Scott Peterson was spotted at the Marina WITHOUT LACI, when Laci was spotted walking her dog, and some quacks are now suggesting that he coached his dog to return home without a leash, to fool the police. Is anybody really that Duh-h'm.

Hey, how about the Modersto Police Department?

Vivian Mitchell, 78, says she and her husband, Bill, were the last people to see Laci Peterson, but she says Modesto police haven't talked to her about their Christmas Eve sighting.

"I called and told them that I'd seen whom I thought was her and it would be pretty difficult to have an identical twin and identical dog," Mitchell told ABCNEWS affiliate KGO in San Francisco. "I did think that it was strange they didn't call. I just thought they had some information that over-rode what I had seen and I just thought it was strange that nobody ever followed up," she said.

Mitchell says it took her a week to call the police, because she assumed others in the neighborhood had also seen Peterson walking her dog.

Mitchell says she remembers seeing Peterson, who was eight months pregnant at the time, between 10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on Dec. 24. That's about 45 minutes after Scott Peterson told police he said goodbye to his wife and went fishing.

Mitchell has a very clear and deliberate understanding about the fact that December the 24th is Christmas Eve, and unlike the demagoguery of Dan Abrams and others, there is absolutely NO CONFUSION about the date.

If it was another pregnant woman, and not Laci, in Longview Washington, as Candace DeLong suggests, did she rescue her from her kidnapper?

www.1st.shorturl.com

Well in this country Scott Petersen doesn't have to present a single iota of evidence that he didn't kill his wife or the baby she was carrying.

The state of california has to present evidence in a court of law that convinces a fair and impartial jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that he did kill them.

See, you have it exactly backwards.

The real question is where is the evidence that scott did kill his wife and child to be?

????

And just as interesting: Where is the evidence that YOU didn't kill them?

A 'promise' made by Mark Gerragos that he will 'find the real killer' isn't binding or almost certainly admissible at trial--this out of court statement cannot be held to shift the burden from the government to the defense. It was IMHO grandstanding but obviously Mark had his reasons--I imagine to shift the public debate from the presumption of guilt that has accrued as a result of the media lynching to the possibility that Scott is actually innocent. But the promise means nothing to what happens in court. The government still bears the burden of proof, this has not become an affirmative defense.

If you insist on coming on this board every tuesday that is your right. But the question is still basically a silly one. Even sillier is the notion that the DA is going to 'gladly' drop charges.

They'll drop charges and admit they're wrong when pigs fly.

It isn't up to mark whether scott sits in jail or not. The DA is the one who has the power to charge him and to seek no bail, not mark.

If the DA concluded that they were wrong, they would have an ethical obligation to drop the charges. But somehow in real life even when there IS proof of innocence, the DA rarely does so--they usually disagree with the 'proof.' And that makes it a question for the jury.....

So when did you stop beating your wife redlandzboy? Oh yeah? PROVE IT!