presence of the club is inconclusive as to Andrew's motive.  If he had "This is for when Johnny Higgins* comes" carved on it, and we knew who Johnny Higgins* was, we might be able to decide with some certainty.

Lizzie (or whomever) grabbing a kitchen hatchet, or one that was in the barn or down cellar, by modern definition, would be committing a premeditated act, since there would have been time between the acquisition of the weapon and the commission of the crime.  However, I don't see someone who is possibly mentally disturbed going after a hatchet, or gun, or carved club in the same light.     

*I made him up!

Can't the others use any 'common sense' here? I mentioned TWO individuals that I knew of; that was all.
Do YOU keep a weapon under your pillow or bed? Anywhere close?
NOBODY else accused Andy of "paranoia" (are you a licensed professional?) before.

I don't want to scare you, but carrying an umbrella (metal shaft) could be a way to attract a lightning strike. Do you really believe an umbrella can be used as a weapon? (Unless a hidden sword.)
I don't think a flashlight will do much good either. Simply because if you are asleep you are vulnerable. Maybe a small can of CS would work better, unless its accidentally discharged.

Even a gun would do little good if your assailant grabs it from you. I saw one story about a woman who did have a gun, and fired one shot. It didn't stop the man, who grabbed it from her and killed her.
They say one way to wash out from the armed pilot school is to show that you would fail to kill an intruder into the cockpit. Of course, this is just an interpretation.

The best defense is still strong doors and bolts. And cellar windows that can't be broken open (the easiest way into any home). Remember how Lizzie put iron bars on all the cellar windows? What does THAT tell you (maybe) on how nemesis got in?

"Common sense" tells us that we can't intuit what a man who lived over a century ago was thinking when he placed a club under his bed.  He left no written record, so that, I'd say, is that.  We're free to imagine, of course, as long as we realize that is what we're doing, imagining and theorizing.

(Message last edited Apr-30th-03  2:19 PM.)

I do recall one case in which a skinny little girl (a neighbor of ours when I was a kid) beat off an adult male attacker with an ordinary umbrella.  She was walking home from school, and this jerk suddenly opened his car door and tried to pull her into the vehicle. She got away and lived to tell the tale too.  No lightening strike!
(Even better, she recognized him as an acquaintance of her brother's.  He was tried and convicted.)

This might be one of those gender issues Rays. I didn't mean to mislead you but I only carry an umbrella when I think it is going to rain.  I go for walks in the nature park and am gone for an hour and a half and don't want to get caught out. The umbrella is not opened usually (unless it is raining) and so I figure it could have a dual use just in case. In closed form it is something to use at least to make a strike and then run like a squirrel. Also the metal flashlight I would use in the same capacity if necessary in the house. I figure it is better than nothing and I surely couldn't get to the window, put up the blind, open the window, push out the screen and go before someone got me. A man might not see the use of such objects because they are a lot stronger and their hands alone might do the trick. When I am out hiking in the backwoods I carry a hunter's knife in full view not because of animals either. One male friend in a hiking club suggested I get myself a gun because he knew of a case where some woman was attacked on a trail. I don't like that idea but a woman has to have something, even if it is turned on them, because not all people are nice. At least it gives you a chance.

Laci Peterson didn't have a chance, she was a little thing and encumbered by a baby. If it was her husband, he is huge, if it was him that did it. But if she had a flashlight or folded umbrella she might have been able to inflict somekind of strike which would have left a big bump, and that bump could have become a noticeable piece of evidence should the police have noticed it. 

I think it was said by the Borden sisters, one of them at least, that their father carved that club under the bed years and years ago. Since it isn't likely that the sisters would be looking under his bed, it might have been under there for years and years too, way before the house break-in that caused the extra locks to be put on the house. 

One advantage of a revolver when hiking in the country: snake-shot. This can prevent a fatal byte. Also, the noise can scare off vermin. Merely carrying one openly sends a message too.
Not all threats come from things with two legs. A can of "bear spray" can be handy against stray dogs too. A whistle or bells can be usefule in bear country, some say.
...
I wonder how useful an umbrella is in a big crowded city like NY? I guess you live in a smaller place?

(Message last edited Apr-30th-03  1:38 PM.)

If I hiked with all the weapons options I would really look amusing. Did you know that sheepherders killed rattlers by dropping a stone on their heads, they had to get really close. They didn't carry small guns only rifles. In the summer they were up in the aspens with the sheep, in the winter they were out on the desert where weapons become lost fast in the expanse. An umbrella would be of some use to anyone, I would think, better than nothing, regardless the size of the place.

In my last post I didn't mean to word it such that Andrew was under the bed when he carved the club, only that it was carved many years before the murders and put there previous to the break-in.

Many years ago, most walkers carried a staff with them. Metal pointed? That would be safe against maybe one canine. I've also heard of "wild" dogs (pets that pack up and run wild) attacking farm animals etc. If you live where they raise sheep you'll hear about this. Some farms never keep their dogs chained up day or night.

...

To repeat my original question: do you know of anyone who keeps a weapon by their bed? Does anyone here do so?

If you were found murdered would the police investigate "50 to 60" suspects as in Andy's case?

(Message last edited May-2nd-03  12:43 PM.)

Ray it's more like 40-42 suspects.

I keep a baseball bat and some out-dated pepper spray.
Can that spray expire?  Can it only get worse, upon expiration?

The big spray was given me by a neighbor.
I don't think I would have thought of it myself.
I did used to carry a small spray on my keyring thingy, mainly because our mom and me were "purse-snatched" in Florence, S. Carolina.

I'm going back to the original question, which was "Lizzie's barn story; that is, the theory that Lizzie was out in the yard disposing of a weapon, or in the barn destroying one."

Wasn't it Knowlton or the prosecution team that pushed so hard that Lizzie didn't go out to the barn then changed that to say well, she might have gone out to the barn sometime that morning maybe to dispose of a weapon but NOT up in the loft? They also went on about how the barn had been closed up for months and stagnant inside which was not true, Andrew opened it up in the morning. So I infer from this that they thought Lizzie could have gone out in the barn and hid a weapon without getting dirty but if she went up in the barn looking for sinkers she would have gotten dirty. To me they are confusing on this issue.

Also I was thinking about how the lawyers of the era thought about the case.  Were any of them wishing they had the case?  Were any of them glad they did not have the case?  Mark Geragos just decided to handle the Peterson case.  A few weeks ago he thought the man looked guilty, and he said on television that he would not represent a person who told him they were guilty, in fact, that he didn't want to know if they were guilty because he couldn't then mount a good defense. So he must be convinced the man is innocent or is representing him for other reasons he only knows about. Because of this I wondered how many lawyers of the Borden era thought the defense did well, did not do well in their presentation, etc. They must have been watching the case as avidly or moreso than we are the Peterson case.  Are there any lawyers among the hundred or so people on this forum who would like to comment?

I have a 9mm Lady Smith I keep near my bed. I bought it
in Vermont when I was staying alone summers at my remote
camp.  Mostly I was thinking of intruding moose or bear but
here in New Joisey, tough neighborhood, I like the security.

What a horrible murder this was!

The A&E show said it may take as long as 2 yrs to bring this case to trial.  It was also stated there is more evidence than is publically known @ this point.  I for 1 will be flabbergasted if this guy gets off.