Conner's Gestational Age

[attorneywan2be]

Conner's gestational age at the time of Laci's disappearance:

32 weeks and 6 days on December 23rd---> 33 weeks on Dec 24th..

Dr. Edraki's testimony.. a doctor from the clinic that Laci used to go to..

David Harris: So the actual, if you were to go through and calculate it for that last entry on 12-23, if we use that gestational age, the wheel that we're talking about, that would have actually been 32-6?
Tina Edraki: 32 weeks and six days. And then if you look at her fundal height, where that 33 is, that's when we measure the uterus and that corresponds to her 32 and six, because usually the centimeters go along with how many weeks you are, if you are an average size person, which she was.

Conner's gestational age when his body was found:

1- 9 months

The Medical Examiner testified that Conner was a full term baby, his estimated gestational age 9 months

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, one of the other things that you mentioned was, let's see, that you figured that there would be other tests to determine, you had estimated Conner as nine months, or as, a full-term infant, correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.

2- 35 weeks to 36 weeks

Dr. Alison Galloway, a prosecution witness, testified that based on the average measurements of Conner's bones, she estimated his gestational age between 35 weeks and 36 weeks..however, she adjusted it by a margin of error of 2 weeks plus or minus .. 33 weeks to 38 weeks..

The medical examiner's testimony about Galloway's report:

Brian Peterson: Well, she gives the actual measurement of the bone, and then I believe what she's listing is reference ranges from the references that she used.
Mark Geragos: Okay. The one, the first one, when she measured the humerus bone, the right humerus bone, it was, the range for the age of the baby was 36 to 38 weeks?
Brian Peterson: That's the first table.
Mark Geragos: And the second one was 35.6 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When she, when she measured the right femur, the first table was that the baby was 36 to 38 weeks?
Brian Peterson: It is.
Mark Geragos: And that the, on the other table it was 35.1 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And when she measured the right tibia, she got 36 to 38 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And 36.3 weeks on the other scale, correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When she measured, is it the parietal?
Brian Peterson: Parietal.
Mark Geragos: Parietal, the right parietal, the cord height, she got that the baby was 40 weeks, according to the schedule?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And when she did the perimeter height, she got 34 weeks?
Brian Peterson: She did.
Mark Geragos: When she did the cord width, she was at 34, the baby was at 34 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: The perimeter width, 36 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Cord height, 38 to 40 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Around the frontal.
Mark Geragos: The right frontal bone. A separate bone?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And perimeter height, 34 to 36 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Cord width 36 to 38 weeks; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And perimeter width, 34 to 36 weeks, correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. The lowest on any of these charts that she compared the baby, the measurements to, the absolute youngest that she has, and it's only on one, two, three, four of the measurements, is 34 weeks, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And the average is roughly 36 to 38 weeks; is it not?
Brian Peterson: Let me see. She, she states a number of age ranges in her report, and it looks to me that her ultimate conclusion is listed as 33 to 38 weeks. I'm not sure if she drew an arithmetic average, or anything.
Mark Geragos: Okay. There's no measurement that she compares to here on her appendix where the baby's age was 33 weeks, is there?
Brian Peterson: Not in this table. She refers to in her report, though, with different racial groups.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Specifically there's a number, looks like one, two, three, four, five, six, six of the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, six of the eleven measurements go as high as 38 or 40 weeks; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: They do.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that would be, she was called in for her expertise on estimating age; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it was
-------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Galloway's testimony:

Mark Geragos: So if I understand correctly, when you actual did the measurements the baby came back at all three measurements a -- between 35 to 36. And then when you came to your conclusion, what you did is, you put a two-week window or kind of a cushion on either side of the 35 to 36?
Alison Galloway: That's actually the protocol for the study.
Mark Geragos: So am I correct, you went this -- 35 to 36 on the measurements?
Alison Galloway: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Put two weeks on 36 to get you to 38, put two weeks on the 35 to get you to 33?
Alison Galloway: That's correct.

Conclusion: we have the following set of facts:


Conner was 33 weeks when Laci disappeared

Conner was 40 weeks when he was found, that's according to the medical examiner

The measurements of 6 out of 11 of his bones put his age as high as 38 to 40 weeks...that's according to Dr. Galloway

The average measurements of his bones put his age between 35 and 36 weeks..that's according to Dr. Galloway

Is it reasonable to infer that Conner was older than 35 weeks when he was found..at least 2 weeks older than when Laci disappeared? Yes

Your thoughts?

[accordn2me]

Ummmm, it is clear to me 33 - 40 weeks was an estimated range of the baby's age. The doctors used different tables and got different estimates for the same measurements. Sadly, that's all we will ever have is an estimate of how old Conner was when he died. I doubt there will ever be a credible doctor that will take the stand and give you even within a week how old Conner was.

Likewise, it was an estimate as to Conner's gestational age at Laci's last doctor visit. That's why they stated a range.

You can keep repeating your assertion of these definite ages for Conner. I'm afraid you are not going to find a doctor to back you up with anything more than an estimated range of age.

[JustMyOpinion]

Conner's gestational age at the time of Laci's disappearance:

Your thoughts?

Didn't Greggory DeVore also testify for the State as to his estimate of Conner's gestational age? I think his testimony would also be germaine to this thread. ( as would the testimony of Dr March..?)
My thoughts on this have always been that gestational age can only be estimated, and that it is quite common for an EDC determined from ultrasound or LMP to be off by 2 weeks in either direction. I realize Dr Devore testified that the early ultrasound is the gold standard ( I agree with him on this), and he seemed quite comfortable with his testimony as to his opinion of Conner's precise gestational age. I'll defer to all the experts on this, although I did not find Dr March's testimony to be based on credible evidence. ( it seemed like conjecture to me) I think it's entirely possible Conner could have been 35 weeks "old" when Scott murdered Laci ( on 12/23 or 12/24). JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

MN has analysed Devore's testimony in detail and found it to be junk science. .


Who is "MN"? TIA.

[Anne2719]

When I was pregnant with my first baby, the doctor told me she was going to weigh 8-9 pounds. She weighed in at 6.5 pounds at birth, but with a great big giant head. [She does look normal now, but imagine giving birth to a basketball.] Oh, and my due date changed depending on which doctor I saw on any given visit.

[TuscanDreams]

It is so sad that we are discussing the gestational age of this infant. He'd be about 3 years old right now, wouldn't he? :rose:

[JustMyOpinion]

It is so sad that we are discussing the gestational age of this infant. He'd be about 3 years old right now, wouldn't he? :rose:

I agree, TuscanDreams, when I reflect on how precious a three year old is, I feel very sad, It was reported Judge Delucchi's voice wavered with emotion when he referred to Conner at formal sentencing, ( "Baby Conner was not even allowed to take a breath on this earth") It is all so very sad.

[packy]

Actually there was no proof he wasn't born alive; however when I think of the hell that Laci went through, trapped in the hands of low life criminal scum and drug users for over 2 months and wondering when the hell the cops would come and rescue her, I am appalled by the suffering she must have endured. And the MPD refused to search for her claiming that Tracy was "too dangerous". "Protect and Serve" -- yeah, right.

Some California sentences.

Jerry Dewayne Williams, sentenced to 25 years to life for the theft of a slice of pepperoni pizza (later reduced to a mere 6 years).

Leandro Andrade, sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for shoplifting nine children's videotapes from two K-Marts to finance drug purchases. Total value was $153.54. Cost of his incarceration will run about $2.5 million. He will be eligible for only the most minimal form of parole at best, so this is really a life sentence.

I'm told that in Florida a kid aged 15 did 14 months for walking into a closed laundromat and taking $1.40 in pennies and 3 six-month-old candy bars. The laundromat had been closed and boarded up since the last hurricane. The boards fell down and he went in and took the items from a candy machine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Donald Glen Pearce, 44, sentenced to 180 days in Stanislaus County Jail for his part in the $60,000 burglary of the Medina home opposite the Peterson home at the time of Laci's abduction. This included the theft of guns!

Steven Wayne Todd, 35, a three strike offender, sentenced to 8 years and 8 months in prison for that burglary and two other burglary counts from a separate incident.

Makes you think, doesn't it? Why such special treatment for these two?

Is it true that they arranged for a heat-sensing helicopter to fly over the compound in Tracy, and after hovering over the area, it detected heat in several buildings but they didn't check it out? But then it was too dangerous of course. Yeah. Unbelievable if true.

[packy]

They had a tip that a pregnant woman was being held in Tracy and was being abused. Considering other cases of abduction (such as Colleen Stan) I think it is reasonable to believe it was possible. It is ironic that workmen went into the same area and demolished all of the buildings there and bulldozed them. So it's safe for workmen but not the police?

The workmen survived? Amazing.

This from CTV news has always made me wonder since it was never followed through.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/090704_ctv.html

"They have a pregnant woman in there and he states he recognizes her as Laci," a dispatcher wrote in a report dated Jan. 10, 2003.

Modesto police officer Eric Beffa, assigned the same day to follow up on the lead, testified that he and another officer drove around the specified part of Tracy in a fruitless search for two white houses in front of a storage container.

"We were unable to locate anything similar to what was described in the tip," Beffa told jurors.

Mears, who knew the area better, agreed to show the Modesto officers several locations that were consistent with the tip. He testified that about 10 minutes after they set out, however, the Modesto officers abruptly left, saying they had been called back to their department to pursue other leads."

[Wearing A Halo]

Distaso's bullying may have impressed the jury but Dr March's testimony was far more compelling than that of Devore who had to jump from book to book and table to table to come up with a 'theory' which was opposed by every other witness in the trial. Devore's theory has never been peer reviewed, is not in general use (or any use), and thus fails Daubert.

Yep, you are so right, the jury may have been impressed by Distaso's cross examinination, but actually, the jury was very much impressed by Harris' total destruction of Dr. Marsh, err, Dr.(Cut me some slack) March.

As for a peer review, though not needed, it would not had hurt any.

There was never a Daubert motion in this case. Had there been one, MN would surely have it out for everyone to see. If you have the info for a Daubert motion in this case, post it.

[Wearing A Halo]

I can believe it.

Examiner: Is your name Scott Lee Peterson?
Donald Glen Pearce: No.
Examiner: He's telling the truth.
Brocchini: Will you swear under oath that you burgled the Medina house on the 27th?
Donald Glen Pearce: Yes.
Brocchini: Do I have a deal for you!

Examiner: Is your name Scott Lee Peterson?
Steven Wayne Todd: No.
Examiner: He's telling the truth.
Brocchini: Will you swear under oath that you burgled the Medina house on the 27th?
Steven Wayne Todd: Yes.
Brocchini: Do I have a deal for you too!


Yep, passed with flying colors. :punch: :no:

Knowing how the system works, DRISP should have asked for the same deal.:biggrin:

[Wearing A Halo]

Marelene Newell is uneducated, unexperienced, and untrained in ALL of these areas, so why not just post links to Big Bird?

But, Marlene does stay at a Holiday Inn Express!
:biggrin:

[LionRun]

When I was pregnant with my first baby, the doctor told me she was going to weigh 8-9 pounds. She weighed in at 6.5 pounds at birth, but with a great big giant head. [She does look normal now, but imagine giving birth to a basketball.] Oh, and my due date changed depending on which doctor I saw on any given visit.

LOL Anne. Must have been a very adorable basketball, albeit.

During the time when I was pregnant with my daughter I moved from New Jersey to New York to Texas, and I had 4 different OBGYN's. Each doctor predicted a different due date for my daughter's birth, and each was different. I had due dates ranging from 1/2 to 2/16. The range is more than 6 weeks.

I have known of other women who's due dates were off by as much as a month. This includes only full term babies.

Lion

[Beebee]

Since this thread is about Conner-- I have a question about Conner.

Would his body float?

[Beebee]

More on Conner:

NBC News' chief legal corresponsdent Dan Abrams broke the story on Thursday, reading portions of the report on MSNBC.
The coroner's report indicates that 1 ½ loops of plastic tape were found around Connor Peterson's neck. In addition, the report also said a "significant cut" was found on the baby's body, which the report said was made after he died. In addition, a half-centimeter of umbilical cord was found protruding from the body. The findings appear to indicate that Connor Peterson may have been born, rather than expelled from Laci Peterson's body after it was dumped in the water near Richmond, Calif., as the prosecution is expected to claim.
The report indicates that not only was the baby born, but that someone had contact with it to loop the tape around its neck and place the large cut or tear extending from the fetus' right shoulder to its abdomen, which exposed internal organs. The report did not indicate that any of the baby's organs had been removed.
Abrams conducted an interview by telephone with forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic expert not involved in the case, who called the findings "very significant." Spitz said that the coroner's report indicated that the unbilical cord was likely cut, because it would have been very difficult to tear, although Spitz said it could also have been "bitten."
Abrams emphasized that it is still possible that the tape around the baby's neck could have gotten there accidentally, after the baby was expelled from his mother, but Spitz called that premise unlikely.
"Of all the places to have the tape around the neck ... not the arm, not the leg, but the neck, with the skin tight around it, and the whole circumstance of this ... to consider that as a coincidence would be inaccurate to start off reasoning on that premise," Spitz said.
Abrams also interviewed well-known forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, who said the cuts found on the baby's body were consistent with the child having been removed from the mother's womb via an incision, rather than expelled from the body due to decomposition of the uterus, although Wecht said that he could not come to a definitive conclusion without seeing the report himself. Wecht also said the report's findings were extremely significant.
Scott Peterson's defense team has claimed that Laci may have been the victim of a Satanic cult, which cut the baby out of her body and performed some sort of ritual on it. The defense claims were made before the coroner's report -- the second to be released in the case -- was released.
The defense has had the report for approximately a week, but it was unclear why the information on the baby was only released Thursday. NBC News sources indicated it was leaked to the media by the defense team.
There have been two sets of coroner's reports released. First, a 25-page report was released that found the cause of Laci Peterson's death to be inconclusive. The defense complained that it never received the entire first report, which was sealed this month. Thursday's report is a follow-up, focusing on Connor Peterson.
The Satanic cult theory was widely dismissed, but this new evidence could boost the defense claim. Criminal defense attorney Brian Wice said that while the defense is not required to prove its theory in the case, the report could help attorney Mark Geragos and his team create reasonable doubt with the jury.
Scott Peterson, 30, has pleaded not guilty to murdering his wife and unborn son. The remains of the 27-year-old pregnant substitute teacher and the infant were found on the shore of San Francisco Bay last month.
'Dynamite Evidence'
Wecht, whose name became familiar to Americans during the O.J. Simpson murder trial, in which he testified as a defense expert, told Abrams that the fact that searchers who found the body were able to identify it as a male is also extremely significant. "The smaller the body mass, the faster the process of decomposition will be," said Wecht, pointing out that the baby was spotted near San Francisco Bay a day before Laci Peterson's body was found, and that "non-medical personnel" immediately identified it as male. The coroner's report also indicated that the baby was clearly male, and that the genitals and anus were intact.
"When the baby was found, they immediately identified the sex -- they said it was a male baby," said Wecht. "If that is true, I find it extremely hard to believe the baby was floating around the bay for three months. The anus and external genetalia would not have remained in tact for three months."
The prosecution contends that Scott Peterson dumped the bodies in the bay shortly after Christmas Eve. The bodies were found in April.
Wecht said he found it "absolutely amazing" that the baby could have been floating in the bay for three months with the anus and external genitals remaining intact. "I find that hard to square," he said.
The coroner's report indicates that the baby's internal organs were "markedly decomposed," but that external organs and the anus were identifiable.
Detectives have indicated that it is possible the bodies of Connor and Laci were wrapped in some sort of plastic sheeting prior to being deposited in the bay.
Still, Wecht said the new information "could be an incredibly fortuitous post mortem artifact. If it turns out to be true, I think this is dynamite evidence for Scott Peterson."
http://www.nbc6.net/news/2235749/detail.html

[thinkaboutit]

Insulting other people won't impress me.

I agree Jim Jones. Insulting people doesn't impress anyone. In fact, quite the opposite.

[JustMyOpinion]

Marlene Newell : The People v. Scott Peterson (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/)
See Time of Death (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/death/death.htm) for an analysis of the date of death of Conner.

Thanks for answering. I don't consider Newell a scientific expert, her "analysis" doesn't interest me.

[accordn2me]

Then you show me a better analysis of Devore's theory. Show me where it has been subjected to scientific testing and is widely accepted in the medical community.

Remember, except for Devore, every witness, prosecution and defense, all said he was a full term baby.
Show me an expert that refuted it in court for the defense.

[JustMyOpinion]

Article reporting March's testimony:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/102104_ctv.html
SNIP:REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — A defense medical expert testified Thursday that Scott Peterson's unborn son lived at least five days after the Christmas Eve disappearance of his pregnant wife, Laci.

But the witness's conclusion — a finding that held the potential to exonerate the fertilizer salesman — was severely undercut when he admitted his assessment relied on personal notions of "realistic" behavior by women at baby showers.

The obstetrician, Dr. Charles March, told jurors at Peterson's capital trial that he decided Dec. 29, 2002, was the earliest possible date of death for the child in part because of the timing of a phone call Laci Peterson made to inform a close friend she was pregnant.

The 27-year-old called her childhood friend Renee Tomlinson on June 9, 2002, the day after Peterson had thrown a baby shower for Tomlinson.

March, a Los Angeles infertility specialist, said he assumed that because Laci Peterson never mentioned her pregnancy at the shower, she must have taken a home pregnancy test the following day, found she was pregnant and immediately told her friend.

He also admitted to jurors that his calculations assume that she took the test on the first possible day a pregnancy could have been detected.

Confronted about the factual basis for the assumptions by prosecutor Dave Harris, March conceded that none of the victim's medical records refer to a home pregnancy test and that Renee Tomlinson never mentioned one when she testified in June about the conversation.

Still, March insisted that based on his 30 years of experience treating female patients, his assumptions were valid.

"I mean, women talk all the time," he said. "The chances that a woman hosting a baby shower would not announce on the day of a shower that she was pregnant and have everybody rejoice in two pregnancies — that's not realistic at all."

As he spoke, two female jurors looked quizzically at the doctor and one turned away from him.

March said the size of the child's remains when compared to the date of conception indicated he may have lived until early- or mid-January.

In his opening statement, defense attorney Mark Geragos promised jurors the baby was born alive.

Peterson was under near-constant surveillance after he reported his wife's disappearance to police, so testimony that the baby did not die with its mother on Dec. 23 or Dec. 24 would clear the defendant.

Under further questioning from Geragos, March said that even without the pregnancy test assumption, an ultrasound of the child in September pointed to a later date of death. That scan showed the fetus was smaller — and perhaps younger — than a nurse practitioner had expected when she set a Feb. 10 due date during a July ultrasounds.

The doctor who performed the scan noted that Feb. 16 was a more likely date of delivery, but did not officially revise the birth date.

Two of Laci Peterson's doctors and another expert have testified that the earlier ultrasounds are more accurate, but March said the July scan wasn't taken at the ideal time and the five measurements taken in September all indicated the fetus was younger.

Many jurors appeared frustrated with March as Harris grilled him about his conclusions.

The doctor repeatedly gave long-winded explanations rather than direct answers to the prosecutor's questions. When Harris pointed out that some dates in his report were off by two days, March appeared annoyed and reminded the prosecutor of a mistake in the report of his fetal medicine expert, Dr. Greggory Devore.

"Sir, it was an error by two days," March said. "I would like everybody to cut me the two-day slack Dr. Devore was cut."

A few jurors chuckled and others shook their heads.

At the defense table, Scott Peterson appeared to be paying careful attention to the witness. Behind him in the front row of the gallery, his mother and sister whispered and passed notes to Geragos through a junior associate.

After conferencing with the associate, Geragos asked March if he knew that Peterson's mother, Jackie, had told police about a pregnancy test on June 9. March said he did not know about it, but it would bolster his findings.

Former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer, who was in court for March's testimony, said March did not appear to persuade jurors and may have even cost the defense some of its credibility.

"This was supposed to be one of the high points and this one sunk. If he had succeeded, it would've been like the glove in the O.J. Simpson case," he said. "The danger is not just that he's neutralized. It's that some jurors might start wondering why he is putting on an expert who is stretching the truth or twisting the facts."

March took the stand on the fourth day of the defense's case.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/102104_ctv.html

[enlightenme]

Why shouldn't he get the same consideration as Devore? Oh, that's right. The jury hated Scott and didn't care about any evidence anyway.


He was only trying to extend Conner's date of death by FOUR DAYS. Not anywhere close to the March 15th date that you opine. Doesn't that make him not credible and uninformed in your eyes?

[enlightenme]

To refute the irrefutable, the State employed Dr. Devore. Devore used a methodology that has never been subjected to peer review and favored a single measurement to the exclusion of 16 other measurements. Devore's favored study, that done by Jeanty, does not prove that Conner died during the critical time period -- 8:30 p.m. December 23 --> 10:08 a.m. December 24. For 3 out of the 4 measurements taken by Dr. Yip during the second ultrasound, Jeanty produces younger gestational ages than the standard Yip used. For the most critical measurement, the biparietal diameter, Jeanty produces a younger gestational age than the standard Yip used. Devore distorted the data by ignoring the 95% that does not produce the necessary results. That is junk science.

During the cross-examination of Dr. Charles March, David Harris asked this pointed question:

David Harris: So you would agree that Dr. Galloway is in a far better position to give an opinion about her estimate of bones and the date of the death based on her examination than you are?

>>>>

David Harris: So, to go back to my question, would you agree that she's far more qualified to give an anthropologic opinion than you are?

~~Trial Testimony~~

But it is the State that resolutely refused to accept Dr. Galloway's opinion, because it clearly exonerates Scott Peterson. Adding one week to the 32w recorded on Laci's medical chart on December 23, 2002 results in a death date no earlier than December 30, 2002.

What we have in a nutshell are three experts employing credible scientific procedures to determine Conner's gestational age:

Dr. Yip, Laci's physician, who performed a routine 2nd ultrasound on September 24 that yielded younger than expected gestational ages and adjusted Laci's due date accordingly.

Dr. Tow-Der, Laci's examining physician, who recorded 32w on December 23, 2002, based on Laci's pre-natal examination and other information on her medical chart.

Dr. Alison Galloway, who took 11 different measurements, used two different reference sources, and applied one standard deviation to the favored reference source to conclude that Conner was 33 to 38 weeks old when he died.

And the results fully exonerate Scott Peterson.

Is this expert going to testify if Scott gets a new trial? Will any expert support these claims in a new trial? People can type away all day on their keyboards making their own testimony and theories, but Scott needs the real deal.

[JustMyOpinion]

He was only trying to extend Conner's date of death by FOUR DAYS. Not anywhere close to the March 15th date that you opine. Doesn't that make him not credible and uninformed in your eyes?

I didn't find Dr March credible because in part, he was testifying based on facts not in evidence ( citing his belief about what Laci would have done & said and when) I agree he was attempting to extend Conner's date of death, but even his testimony did not put gestational age out of the range of that which Galloway ( forensic anthropologist) cited in her testimony for the State.

[accordn2me]

Dr March refuted it absolutely. Shame on Geragos and Delucchi for letting Distaso bully him as he did.I knew I should have said credible expert.

[accordn2me]

Dr March: Credible as all get out.
Dr Devore: Blowing smoke like a '57 Chevy with bad rings.Says who?

*sigh* guess I'll have to go read for myself.....

[accordn2me]

Okaaaaaaaaaaay.......I think I'm going to have some fruit salad now. And read the other Dr's testimony.

[accordn2me]

You can download the full trial record from http://www.scottisinnocent.com/ and read it (you need MS Word or the free Word reader). But you need to apply the same cynicism to the prosecution and their witnesses as you do to the defense.
I found it, thank you. So far, Dr. D is as solid as a rock. Do you have something specifically you'd like me to pay attention to?

[accordn2me]

See Time of Death (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/death/death.htm) and see if you can pick holes in it.I haven't even made it a quarter of the way down the page and this statement right here is false:

"Devore thus proved that Conner died between the critical time period: 8:30 p.m. December 23 --> 10:08 a.m. December 24"

Like all other experts, no like all of the other credible experts, Devore gave an estimated range of likely days Conner died on. He explained and defended his chosen method of determining his estimated range in a logical, intelligent manner.

I appreciate you trying to help me understand where you are coming from here. However, if you really want to place a lot of weight (no pun intended) on the information, it needs to come directly from the trial transcripts.

[Anne2719]

Dr March: Credible as all get out.
Dr Devore: Blowing smoke like a '57 Chevy with bad rings.
In your opinion.

[accordn2me]

Can you find any peer reviews of his method? And if he put any possibility of Conner's time of death past the time Scott reported the crime Scott must be given the benefit of the doubt.I see your straw man, Jim Jones.:no: It wasn't Devore's method....he chose another doctor's peer-reviewed method of determining gestational age. The defense didn't offer an expert to refute Devore. GIVE UP ON MARCH! Describing him is probably how the term March Madness was coined.

What's a duck say?

[Anne2719]

Every single expert or witness said that Conner was full term - except one who invented a system to 'prove' he might not have been. I'd believe a pyramidologist before I believe that.

He is in prison because the jury was too lazy to analyze the evidence and voted based on hatred.
In your opinion.

[thinkaboutit]

I found it, thank you. So far, Dr. D is as solid as a rock. Do you have something specifically you'd like me to pay attention to?


Hi Accordn2me!! :) I hate to break our roll - but actually Dr. D is not solid as a rock. Dr. D used Conner's femur measurement to establish that Conner was in the 50th percentile. The problem with that is Dr. Jeanty (who's table he used to determine that the femur of 64mm = 33 weeks gestation) writes that using only one long bone in the latter half of the pregnancy will not yield mathematically valid results. The four long bones - humerus, tibia, ulna and femur - should all be measured and the average taken to derive gestational age. Devore did not do that.

http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/75

For some reason that link won't work when I post it here - but this is exactly what it says:
JOURNAL ARTICLE


Estimation of gestational age from measurements of fetal long bones
P. Jeanty, F. Rodesch, D. Delbeke and J. E. Dumont


The general practice of using fetal long bone growth charts to derive gestational age does not yield mathematically valid results. The authors tried to calculate gestational age from the lengths of long bones (femur, humerus, tibia, ulna) from 12 to 40 weeks of gestation. The combined use of the four bones allows a good estimation of gestational age that may be useful should the biparietal diameter measurement be unreliable, unobtainable, or abnormal.




Furthermore, Jeanty also writes that in the first half of the pregnancy, the two standards for determining gestational age are: the crown-rump length, maximum accuracy 7 to 9 weeks and the biparietal diameter, maximum accuracy 12 to 20 weeks. We know that Laci had an ultrasound at 20 weeks and Conner's bpd was 45 mm. (Sorry but I can't find the testimony to this right now).

According to Jeanty's chart - at 20 weeks with a bpd of 45 mm or 4.5 cm - Conner would have been in the 5th percentile - not the 50th:



http://hostingprod.com/@fetalanomalies.org/BPD.html (http://hostingprod.com/@fetalanomalies.org/BPD.html)

Conners gestational age, based on his femur measurement alone in the 5th percentile would have made him older than 33 weeks. More like 36 weeks.

IMO, it appears that Devore chose the only measurement that fit into his 50 percentile/33 weeks gestation theory - and ran with it.

[accordn2me]

Every single expert or witness said that Conner was full term.... Jim Jones. Do you really believe that? Do you believe every single expert or witness testified before the jury that Conner was full term? You see, I've been reading the testimony. So far, not one of the experts (credible) has said Conner was full-term and left it at that. Now we are back to the estimated range bit again. I would like to help you, Jim Jones. Do you want help? If not, OK. I'll go play with the Straw man.

[accordn2me]

DEVORE: Okay. The concepts, if we look at growth, I'm going to start here, draw a line this way. Call this forty -- this represents forty weeks. This is going to represent the day of the last menstrual period. Call it the LMP. Two weeks after the last menstrual period. This is why people get confused all the time. Conception occurred. So conception occurs here. The age of the fetus, from the time estimate, conception occurs until birth, is 38 weeks. But obstetricians speak in terms of forty weeks from the last menstrual period. So you take the age of the actual fetus thirty-five weeks, and add two weeks to that, and you have forty weeks. And so the biggest question that always comes up clinically is, when did conception occur? And if a patient doesn't know their last menstrual period, it's uncertain, or she appears later in pregnancy, we don't know this. But when we have a first trimester ultrasound that we have in this case, we can say that's within one day of what we would expect from the last menstrual period. Plus the fact Laci Peterson had, by the records, regular periods at 28 days. Been off birth control pills for almost two years. So it really locks it in. So we now say we now know how old this fetus is. We know approximately within a couple of days when conception occurred also. So then what happens is, we look at the growth of the fetus. We have a growth like this. This is called the 50th percentile. That is where most -- where half of the population grows, along a particular line. Now what do, we mean by distribution, if we draw a line like this, we have a distribution curve. And 50th would be here, and the 5th and 95th down here. Which simply means that most of the patients fall within this range with people in the outlying areas. So what we do, we now then have this curve that goes like this. As you can see, that as pregnancy continues, the range also increases a bit. Okay? So if we look at this point in time right here, say this is twenty weeks right here for example, we would put on this curve a distribution. And so we know how old it is. Therefore, we have to ask the question, the bone length that was measured on -- I think I said 16th -- July 16th, what date did I use here? Excuse me. On July the 16th we have a bone measurement. And we use an equation that said that bone measurement was equal to the 50th percentile. That's called an equation by Jeanty, this reference in my report to you. And from that measurement, okay, that's -- you are 32 millimeters equals 20 weeks, I think, and I put down two days. And by that date the fetus was 20 weeks and one day. So it's within one day of each other. So I use this equation, said, okay, I now know where I am in the 50th percentile. Now, let's take that same equation and say, if I have a bone measurement of a certain length later in the pregnancy at the time of the death, how old would that fetus be, and at what date would that be equivalent to? Okay? So what I did, after -- I have to refer to my notes here. I used that equation. And then if I take and look at the three measurements I made, 64 millimeters, 64.7 millimeters, and 65 millimeters, and the average of 64.5, millimeters, I said what would those measurements be equal to, assuming that Conner grew along a curve like he was supposed to. There is no pathology that was present that would cause it to change its growth. The date of death would be predicted to be the following: For 64 millimeters, December 21st; for 64.7, December 23rd; for 65, December 24th. For the average, December 23rd.

DEVORE: Well, what came out is what I mention, I have listed on the right-hand side corner. For the measurements that I made, using the equation that I used in my report to you, would be December 21st, December 23rd, 24th, and the average December 23rd. And that would be for my measurements from the ultrasound that I did of the bone.

HARRIS: Now, does that kind of get -- I guess trying to ask if it was done a different way in terms of weeks and days as well.

DEVORE: Yes, it was done -- for example, like 33 weeks, what I have, for example, I have the first measurements -- maybe I can write that up there so it would be easier to see, perhaps. What I'm going to do, I'm going to -- this is on the left-hand corner. The measurements, the corresponding age in weeks, and the corresponding date that the bone stopped growing if we used these calculations. So 64 is equal to 32.8 from the equation. Remember, I have to take .8 times days of the week, is equal to 32 weeks and six days, which is equal to December 21st. So I will just go through this for each of these. Excuse me. 64.7 equals 33.15, equals 33 weeks and one day, which equals, I think, December 23rd. I apologize for my handwriting. Doctor's writing. It could be better. Okay. 65 equals 33.28, which equals 33 weeks two days, which equals December 24th. And the average is 64.5, which equals 33.06, which equals 33 weeks one day, which equals December 23rd.

JUDGE: Those are the estimated dates of death, right?

DEVORE: Yes. Dates of death, yes.

[accordn2me]

HARRIS: Now, when we talk about the 32 weeks six days, 33 weeks one day, 33 weeks two days, to go through that. When you start from that estimated date of conception, how do we calculate that first day in terms of where we end up on the calendar?

DEVORE: What we do, we use the day of the last menstrual period. Remember I said, here we have a last menstrual period. So that was on May the -- on May the 6th. So that would be Day 1. And then conception occurred two weeks later, based upon the crown-rump information that we have, that I believe that would represent the conception. So we close in as our reference point. So conception occurred here. But the days counted from the last menstrual period, all the gestational ages, 33 weeks and one day, those are called menstrual dates. They are from the last menstrual period. The actual age of the fetus is two weeks less than that, from the time it was conceived from the last menstrual period.

HARRIS: This is how you calculated, when I say menstrual age of 33 weeks and one day?

DEVORE: That's from this last menstrual period date.

HARRIS: The dates that are used by obstetricians, do they use that gestational age that you are referring to?

DEVORE: Yes. The gestational age that -- they use different terms. They will use gestational age as from the last menstrual period, menstrual age, last menstrual period. And sometimes they use conception age when they do in vitro fertilization in the office. We talked about the best term is to call it menstrual age or gestational age. But we're talking -- we know that the two weeks are taken into account here from the period to when the ovulation occurred, when conception occurred.

HARRIS: When we refer to that first trimester ultrasound, that has a plus or minus of three days?

DEVORE: Three days.

HARRIS: Plus or minus with conception?

DEVORE: Certainly there could be a -- conception can be plus or minus two days for when the sperm and the egg get together.

HARRIS: In terms of following this graph out, because there is slight -- or what would be the term that you would use in terms of the conception?

DEVORE: Well, you know, unless, I guess, you are there, you never know. What you really know is, is if you -- let me say it a different way. People have done studies, for example, tell you about a study where they have taken patients with in vitro fertilization, okay? They have said I know when you conceived. I put the egg and sperm together, and they then placed it in the patient. So they know then when it happened. They have done studies. They looked, for example, at the femur length, okay? Now from the point of conception, when they take those -- they do the in vitro fertilization, they measure the fetus, they know exactly when it happened. They look, for example, at the growth of the femur lengths. And the date that this exam was done for the second trimester, the expected age of the fetus using that type of an approach is 20 weeks. It's within 24 hours of what we said it is based upon the information that we have. So looking at in vitro patients, and then you know exactly when they conceived. You are there when it happened. The equation they produce comes up to 20 weeks. At this time we showed her exam by 24 hours. So that's why we feel confident about this being the age at the time this exam was done.

HARRIS: Then, again, with the first trimester, just to go back through this. There is a range of about plus or minus three days?

DEVORE: Yes. That's the range.

HARRIS: So those dates right there, you have the 21st, the 23rd and the 24th, with that range of plus or minus three days?

DEVORE: Yes. I think that would be fair to say, yes.

[accordn2me]

Bring it on, TAI! I love an intelligent debator.

With the range that Devore gave, I don't see what the problem is. He easily, but lengthily, explained how he arrived at his conclusions. He never wavered about how he came to reach the conclusions. I don't see how anyone came to conclude that any of the experts, except Dr. March:rolleyes:, were pinned down to a definite day, since they all gave ranges, used terms like plus, minus, allowing for, etc.

[Beebee]

Every single expert or witness said that Conner was full term - except one who invented a system to 'prove' he might not have been. I'd believe a pyramidologist before I believe that.

He is in prison because the jury was too lazy to analyze the evidence and voted based on hatred.

I fully agree.

With the exception of Jackson, I think the rest of them couldn't wait to grab their 15 minutes of fame and a book deal after they pleased the masses. They were brainwashed to believe they were doing the right thing long before they sat through trial, imo.

[JustMyOpinion]

I fully agree.

With the exception of Jackson, I think the rest of them couldn't wait to grab their 15 minutes of fame and a book deal after they pleased the masses. They were brainwashed to believe they were doing the right thing long before they sat through trial, imo.

I see no evidence that all of the jurors were brainwashed prior to trial ( there was Hovery voir dire that did not show "brainwashing", and during selection Defense didn't even utilize all of their challenges) The seven jurors who eventually collaborated on a book didn't appear to "grab" a deal, either, IMO. ( book was not published until recently). There's nothing I've heard from the jurors who have spoken which indicates they felt a need to "please the masses", could you provide link to a statement from any of them which you believe conveys this need? TIA

[thinkaboutit]

Bring it on, TAI! I love an intelligent debator.

With the range that Devore gave, I don't see what the problem is. He easily, but lengthily, explained how he arrived at his conclusions. He never wavered about how he came to reach the conclusions. I don't see how anyone came to conclude that any of the experts, except Dr. March:rolleyes:, were pinned down to a definite day, since they all gave ranges, used terms like plus, minus, allowing for, etc.


:) Thanks for the compliment - same to you!!

The biggest problem I have with Devore's method is:

He only used the measurements of the femur to determine Conner's percentile.

Devore's testimony:

And we use an equation that said that bone measurement was equal to the 50th percentile. That's called an equation by Jeanty, this reference in my report to you

According to Jeanty this would not give an accurate age/percentile. Devore had access to all of Conner's bones. I question why he did not measure all of them and take the average.

Since calculations based on the femur alone are not reliable - I disagree that Conner was in the 50th percentile. I think it's possible he was a small baby and older than Devore claimed. Devore should not have disregarded the ultrasound at 20 weeks when determining the percentile. If Conner was in the 5th percentile - that would have made the range more like 34 - 38 weeks.

[enlightenme]

I fully agree.

With the exception of Jackson, I think the rest of them couldn't wait to grab their 15 minutes of fame and a book deal after they pleased the masses. They were brainwashed to believe they were doing the right thing long before they sat through trial, imo.

People are not as easily "brainwashed" as you would like to believe. We still haven't heard from ALL of the jurors. I believe 7 of them collaborated on the "We, The Jury" book. 5 have never spoken at all, I don't think. Jackson vamoosed and hasn't been heard from since the trial.

I would think if he was sure of Scott's innocence, he would be speaking to every media outlet he could about the "terrible injustice" that was done. Either that or he really has no backbone at all!

Most attorneys, both prosecution and defense say that they respect the jury process and think that jurors try very hard to be fair and follow the law. Because you do not like the outcome of this trial, you assume 12 people, who gave up a fair chunk of their normal lives, are haters, liars, lazy, brainwashed, etc.

The jurors and the public do not like Scott because the evidence proved he's guilty of murdering two innocents. We're supposed to feel sorry for him? Not!

[accordn2me]

The key words here are estimate & range. oh yeah....in my opinion... Devore used at least two different estimates to come up with his range. All of the other experts (never mind March) used more than one accepted method of arriving at their estimated range. IIRC, Devore's estimated range was narrower than the others. He explained why that was, how he arrived there, and why he thought his was the most accurate. The defense did not offer a credible expert to refute him. Like the other credible expert's estimated ranges, Devore's, though narrower, still included a time frame that was after Laci was reported missing.

[attorneywan2be]

The Medical examiner examined Conner's entire body..he examined his organs..IMO, he was in a better position to determine whether or not Conner was fully developed..and he concluded that Conner was a full term baby..

Mark Geragos: And you, you also characterized in your report, did you not, previously when you've testified, that the baby appeared to you to be a full-term baby; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Now, when the baby was brought in to you, you had indicated on direct that one of your first determinations was to decide whether or not Conner had been, you didn't know it was Conner, you knew him as Baby Doe, whether or not he had been stillborn or whether he had been born live; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And I assume that's a pretty, I think the way you were explaining it, if I understand correctly, is that becomes, just from a legal standpoint, a significant finding for you to make as the medical examiner; is that right?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Because obviously a different investigation ensues if the baby's born alive than if the baby is not?
Brian Peterson: Right.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, there was several reasons that you could not rule out the fact that he was born alive; is that a fair statement?
Brian Peterson: That, that's one way of putting it. Basically..

Let's take a look at fetal lung development:

At 36 weeks:

"Your baby is almost ready and most likely, so are you! The only organ still to mature is the lungs. While certainly you are both growing anxious to meet, remember that each day (up to 42 weeks), that your little one stays within your womb will multiply his chances to breathe on his own."

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment3.php#week36

The medical examiner's testimony: (note: the medical examiner didn't say that his lungs were not fully developed)

David Harris: As you go through and you looked at these remains of Conner, could you determine if there was anything anatomically wrong?
Brian Peterson: I looked for that. Again, my thinking, when presented with this type case, is was this a still birth or a live birth. So one helpful clue can be finding something anatomically inside the body that would have been incompatible with life. So, for example, if the heart had been abnormally developed, if the lungs had been abnormally developed. Sometimes these things are simply not capable of sustaining life. There was no such finding in this case. So in the sense that I could examine the organs, and, again, there had been this post-mortem change, liquefaction, and so forth, I found no other abnormalities. So basically, to the naked eye, the organs looked approximately normal. So I found nothing anatomically inside of Conner that would have been incompatible with life.
David Harris: To ask it this way. If Conner had been born, would he have survived outside of the womb?
Brian Peterson: Based on what I saw, yes, he would have.

[thinkaboutit]

The key words here are estimate & range. oh yeah....in my opinion... Devore used at least two different estimates to come up with his range. All of the other experts (never mind March) used more than one accepted method of arriving at their estimated range. IIRC, Devore's estimated range was narrower than the others. He explained why that was, how he arrived there, and why he thought his was the most accurate. The defense did not offer a credible expert to refute him. Like the other credible expert's estimated ranges, Devore's, though narrower, still included a time frame that was after Laci was reported missing.


But if the method he used (and I believe he used only one method to determine Conner's percentile) is not valid (which according to Jeanty himself - it's not - yet Devore said he was using Jeanty's method) - then his range is wrong. I think you said that your doctor gave you several due dates - don't you think his smaller range is a bit unrealistic?

[accordn2me]

According to Dr. Peterson, Conner was a viable baby.

I've heard of babies being born at around 20 weeks (gestational age) and surviving.

I do not understand the issue(s) with the prosecution's experts.:confused:

[accordn2me]

But if the method he used (and I believe he used only one method to determine Conner's percentile) is not valid (which according to Jeanty himself - it's not - yet Devore said he was using Jeanty's method) - then his range is wrong. I think you said that your doctor gave you several due dates - don't you think his smaller range is a bit unrealistic?AH HA! You have me confused with another poster!:lol:


Seriously, I don't think Devore's estimated range, though narrower than the other credible experts, is unrealistic a bit. It's an estimated range I'm OK with. I'm OK with the other experts' estimated ranges. The only "expert" I wasn't OK with is Dr. March. He didn't come across 2me as credible.

[attorneywan2be]

According to Dr. Peterson, Conner was a viable baby.

I've heard of babies being born at around 20 weeks (gestational age) and surviving.

I do not understand the issue(s) with the prosecution's experts.:confused:


What is your point? would you please elaborate..

I think premature babies that are around 20 weeks gestational age receive special medical attention to survive...such as, the use of incubators..etc..etc.

[accordn2me]

What is your point? would you please elaborate..

I think premature babies that are around 20 weeks gestational age receive special medical attention to survive...such as, the use of incubators..etc..etc.
Good question!

I don't have a problem with the prosecution's expert witnesses.

[attorneywan2be]

I realize this poster is banned, but I have to replly to this. Pearce did NOT participate in any burglary, that is why he got a llight sentence.

Burglary of an unoccupied residence does NOT qualify under the three strikes law. The three strikes law pertains to crimes against PERSONS. So this poster is so far off base, it's not even funny.


This is the second time I have to ask you to abide by CL rules..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281098

[Anne2719]

WRONG AGAIN San Joaquin County Sheriff's (whose beat this location was) searched for 3 days and could NOT find this area as described by an anonymous caller to CHP.

The area bulldozed was in a totally different direction from the tip. Maybe you should read the transcripts before making these untrue statements.
Please read the "In my opinion" thread -- we're all responsible for either supplying substantiation (unless it's an agreed-upon common ground) or stating clearly that this is our opinion. So far you have done neither.

[Anne2719]

It's in the transcripts. Read them. I do not have a link to them - try Marlene. I think she might have them
It's up to you to provide them, not for me to go looking to verify something you say.

[enlightenme]

Why don't you post the proseuction's questions You only cut and paste what says what you say. Why are you afraid of the entire testimony.


It seems some pick and choose the testimony that supports their side only. All of that testimony about not knowing if Conner was born alive and being full term, etc. was BEFORE Laci's body was discovered.

2.5 lbs. is a very underweight full term baby. The fetus puts on more than half of it's birth weight in the last 7 weeks, as well as the lungs continuing to develop.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/32weeks/

"Note: Experts say every baby develops differently -- even in utero. These fetal development pages are designed to give a general idea of how a fetus grows in the womb."

[Rachel Cory]

WRONG AGAIN San Joaquin County Sheriff's (whose beat this location was) searched for 3 days and could NOT find this area as described by an anonymous caller to CHP.

The area bulldozed was in a totally different direction from the tip. Maybe you should read the transcripts before making these untrue statements.
Sure they could find it. They also knew who owned this property. That knowledge is what made the area so "dangerous." The area razed was not the location of the tip. Little further south, wasn't it?

[attorneywan2be]

It seems some pick and choose the testimony that supports their side only. All of that testimony about not knowing if Conner was born alive and being full term, etc. was BEFORE Laci's body was discovered.



You are incorrect..his ultimate conclusion was that he could not rule out live birth...AND he couldn't even determine the cause of death as to Conner and Laci..


Brian Peterson: I think provisionally my cause of death was undetermined. And then ultimately, as more information came back, it stayed that way. With Conner, I don't recall doing a toxicology for him. And I think he started out and then remained undetermined.

--------------------------------------------------

Mark Geragos: The cause of death for both Conner and Laci is undetermined; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.

-------------------------------------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.

[accordn2me]

Redirect Examination by David Harris

HARRIS: Doctor, in terms of going back through that, some of these other potential ideas or hypotheticals, the one that I think that we do know from the physical state of the body of Laci Peterson that you examined is, Conner was not born vaginally; is that correct?

PETERSON: That's correct.

HARRIS: Didn't come out of an incision?

PETERSON: I found no incision.

HARRIS: So the only way that the body could have come out was through that torn, frayed portion at the top of the uterus?

PETERSON: Correct.

HARRIS: So, again, by the laws of anatomy that you have described for us before, means that she has to be decomposing, or exposed to the environment at the top of the uterus for the, for Conner to come out at that particular spot?

PETERSON: That's my opinion.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm#redirect

[accordn2me]

HARRIS: Counsel asked you if you could make a determination of how long Laci had been in this marine environment, and you had said months.

PETERSON: Correct.

HARRIS: So you weren't willing to say one month, or what; is that a fair statement?

PETERSON: That's fair.

HARRIS: Was Doctor Galloway brought in to try and help give a time interval of how long Laci Peterson had been in the marine environment?

PETERSON: That was another contribution she made, yes.

HARRIS: And since he had you looking at her report, did you, did you include that, or was that included in her report, the determination that she made?

PETERSON: In her report she said three to six months in marine environment.

HARRIS: You were also asked about your determination of age of the body of Conner Peterson. And go to that real quick. Did you list, under autopsy diagnosis, a particular gestational age for Conner Peterson?

PETERSON: On the first page of my report, I'll read to you. I said estimated gestational age, nine months. And then in parentheses, I put 33 to 38 weeks based on anthropological measurements. That was Doctor Galloway.

HARRIS: As part of this collaborative process, did she also assist you in trying to estimate the age of Conner Peterson?

PETERSON: Yes.

HARRIS: And as an anthropologist, is that kind of what she does is look at bones and structures?

PETERSON: That's exactly what she does.

HARRIS: You were asked about her particular, referring to a table that she looked at. Did she actually make a comment about that particular table in her report?

PETERSON: She did.

HARRIS: And did she indicate in that particular, in her comment that those tables have to be adjusted for American babies?

PETERSON: That was her comment.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Pwitnesses/Petersonbrian.htm#redirect

[Miss Bootsie]

You are incorrect..his ultimate conclusion was that he could not rule out live birth...AND he couldn't even determine the cause of death as to Conner and Laci..


Brian Peterson: I think provisionally my cause of death was undetermined. And then ultimately, as more information came back, it stayed that way. With Conner, I don't recall doing a toxicology for him. And I think he started out and then remained undetermined.

--------------------------------------------------

Mark Geragos: The cause of death for both Conner and Laci is undetermined; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.

-------------------------------------------------

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.

You are quoting Dr. Peterson, so I assume you find his testimony credible.

He made the following very clear.
Conner was not born vaginally.
No evidence that an incision had been made in the uterus.
Fundus was abraded - worn or scraped away

It your theory someone performed a C-section and scraped the thickest part of the Uterus (the fundus),until they made an opening large enough to remove Conner?





PETERSON: I did. And normally when Caesarean sections are performed, the incision is down low. It's near the pubic bone. And there was no incision in that area.

HARRIS: And in terms of how that baby would get out of that uterus, what was it that you found?

PETERSON: I was left with only the one other choice, and that was at the top of the uterus, the fundus was open. So I determined that the baby had exited through the top of the uterus.

HARRIS: And, again, just so that we're clear about that, the top of the uterus you are describing as the fundus, where is the fundus at?

PETERSON: Probably the simplest way to think about that is it would have been near the bellybutton. A little bit higher.

HARRIS: And in terms of orientation, is that straight out, away from the person, or more straight up?



HARRIS: Doctor, in terms of going back through that, some of these other potential ideas or hypotheticals, the one that I think that we do know from the physical state of the body of Laci Peterson that you examined is, Conner was not born vaginally; is that correct?

PETERSON: That's correct.

HARRIS: Didn't come out of an incision?

PETERSON: I found no incision.

HARRIS: So the only way that the body could have come out was through that torn, frayed portion at the top of the uterus?

PETERSON: Correct.

HARRIS: So, again, by the laws of anatomy that you have described for us before, means that she has to be decomposing, or exposed to the environment at the top of the uterus for the, for Conner to come out at that particular spot?

GERAGOS: Okay. The, I'm accepting, obviously, your, deferring to your experience that you didn't see a vaginal birth, evidence of a vaginal birth?

PETERSON: That's correct. The birth canal was closed.


GERAGOS: Right. Without, I'm not trying to be morbid here. But without, there is no evidence from which we can determine what happened and how that baby got out with just hypothesizing, correct?

PETERSON: There is some evidence. Again, the birth canal was closed.

GERAGOS: Well, I'm accepting, I'm accepting the fact, deferring to your observation, that there wasn't a vaginal delivery.

PETERSON: I'm saying there wasn't a vaginal delivery either before or after death.

GERAGOS: Right.

PETERSON: Okay.

GERAGOS: I'm with you there.

PETERSON: Okay.

[enlightenme]

Are you trying to say that Laci walked to the Bay, some 90 miles to drown herself and her baby to get even with scott.

Or are you saying the homeless people without cars, wheeled them in a grocery cart and then swam out and dumped the bodies.

Oh wait, Todd pedaled them out to the Bay on his bicycle and then pedaled out into the water to dump them.

Conner's condition was consistent with being in the womb - he was mascerated and his skin was slipping. Skin doesn't slip unless it's wet. Look up mascerated and you'll find it a common condition in stillborn babies - babies that have died in the womb and been removed at a later time.

Enlightenme was totally correct. Peterson did the autopsy on Conner BEFORE he did the autopsy on Laci. After examining Laci, he KNEW that Conner was not born alive. He escaped through the abraded fundus of Laci's uterus. Laci's cervix was still closed, proving that Conner was not born alive.

There were no tool marks on Laci's body so there was no evidence that the baby was removed from her uterus via a caesarian section. A doctor would have cut low on her uterus to remove the baby. An inexperienced person would have cut at the largest part of her abdomen. There were no too marks there. No idiot would cut at the fundus of the uterus.

This is a common sense case. That sums it up. All the other possibilities are caricatures and not believable.

Of course it's common sense, IMO! If you try and promote that Conner was removed from the top of the uterus, you also have to explain why his body was not decomposed. Internally it was decomposing. A fridge or a freezer would not accomplish this, nor would a plastic bag.

There was a strong 2 day storm. The bodies washed ashore a mile apart.

No jury in any future trial, should that ever happen, will believe the "bodies planted on the shore" theory. That I am sure of!

[accordn2me]

GERAGOS: Is it fair to say that, a fair statement that virtually everything that you have testified to in terms of your opinion as to what happened is just a hypothesis in terms of whether or not the baby was in the uterus, or wasn't in the uterus, those kind of things, those kinds of opinions?

PETERSON: I would say that, based on the things we have already discussed, the relative conditions of the bodies, the changes I saw in the uterus, and so forth, my opinion is that Conner was in the uterus when Laci was placed in the water, and eventually was released fits those facts best. As you have also said there might be other scenarios that fit those facts too. Based on what I know now, I think those fit the facts best.

GERAGOS: The other possibility or the other alternatives are reasonable as well?

PETERSON: Well, I guess there is a scale there. Again, I'm happy with my opinion. I think it fits well. I suspect there are other suggestions that could fit too, though.

GERAGOS: Be just as reasonable?

PETERSON: I think, depends on who does the assessment of reasonability.

[accordn2me]

You are incorrect..his ultimate conclusion was that he could not rule out live birth...AND he couldn't even determine the cause of death as to Conner and Laci..


Brian Peterson: I think provisionally...

snipProvisionally - definition: Providing or serving only for the time being. Synonym - temporary

Let me guess, since you did not post a link......this is Dr. Peterson's testimony during the Preliminary Hearing.

[Miss Bootsie]

Preliminary: Dr. Peterson

Q. Now, to go back to -- you were asked a number of questions about Conner about whether you had said he was full term or born alive or stillborn. Is it -- let me try this a different way. When you look at that particular question, is it more appropriate just to look at Conner individually or to also look at the other autopsy, and that being of Laci?

A. Well, let me tell you the process that I went through. When I approached Conner, of course, I had no idea at that time that he had any connection to Laci at all. This was simply a body washed up on the shore; and the typical forensic pathology question in that type of case was: Is this a stillborn baby or a live-born baby? If it's a stillborn baby the issue simply is one of body disposal, I guess. If it's a live-born baby, that makes it a whole different type of issue. So the question I typically attempt to address in that type of case is: Was this baby born alive or was he not? And that took place that morning, and that was really the sum of that case.

**Only later when I had the opportunity to perform Laci's autopsy, and then even later when it become clear that those two bodies were intimately connected, did the other thinking come into place. At that point we're trying to consider where that body was, how it was protected, why the states of decomposition are different. At the time of Conner's autopsy, no, it was simply a matter of stillborn versus live born.**

[Miss Bootsie]

I'm still interested in an explanation of why and how someone scraped the fundus? :shrug:

[accordn2me]

I'm still interested in an explanation of why and how someone scraped the fundus? :shrug:WHY? Easy, in my opinion...the burglars were looking for the safe.

How? By planting Laci's body along the bottom of the bay in the shallowest part....DUH!:cuss:

[Miss Bootsie]

Because an incision was not found in the remaining soft tissue, I can't imagine how it was done. Maybe AW will share her theory with us.

HARRIS: Anatomical positioning that we're talking about, we're not, with the uterus in the body cavity, we're talking at the top, so we have to reach inside to get to that place where it's torn, basically. And there is no incision on the front of the uterus; is that correct?

PETERSON: I did not see an incision the uterus on the remaining soft tissue at all.

[attorneywan2be]

Provisionally - definition: Providing or serving only for the time being. Synonym - temporary

Let me guess, since you did not post a link......this is Dr. Peterson's testimony during the Preliminary Hearing.


Dr. Brian Peterson, the medical examiner, testified that his ULTIMATE CONCLUSION was he could not determine if the baby was born alive..

Quote:

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct

--------------------------------------------

Dr. Brian Peterson, the medical examiner, testified that provisionally the cause of death was undetermined then ULTIMATELY the cause of death remained UNDETERMINED..

Quote:

Brian Peterson: I think provisionally my cause of death was undetermined. And then ultimately, as more information came back, it stayed that way. With Conner, I don't recall doing a toxicology for him. And I think he started out and then remained undetermined.

---------------------------


Definition of ul·ti·mate

adjective- the final point; final result.

------------------------------------

Definition of ul·ti·mate·ly

adv. At last; in the end; eventually

[Lili007]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8837973]Dr. Brian Peterson, the medical examiner, testified that his ULTIMATE CONCLUSION was he could not determine if the baby was born alive..

Quote:

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct

--------------------------------------------

Dr. Brian Peterson, the medical examiner, testified that provisionally the cause of death was undetermined then ULTIMATELY the cause of death remained UNDETERMINED..



At least he didn't ask to be cut some slack, which may count for something, I suppose.

But let's suppose for one split second of insanity that Conner was born alive and then strangled... those thieves and murderers were a caring lot, weren't they? They tied a bow in the tape they "strangled Conner" with...

JMO

[accordn2me]

Dr. Brian Peterson, the medical examiner, testified that his ULTIMATE CONCLUSION was he could not determine if the baby was born alive..

Quote:

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct

--------------------------------------------

Dr. Brian Peterson, the medical examiner, testified that provisionally the cause of death was undetermined then ULTIMATELY the cause of death remained UNDETERMINED..

Quote:

Brian Peterson: I think provisionally my cause of death was undetermined. And then ultimately, as more information came back, it stayed that way. With Conner, I don't recall doing a toxicology for him. And I think he started out and then remained undetermined.---------------------------


Definition of ul·ti·mate

adjective- the final point; final result.

------------------------------------

Definition of ul·ti·mate·ly

adv. At last; in the end; eventually

Please provide the link to the testimony where the words "ultimate conclusion" were used. Here's an example:

Preliminary Hearing:

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GERAGOS:

Q. Can we start with the -- you said the manner of death was undetermined?

A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.

Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?

A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my job description to determine manner. Manner of death is determined by the Coroner. In this case, I know that the Coroner determined homicide was the manner of death.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Prelim/peterson.htm#cross <----link

[enlightenme]

Please provide the link to the testimony where the words "ultimate conclusion" were used. Here's an example:

Preliminary Hearing:

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GERAGOS:

Q. Can we start with the -- you said the manner of death was undetermined?

A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.

Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?

A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my job description to determine manner. Manner of death is determined by the Coroner. In this case, I know that the Coroner determined homicide was the manner of death.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Prelim/peterson.htm#cross <----link

Geragos said it alright. But it was in reference to the initial report Dr. Peterson made when he knew Conner as "Baby Doe" only, before Laci's body was found.

I have this saved on my hard drive from the transcripts on SII:

Mark Geragos: Now, when the baby was brought in to you, you had indicated on direct that one of your first determinations was to decide whether or not Conner had been, you didn't know it was Conner, you knew him as Baby Doe, whether or not he had been stillborn or whether he had been born live; is that correct?

Brian Peterson: Correct.

Mark Geragos: Okay. And I assume that's a pretty, I think the way you were explaining it, if I understand correctly, is that becomes, just from a legal standpoint, a significant finding for you to make as the medical examiner; is that right?

Brian Peterson: That's correct.

Mark Geragos: Okay. Because obviously a different investigation ensues if the baby's born alive than if the baby is not?

Brian Peterson: Right.

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?

Brian Peterson: That's correct.

Mark Geragos: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?

Brian Peterson: That's correct.

Then Geragos goes on and on about the umbilical cord, which basically goes nowhere.

What attorneywan2be keeps leaving out is the subsequent testimony and opinion of Dr. Peterson AFTER Laci's body is found and it's determined that Conner came from her uterus. Then it's a much different story.

The jury heard the whole thing and apparently agreed with Dr. Peterson's amended opinion based on the condition of Laci's body and abraded fundus.

[Hey Paula]

IIRC, Conner's autopsy was performed before Laci's, which temporarily tainted the ME's opinion, since Connner was nearly full term. Without performing Laci's autopsy first, the ME would not have known Conner wasn't "born", without first examining the birth canal to determine there was no passage from it. Without first performing an autopsy on Laci, the ME wouldn't have known that Conner wasn't delivered via C-section.

IMO

[Lili007]

IIRC, Conner's autopsy was performed before Laci's, which temporarily tainted the ME's opinion, since Connner was nearly full term. Without performing Laci's autopsy first, the ME would not have known Conner wasn't "born", without first examining the birth canal to determine there was no passage from it. Without first performing an autopsy on Laci, the ME wouldn't have known that Conner wasn't delivered via C-section.

IMO

Hear, hear!

JMO

[enlightenme]

IIRC, Conner's autopsy was performed before Laci's, which temporarily tainted the ME's opinion, since Connner was nearly full term. Without performing Laci's autopsy first, the ME would not have known Conner wasn't "born", without first examining the birth canal to determine there was no passage from it. Without first performing an autopsy on Laci, the ME wouldn't have known that Conner wasn't delivered via C-section.

IMO

Focusing on a small portion of the transcripts is like having "tunnel vision", something the MPD was accused of constantly. :cool:

[Miss Bootsie]

It is made very clear in this testimony, Peterson could not determine whether Conner was born alive based solely on looking at his body.


PETERSON: I did. In this case there was a portion of the colon that actually was coming out the anus. In the colon there was a material call meconium. It's a dark green, kind of thick, it's a pasty fluid. And typically when newborns have their first bowel movement, that's what you see is meconium. Sometimes when babies are in distress in the uterus they can actually dump that in the uterus, which can cause lung problems later. But in Conner's case the meconium was still where it belonged, in the colon.

HARRIS: And is there, does that indicate anything?

PETERSON: Well, the fact that was, that it was there. If it hadn't been there, then I might have thought Well, where did it go, why wasn't it where it was supposed to be. The fact that it was there was a clue to me that likely he had died before the birthing process, before he had a chance to get rid of that.
HARRIS: Did you, as you go through this whole process, was there anything definitive that could give you the answer, just looking at Conner, that could give you the answer of whether he had been born or not?

PETERSON: There was not.

HARRIS: And as part of the investigation that Jeff Soler from Richmond PD was there for, did you advise him of your findings at that point in time?

PETERSON: I did. And I, I think the way that I phrased it was, as I've said here earlier, was that there was nothing anatomic that would have precluded live birth.

HARRIS: And that's just looking at Conner?

PETERSON: That's correct.

[Lili007]

It is made very clear in this testimony, Peterson could not determine whether Conner was born alive based solely on looking at his body.

I have said this SO many times. But I will say it again, for as many times as it takes.

If Conner was "born alive", why did his little body wash ashore within one day of his mother's trunk washing ashore, in the same place?????

If Conner was "born alive", why would anyone strangle him to death, and THEN "tie a bow" around his neck.

Conner was snug in his mother's womb until the currents, the friction, the sea life - and decomposition finally set it.

People - ANYONE- tying bows around Conner's neck to somehow implicate Scott into the murder. Taking his secret boat for a ride to dump Laci's body where he went "fishing". Scott dumping his dead wife's body in the bay.

She didn't give up her baby until the last moment, when they both came back to face their murderer.

Laci held on to Conner as long as she could, even after she died.

What did Scott do? Try to sell the house, Laci's car, and transformed Conner's nursery into storage dump.

Guess what? I don't trust Scott Peterson to even get near to as far as I could throw him.

JMO

[Beebee]

PETERSON: I found no incision.

HARRIS: So the only way that the body could have come out was through that torn, frayed portion at the top of the uterus?

PETERSON: Correct.

HARRIS: So, again, by the laws of anatomy that you have described for us before, means that she has to be decomposing, or exposed to the environment at the top of the uterus for the, for Conner to come out at that particular spot?

PETERSON: That's my opinion.



He did not FIND an "incision" because the area had decomposed and now appeared "frayed".

Read all of his testimony, including cross and you will see what I mean.


IN MY OPINION

[Beebee]

I have said this SO many times. But I will say it again, for as many times as it takes.

If Conner was "born alive", why did SNIP


If you are so certain Conner WASN'T born alive, then you should clue in the medical examiner.

Mark Geragos: Okay. Because obviously a different investigation ensues if the baby's born alive than if the baby is not?

Brian Peterson: Right.

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?

Brian Peterson: That's correct.


link from enlighten me's post a few posts back.

IN MY OPINION

[Miss Bootsie]

He did not FIND an "incision" because the area had decomposed and now appeared "frayed".

Read all of his testimony, including cross and you will see what I mean.


IN MY OPINION



You are incorrect.
If there had been an incision made with a sharp instrument, there would be evidence of bleeding in the remaining soft tissue.


Dr. Peterson explains this in his testimony re-Conner.
Same would apply to Laci's body.




Peterson:From the waist on down, there was still soft tissue in place. Largely fat that had undergone a postmortem change, and had become a substance called adipocere

HARRIS: Did you look to see if there was some type of incision, like a C-section?

PETERSON: I did. And normally when Caesarean sections are performed, the incision is down low. It's near the pubic bone. And there was no incision in that area.




PETERSON: If there is antemortem tearing, we'll associate that with blunt force injury. Blunt force injury, there's three different types: Contusion, which is a bruise; abrasion, which is a scraping-type injury, like road rash; or a crushing or tearing type injury, such as a laceration. In the case of laceration, the way we differentiate that from, say, sharp force, like an incision, is that in the depths of the laceration there are bridges, soft tissue bridges. They can be connective tissue, blood vessels, nerves, et cetera. In an incision, caused by a sharp object, there's no such bridging. The way that the tear on Conner look was more that the tissue was soft enough to simply pull apart. In the case of this hPETERSON: If there is antemortem tearing, we'll associate that with blunt force injury. Blunt force injury, there's three different types: Contusion, which is a bruise; abrasion, which is a scraping-type injury, like road rash; or a crushing or tearing type injury, such as a laceration. In the case of laceration, the way we differentiate that from, say, sharp force, like an incision, is that in the depths of the laceration there are bridges, soft tissue bridges. They can be connective tissue, blood vessels, nerves, et cetera. In an incision, caused by a sharp object, there's no such bridging. The way that the tear on Conner look was more that the tissue was soft enough to simply pull apart. In the case of this happening during life there will be other changes in that soft tissue, like bleeding. There was no bleeding in this case. So it was simply dead tissue that was pulling apart.Happening during life there will be other changes in that soft tissue, like bleeding. There was no bleeding in this case. So it was simply dead tissue that was pulling apart.

[Lili007]

If you are so certain Conner WASN'T born alive, then you should clue in the medical examiner.

If you're going to "quote me", kindly stick to what I wrote. Thank you.

The ME doesn't need any "clueing in" from me. They know exactly what's what and I'm not about to double guess them. If you wish to do that yourself, go for it.


link from enlighten me's post a few posts back.

IN MY OPINION

Why did you SNIP at the point where I was expounding?

That's OK, though. I'll do it again, for your reading pleasure.

And if you SNIP the pertinent bits again, we'll all know what you're about. Below is my post, thank you.

I have said this SO many times. But I will say it again, for as many times as it takes.

If Conner was "born alive", why did his little body wash ashore within one day of his mother's trunk washing ashore, in the same place?????

If Conner was "born alive", why would anyone strangle him to death, and THEN "tie a bow" around his neck.

Conner was snug in his mother's womb until the currents, the friction, the sea life - and decomposition finally set it.

People - ANYONE- tying bows around Conner's neck to somehow implicate Scott into the murder. Taking his secret boat for a ride to dump Laci's body where he went "fishing". Scott dumping his dead wife's body in the bay.

She didn't give up her baby until the last moment, when they both came back to face their murderer.

Laci held on to Conner as long as she could, even after she died.

What did Scott do? Try to sell the house, Laci's car, and transformed Conner's nursery into storage dump.

Guess what? I don't trust Scott Peterson to even get near to as far as I could throw him.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

Please provide the link to the testimony where the words "ultimate conclusion" were used. Here's an example:

Preliminary Hearing:

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GERAGOS:

Q. Can we start with the -- you said the manner of death was undetermined?

A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.

Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?

A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my job description to determine manner. Manner of death is determined by the Coroner. In this case, I know that the Coroner determined homicide was the manner of death.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Prelim/peterson.htm#cross <----link


No matter how long we keep going in circles..the medical examiner made it clear that his ultimate conclusion---->..which means "final conclusion"---->..which means after he examined Laci's body...was he could not determine if Conner was born alive..he could not rule out that Conner was born alive..

He also made it clear that as to the cause of death, he started out as undetermined, then as more information came back, the cause of death for both Conner and Laci remained undetermined

I quoted his testimony in that regards in my previous posts..I will not discuss this issue any further..it is counterproductive..

The link to his testimony:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Dr.%20Brian%20Peterson.htm

[enlightenme]

He did not FIND an "incision" because the area had decomposed and now appeared "frayed".

Read all of his testimony, including cross and you will see what I mean.


IN MY OPINION

Please post the testimony where he says it could have been cut.
He also said 'abraded', not frayed.

You cling to this because you want to, not because it's true, IMO.

[Lili007]

No matter how long we keep going in circles..the medical examiner made it clear that his ultimate conclusion---->..which means "final conclusion"---->..which means after he examined Laci's body...was he could not determine if Conner was born alive..he could not rule out that Conner was born alive..

He also made it clear that as to the cause of death, he started out as undetermined, then as more information came back, the cause of death for both Conner and Laci remained undetermined

I quoted his testimony in that regards in my previous posts..I will not discuss this issue any further..it is counterproductive..

The link to his testimony:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Dr.%20Brian%20Peterson.htm

I see. The cause of death for both Laci and Conner was "undetermined". I suppose Laci drove to SF Bay on the same day her loving husband went "fishing" in the same spot, and leaped into the water with her baby, while thinking evil thoughts about Scott and how she was going to make him pay for her hiddeous death AND that of the child she was carrying.

May I ask one question?

Would you wish any of this on your own family?

If not, why do you pursue it so eagerly?

I don't for a minute think that you think Scott is in any way innocent. But you need to play a game. Fine. Enjoy.

JMO

[enlightenme]

No matter how long we keep going in circles..the medical examiner made it clear that his ultimate conclusion---->..which means "final conclusion"---->..which means after he examined Laci's body...was he could not determine if Conner was born alive..he could not rule out that Conner was born alive..

He also made it clear that as to the cause of death, he started out as undetermined, then as more information came back, the cause of death for both Conner and Laci remained undetermined

I quoted his testimony in that regards in my previous posts..I will not discuss this issue any further..it is counterproductive..

The link to his testimony:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Dr.%20Brian%20Peterson.htm


"I will not discuss this issue any further" is not fair, IMO.

No matter how many times we go in circles, the part of the testimony you keep posting is from the report Dr. Peterson made for "Baby Doe", before he knew that he came from Laci's uterus.

It sounds like brainwashing, that some will not even entertain any other possibility, even if it makes more sense, is more likely, and more reasonable.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

I see. The cause of death for both Laci and Conner was "undetermined". I suppose Laci drove to SF Bay on the same day her loving husband went "fishing" in the same spot, and leaped into the water with her baby, while thinking evil thoughts about Scott and how she was going to make him pay for her hiddeous death AND that of the child she was carrying.

May I ask one question?

Would you wish any of this on your own family?

If not, why do you pursue it so eagerly?

I don't for a minute think that you think Scott is in any way innocent. But you need to play a game. Fine. Enjoy.

JMO


Personal attacks are against CL rules..please abide by the rules..

Thanks

[Miss Bootsie]

No matter how long we keep going in circles..the medical examiner made it clear that his ultimate conclusion---->..which means "final conclusion"---->..which means after he examined Laci's body...was he could not determine if Conner was born alive..he could not rule out that Conner was born alive..

He also made it clear that as to the cause of death, he started out as undetermined, then as more information came back, the cause of death for both Conner and Laci remained undetermined

I quoted his testimony in that regards in my previous posts..I will not discuss this issue any further..it is counterproductive..

The link to his testimony:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Dr.%20Brian%20Peterson.htm



I believe this issue can be cleared up rather quickly if you will please provide proof there was ever a C-section performed on Laci and proof Conner was born alive.

If you cannot provide proof, I agree, any further discussion on this issue will be non-productive.

[Lili007]

Personal attacks are against CL rules..please abide by the rules..

Thanks

I'm sorry. I didn't make any personal attack. If you disagree, please take it up with Freshwater, Thank you.

[enlightenme]

This is part of Dr. Peterson's testimony AFTER the "ultimate conclusion" testimony that has been quoted here often:

HARRIS: From your examination of Conner and the state that he was in, versus Laci, what did that kind of mean to you?

PETERSON: My conclusion was that Conner had been protected, certainly protected to a greater degree than Laci was.

HARRIS: And did you have an opinion of how he was protected?

PETERSON: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.

HARRIS: In terms of Laci's body, was the inside of her uterus somewhat protected or in a different state compared to the rest of her body?

PETERSON: Well, the fact is that her uterus was there at all, which was different compared to every other organ that she had had. So I think based on its location lower in the pelvis and however she acted against things at the bottom, and so forth, it took a while to wear away that part of her abdominal wall to get to the point where the uterus was exposed. It took further time to wear away the top of the uterus, which ultimately caused Conner's release.

HARRIS: Now, the term you kept using, you used several times, you described it for us before, that's that macerated term. That basically means that something had to be in a fluid environment?

PETERSON: Correct.

[Miss Bootsie]

Dr. Peterson:
HARRIS: Doctor, just to be clear about this, for there to be an incision where the baby could come out, we are not just talking about the skin, are we? You would have to cut through the skin, through the muscle, and all the way down to the uterus and make an incision there for ultimately the baby to come out; wouldn't that be correct?

PETERSON: That's a normal process of a Cesarean section.



HARRIS: So whether the soft tissue is gone or not, we have the uterus.

PETERSON: We do.

[Miss Bootsie]

PETERSON: All right. The top of the body, I'm pointing in the direction of the back of the courtroom. That's where the top of the body would be. This blue towel was placed across thighs and the pelvis basically for photographic purposes. And I simply swung the uterus down on to the towel to take a picture of it. So what we're seeing here is the uterus. This is the inside, normally. So that's the muscular wall inside. Because it is swung down, the orientation is reversed now. So up here would actually be the top of the uterus when it's swung back in anatomic position. And that's where it was, where it had come apart. I described the edge of that as being friable, crumbly, fragile.
I did not see, speaking of tool marks, I did not see evidence of tool marks on the uterus, such as cuts, for example. Simply this friable, crumbly edge.

Peterson:In the case of laceration, the way we differentiate that from, say, sharp force, like an incision, is that in the depths of the laceration there are bridges, soft tissue bridges. They can be connective tissue, blood vessels, nerves, et cetera. In an incision, caused by a sharp object, there's no such bridging.
In the case of this happening during life there will be other changes in that soft tissue, like bleeding.

[accordn2me]

He did not FIND an "incision" because the area had decomposed and now appeared "frayed".

Read all of his testimony, including cross and you will see what I mean.


IN MY OPINIONYa think? I don't know BB....did you read post #92 this thread? What about this:

CROSS EXAMINATION

MR. GERAGOS:

Q. Can we start with the -- you said the manner of death was undetermined?

A. I said the cause of death was undetermined.

Q. Okay. How about the manner of death?

A. In the Coroner's jurisdiction, it's not part of my job description to determine manner. Manner of death is determined by the Coroner. In this case, I know that the Coroner determined homicide was the manner of death.

Now, if you read post 92, and this post, and the other testimony from Dr. Peterson posted here by other posters, AND.....this part is very important....you PUT IT ALL TOGETHER...you should come to see, very clearly, Dr. Peterson does not believe that Conner was born alive. Any other conclusion is grasping at seaweed.

[JustMyOpinion]

If you are so certain Conner WASN'T born alive, then you should clue in the medical examiner.






Reading the complete testimony, it is clear to me that the ME couldn't rule out Conner being "born alive", but it was his OPINION ( based on all of his findings which he detailed) that Laci went into the water with Conner inside & he remained there for quite some time. I'll ask you again, why do you think Defense did not call a pathologist to testify there was medical evidence showing Conner WAS born alive? ( especially since Geragos promised to prove this in his opening statement)?

[accordn2me]

Reading the complete testimony, it is clear to me that the ME couldn't rule out Conner being "born alive", but it was his OPINION ( based on all of his findings which he detailed) that Laci went into the water with Conner inside & he remained there for quite some time. I'll ask you again, why do you think Defense did not call a pathologist to testify there was medical evidence showing Conner WAS born alive? ( especially since Geragos promised to prove this in his opening statement)?The defense didn't have any "strong moments" in this area, did they. I mean, in my opinion they didn't.

I double dawg dare anyone to prove they did!

Nope, the old defense strategy of "the State doesn't have the evidence to prove a case, so we won't present a defense" didn't fly this time!

[JustMyOpinion]

The defense didn't have any "strong moments" in this area, did they. I mean, in my opinion they didn't.

I double dawg dare anyone to prove they did!

Nope, the old defense strategy of "the State doesn't have the evidence to prove a case, so we won't present a defense" didn't fly this time!

It's my opinion that Geragos knew from the outset ( from reading autopsy reports, discussing it with experts) that his own expert pathologist would NOT be able to find evidence of a "live birth". Had he believed otherwise, he would have seen to it that Wecht examined the remains asap, they do continue to deteriorate even in storage, IMO. ( Wecht did not view remains until Aug 11). Geragos likely obtained Lee & Wecht to keep the other side from hiring them, to silence them in the media for all those months as to their own theories supporting the State's case, and to give the public the impression that highly respected experts were "on Scott's side"..JMO

[enlightenme]

It's my opinion that Geragos knew from the outset ( from reading autopsy reports, discussing it with experts) that his own expert pathologist would NOT be able to find evidence of a "live birth". Had he believed otherwise, he would have seen to it that Wecht examined the remains asap, they do continue to deteriorate even in storage, IMO. ( Wecht did not view remains until Aug 11). Geragos likely obtained Lee & Wecht to keep the other side from hiring them, to silence them in the media for all those months as to their own theories supporting the State's case, and to give the public the impression that highly respected experts were "on Scott's side"..JMO

I agree. That's why Geragos focused on the ME's report of Conner BEFORE he knew who he was and before he did Laci's autopsy.

Most experts will say, "anything's possible" but not probable and give their expert opinion of what happened. Of course, they were not there and can only give their expert opinion. The jury can decide to believe the prosecution's expert or the defense's expert or neither one. They usually go with the one that is most reasonable, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

I agree. That's why Geragos focused on the ME's report of Conner BEFORE he knew who he was and before he did Laci's autopsy.

Most experts will say, "anything's possible" but not probable and give their expert opinion of what happened. Of course, they were not there and can only give their expert opinion. The jury can decide to believe the prosecution's expert or the defense's expert or neither one. They usually go with the one that is most reasonable, IMO.

I agree. And, on cross, I think it's highly likely Wecht's testimony as to probabilities may have helped the State's case. ( I don't think he would risk his professional reputation and actually lie under oath) JMO, and State would also have called a rebuttal witness, IMO. Wecht couldn't say there was evidence Conner was born alive ( due to absence of microscopic lung tissue, for example)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/04/lkl.01.html
KING: So Dr. Wecht, it would seem you'd be called just for credentials.

WECHT: Well, thank you for the compliment.

KING: Why not?

WECHT: The painful thing here, from an intellectual standpoint, is the -- not the paucity, the absence of pathological evidence, the opportunity, for example, to be able to examine the baby's organs, the lungs specifically, microscopically as was done in the -- in New Jersey, Delaware motel case, in which I was involved.

I mean, we didn't have that because of the maceration, the postmortem decomposition of the baby's tissues. And so those kinds of definitive diagnostic techniques were not available to us.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/04/lkl.01.html

[attorneywan2be]

Reading the complete testimony, it is clear to me that the ME couldn't rule out Conner being "born alive"

Thank You


, but it was his OPINION ( based on all of his findings which he detailed) that Laci went into the water with Conner inside & he remained there for quite some time. I'll ask you again, why do you think Defense did not call a pathologist to testify there was medical evidence showing Conner WAS born alive? ( especially since Geragos promised to prove this in his opening statement)?


The medical examiner performed the autopsy when the bodies were found..however, Dr. Wecht didn't examine the bodies until about 4 months later....IMO, evidence could have been lost due to the length of time that elapsed and due to the fact that the autopsy was done already.....having said that, I think Mark Geragos did a horrible job defending Scott from the jury selection process to his closing argument.....IMO, there are a lot of things he could have done but didn't do..!


http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/7276956p-8202716c.html

[JustMyOpinion]

Thank You





The medical examiner performed the autopsy when the bodies were found..however, Dr. Wecht didn't examine the bodies until about 4 months later....IMO, evidence could have been lost due to the length of time that elapsed and due to the fact that the autopsy was done already.....having said that, I think Mark Geragos did a horrible job defending Scott from the jury selection process to his closing argument.....IMO, there are a lot of things he could have done but didn't do..!


http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/7276956p-8202716c.html

While I think Geragos made some mistakes, (i.e. his own demeanor, trial strategy, ) I don't think he's stupid, inexperienced or a horrible lawyer. He didn't want Wecht to find evidence that might help the State's case, hence the long delay before Wecht examined remains, but this is just my opinion.

[Miss Bootsie]

Thank You





The medical examiner performed the autopsy when the bodies were found..however, Dr. Wecht didn't examine the bodies until about 4 months later....IMO, evidence could have been lost due to the length of time that elapsed and due to the fact that the autopsy was done already.....having said that, I think Mark Geragos did a horrible job defending Scott from the jury selection process to his closing argument.....IMO, there are a lot of things he could have done but didn't do..!


http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/7276956p-8202716c.html

What evidence could have possibly been lost that would prove Conner was born alive?

I happen to believe Mark Geragos had a reason for doing or not doing everything he did or did not do.
This includes waiting for a long period before having the bodies examined. imo

You have no proof whatsoever that Conner was born alive.imo
If I am wrong, please provide the proof.


I have observed that you start a subject of debate, but when someone disagrees and provides testimony showing why they disagree, you refuse to discuss.
You also failed to acknowledge questions that were directed to you.
Your post advising that you will not discuss any further puts up a big red flag...I am right-you are wrong, so there is no need of any further discussion.imo
You refuse to discuss when someone disagrees with you, but you resume the discussion when someone agrees with you.
imo, people, especially leader's of a forum, should not be allowed to start a subject of discussion, if you are not willing to follow through and discuss with those that disagree with you.
This should be a concern to you as a leader, because your actions could possibly inflame the people involved in the discussion. imo
:patriot:

[JustMyOpinion]

If Laci was held captive and abused for 2 months until Conner was born is it any wonder he was small?

]

What evidence was brought showing Laci was held captive and abused for two months or that Conner was "born"? TIA.

[JustMyOpinion]

How do you explain the condition of Laci's body other than her dying around March 13th? How do you explain her living past the end of December? How do you explain a full term Conner? How do babies arrive in the world without medical intervention? All by amateur C section? Or all by birth?

You are answering my question with questions. Are you admitting there was no evidence presented that "Laci was held captive and abused for two months" or that "Conner was born"...?

[JustMyOpinion]

Are you admitting there was no evidence presented that this could not have happened as I have stated?

It appears you refuse answer the question. You appear to speculate as to what could have or might have happened, which is entirely up to you.

[Anne2719]

Are you admitting there was no evidence presented that this could not have happened as I have stated?
So what's your answer to HER question?

[Anne2719]

It's perfectly clear. Conner was NEVER in the sea for more than a few days, as the actual experts have stated.Then I will draw the obvious conclusion that you have realized you cannot best me in any argument.
He was not in the SEA -- he was in the WOMB until shortly before the bodies were recovered. IMO, of course. But Wecht was touting the company line. He was paid well for those words. IMO, again. The naive and gullible, of whom you seem to be one, ate up that explanation, which was bought and paid for. IMO.

Seems to me there were some questions Greta could have asked, but didn't. Read between the lines of what Wecht is saying. He never said if that's what he truly believes happened. I don't think he could answer that with any integrity, and still get his check from the defense. IMO, of course.

[Wearing A Halo]

How was JJ let back in from his banishment? The NGs of this board must have felt a need for some excitement.:lol:

[Anne2719]

We don't get our own personal threads, either.
Got a thread idea? Request it.

[Anne2719]

Grass clippings make a wonderful side salad with a particle garnish.
I have no idea what you're referring to, but may I add a dash of balsamic?

[Anne2719]

"Steel-like twine"???

Couldn't happen? In YOUR OPINION.

In my opinion: did happen.

[Wearing A Halo]

Even the jury said he was like soft Jello. So how could he come out of a slit in the womb all in one piece without damage, get a piece of steel-like twine around his neck without damage, float around in the sea without damage, get over the breakwater rocks without damage, go way up on the shore past the high tide mark without damage, and be found perfectly recognizable as a full term baby? Couldn't happen. No way.

Wow! I guess the "double knotted twine" became "steel-like twine" in one full swoop!

[Anne2719]

Wow! I guess the "double knotted twine" became "steel-like twine" in one full swoop!
Plus, it's not even twine, fer cryin out loud.

[Anne2719]

Because unlike a cervix the band will NOT expand to let the head pass through.
Well, in this case, the cervix didn't expand to let the head pass through, either.

I believe that the body snagged the tape, which wrapped around and tangled, resulting in something that resembled a bow. Happens in my laundry when there's a loose thread. Not hard for me to believe at all.

[Anne2719]

I remain convinced that Laci gave birth to Conner. The 'coming out the slit' hypothesis doesn't fly for me on way too many levels.
Gave birth vaginally? How, when there was no sign in the cervix? And I've heard nothing that said the pelvic bones had expanded -- the skeleton of a woman who has given birth vaginally is different from one who has not.

[Anne2719]

Skeletal pelvic expansion miraculously returning to its previous state? In what universe? Please provide a link where Dr Peterson could not rule out vaginal birth. I think you are making things up as you go along.

[Anne2719]

Sorry, not good enough. Chris Pixley saying he said it is like you saying he said it. Not good enough.

[Anne2719]

While you look, I'm going to bed.

[accordn2me]

Got a thread idea? Request it.Thank you, Anne. I would like to see an 'Exonerating Evidence' thread.


And a 'what the defense could've/should've done to defend Scott Lee Peterson from the accusation of murder of his wife and unborn son.

2 things....accordn2me, that should be addressed

[accordn2me]

IIRC his testimony, Dr Peterson said he could not absolutely rule out vaginal birth. Most women who have given birth haven't spent 111 days in the ocean as was alleged, so how can he be certain there were no changes? I know after an hour or so in water my skin puffs up.

Get out of the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This man has EXPERIENCE!:eek: :eek: :eek:

[enlightenme]

CNN Larry King Live
Aired November 17, 2003 - 21:00 ET

GRACE: I don't know why the doctor didn't rule it out, but I can tell you this much, and this is the reality. If it's not a vaginal birth and it's not a C-section, then somebody, I dare you, on this panel, to tell me what was it!

KING: Well, why didn't the doctor say that?

COCHRAN: Why didn't he say that?

GRACE: I can't answer that. But we all know it wasn't vaginal and it wasn't C-section, which leaves the obvious, the uterus, which is the last female organ to decompose, finally was worn down under water and the child escaped that way.

PIXLEY: This is the point of cross-examination, Larry. He says he doesn't believe that it was a vaginal delivery. He doesn't believe it was a C-section.

KING: All right, let me get a...

PIXLEY: And on cross-examination, he says, I can't rule it out.



I would love to see your hard drive. I'll bet it has every molecule of informations about this case, from whatever source. I'll bet you even have the transcripts downloaded from Marlene's site or timex. So why not post the REAL truth?

[thinkaboutit]

I would love to see your hard drive. I'll bet it has every molecule of informations about this case, from whatever source. I'll bet you even have the transcripts downloaded from Marlene's site or timex. So why not post the REAL truth?

Please - let's not go back to the ridiculous accusations that Marlene's transcripts are not REAL or are altered.

[enlightenme]

Please - let's not go back to the ridiculous accusations that Marlene's transcripts are not REAL or are altered.

They ARE altered though. I posted the PROOF a long time ago that she added the info about a LDT (Lie Detector Test) in her transcripts and I don't think that was "noted" at first, like it is now.

Supposedly, that info came from a National Enquirer article.

The "big news" was that he supposedly agreed to a LDT. There is no evidence he ever submitted to one.

[attorneywan2be]

Skeletal pelvic expansion miraculously returning to its previous state? In what universe? Please provide a link where Dr Peterson could not rule out vaginal birth. I think you are making things up as you go along.


Dr. Peterson testified that he could not rule out live birth...but as far as I know, he didn't specifically refer to "vaginal birth"

[Miss Bootsie]

Dr. Peterson testified that he could not rule out live birth...but as far as I know, he didn't specifically refer to "vaginal birth"

Dr. Peterson did specifically refer to vaginal birth.

No offense, but this is why I get soooo frustrated with the ng's. AW, you have read Dr. Peterson's testimony as many times as I have. You know darn well, he made it very clear, Laci did not deliver Conner vaginally.

How can we have a productive discussion when a couple of the ng's here refuse to acknowledge the facts.:shrug:




HARRIS: And you talked about the location, kind of where the uterus is at. When you look at this, you make this determination this individual had been pregnant, did you look to see if she had delivered this baby?

PETERSON: I did. The portion that, the term would be birth canal. So the lower portion of the uterus would involve the cervix, and then is the passages within the vagina. Those structures were closed. So a baby had not passed out in that direction.

HARRIS: You say not had not gone through?

PETERSON: Correct.

[Anne2719]

Dr. Peterson testified that he could not rule out live birth...but as far as I know, he didn't specifically refer to "vaginal birth"
Thank you! It sounded to me that he specifically ruled out vaginal birth. I was rereading the Peterson transcripts last night until my eyes crossed and I had to get some sleep.

[attorneywan2be]

Dr. Peterson did specifically refer to vaginal birth.

No offense, but this is why I get soooo frustrated with the ng's. AW, you have read Dr. Peterson's testimony as many times as I have. You know darn well, he made it very clear, Laci did not deliver Conner vaginally.

How can we have a productive discussion when a couple of the ng's here refuse to acknowledge the facts.:shrug:

Miss Bootsie..please read the posts that preceded my post, and the one I was replying to, the discussion was about whether or not Dr Peterson ruled out "vaginal Birth...so my post was addressing that point only..that Dr Peterson could not rule out Live birth, and that he didn't testify that he could not rule out vaginal birth..

[Anne2719]

My argument with Jim Jones was over his claim (which he couldn't substantiate) that the ME said he "couldn't rule out" vaginal birth. That, in my opinion, is a crock. Also, in my opinion, it's a crock that the child was born alive, or "born" in any way. There is no doubt in my mind that the fetus was expelled shortly before the bodies was discovered, it was in the water briefly before Laci's body disarticulated and broke free of the weights, and because their bodies were subject to the currents at different times and under different circumstances, they ended up a mile from each other. The testimony seems to support that scenario, and I accept it as the jury did.

[thinkaboutit]

I think it's a much more realistic accusation than this one:



which the poster has not been required to back up in any way.

Lacking the original transcripts it is impossible to independently verify that the ones Marlene posts are correct (and I assume you can see that I am not asserting that, I am just addressing the falsifiability of the claim). The other claim referenced above could be backed up immediately and conclusively, however, the poster (due to his protected status) is not required to, or even asked to - a condition that would be levied (and has been levieid) against posters that feel Scott is guilty.

So which is more ridiculous, logically?

If you or Enlightenme or anyone else wants to post all day long that Marlene added a portion of Scott's interview with Brocchini regarding a polygraph to the transcripts - because this portion had been removed from the transcript the jury saw - I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with you saying that you don't find that portion credible because supposedly the information came from the NE. Fine. But to simply state that Marlene's transcripts are altered - based on this one incident without stipulating that this is the only known altering of the transcripts - spreads false rumors and quite frankly - it infuriates me. The only transcripts I have access to - are Marlene's. However - so far - no one here has disputed anything I have said about the facts of this case. No one has ever posted any different version of any testimony I have posted from Marlene's site.

What is it about Jim Jones post that you have such a problem with? What exactly would you like for him to back up? I think it's pretty obvious that the prosecution didn't say what Jim Jones said - it's obvious to me it's a bit of an exaggeration - but if it bothers you - ask him for a link or a quote. If his posts bother you - pm a forum leader with some specific posts that you find are in violation of the rules. Personally - I haven't received one pm with a specific complaint. And I must add, on this board, I've seen mocking, I've seen comments about bias on the part of the forum leaders (impunity) - all of which are against the forum rules. However no one has said anything about these violations either.

Reminder to all - another option for reporting posts is to click on the little red triangle in the upper right hand corner of the offensive post.

[Anne2719]

IIRC his testimony, Dr Peterson said he could not absolutely rule out vaginal birth. Most women who have given birth haven't spent 111 days in the ocean as was alleged, so how can he be certain there were no changes? I know after an hour or so in water my skin puffs up.
By the way, Jim, I have just reread all the Brian Peterson testimony. Your sly "IIRC his testimony, Dr Peterson said he could not absolutely rule out vaginal birth" remark is just so much smoke and mirrors, prompting me to question anything and everything you say. There was absolutely nothing like that in his testimony, and your quote of Chris Pixley is an unconscionable attempt at trying to prove an intentionally false point. IMO.

[enlightenme]

My argument with Jim Jones was over his claim (which he couldn't substantiate) that the ME said he "couldn't rule out" vaginal birth. That, in my opinion, is a crock. Also, in my opinion, it's a crock that the child was born alive, or "born" in any way. There is no doubt in my mind that the fetus was expelled shortly before the bodies was discovered, it was in the water briefly before Laci's body disarticulated and broke free of the weights, and because their bodies were subject to the currents at different times and under different circumstances, they ended up a mile from each other. The testimony seems to support that scenario, and I accept it as the jury did.


I accept it too. To not accept it, IMO, is to have to concoct all kinds of wild scenarios that, frankly, make no common sense.

[enlightenme]

If you or Enlightenme or anyone else wants to post all day long that Marlene added a portion of Scott's interview with Brocchini regarding a polygraph to the transcripts - because this portion had been removed from the transcript the jury saw - I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with you saying that you don't find that portion credible because supposedly the information came from the NE. Fine. But to simply state that Marlene's transcripts are altered - based on this one incident without stipulating that this is the only known altering of the transcripts - spreads false rumors and quite frankly - it infuriates me. The only transcripts I have access to - are Marlene's. However - so far - no one here has disputed anything I have said about the facts of this case. No one has ever posted any different version of any testimony I have posted from Marlene's site.

What is it about Jim Jones post that you have such a problem with? What exactly would you like for him to back up? I think it's pretty obvious that the prosecution didn't say what Jim Jones said - it's obvious to me it's a bit of an exaggeration - but if it bothers you - ask him for a link or a quote. If his posts bother you - pm a forum leader with some specific posts that you find are in violation of the rules. Personally - I haven't received one pm with a specific complaint. And I must add, on this board, I've seen mocking, I've seen comments about bias on the part of the forum leaders (impunity) - all of which are against the forum rules. However no one has said anything about these violations either.

Reminder to all - another option for reporting posts is to click on the little red triangle in the upper right hand corner of the offensive post.

I don't know for sure if there are any other alterations in Marlene's transcripts because I have not found the time in my busy life to compare the timex transcripts (which I would have to get from someone else because I've deleted them) to Marlene's version. I'll assume that there is only one "addition" but I don't know for a fact that it is the only one.

[Anne2719]

I think that's unfair, Lavindar. I haven't seen thinkaboutit doing that at all. I've found her to be very fair and reasonable.

[thinkaboutit]

As a mother who had a child 100% natural & no complications, I know first hand that it is 100% impossible for Laci to have given birth to Conner without any signs left behind. At the very least, there would have been stitches or stitch markings and Conners umbibical cord would not have been shreded, it would have been cut and clipped close to his belly. It's not even a remote possiblity that he was born naturally or normally.

Stitches? I had both of my children 100% naturally - no drugs - no episiotomy - and never required any stitches.

[thinkaboutit]

I'm curious, TAI, as to why you are so defensive regarding Marlene's transcripts - would you be infuriated if I said the transcripts from trannysrus.com were altered?

I'mSun - I have posted on more than one Scott Peterson message board - as I'm sure you have. I have invested two years of researching this case (yes - I came in a bit later than everyone else). Marlene's transcripts are the only transcripts I have ever had access to.

This is why it angers me so - when people make these false accusations about Marlene's transcripts:

For the longest time - when I started researching this case - I stayed neutral. I always expected to come across something that convinced me that SP murdered Laci. I found Marlene's board - I asked questions, I read the transcripts - I became convinced of Scott's innocence. I invested alot of time - time I do not have - in researching this case. I have two children, a husband and I work full time. Then I joined another forum a few months ago - and for the first time I heard G's talking about these altered transcripts. My heart stopped. To think that I had spent so much time and had been - excuse my French for a lack of a better word - screwed. So I genuinely started asking for proof of altered transcripts - I got no response - only insulted - or the typical response - I don't have time to compare the transcripts for you. It wasn't until I was on this board that someone - I believe it was Enlightenme was kind enough to tell me what all this hullaballoo about altered transcripts was about. I was relieved to find out it was simply the polygraph portion of the interview with Brocchini - and angry at the same time that the G's would take advantage of this to discredit Marlene and cause me to feel the way I did and to take away alot of people's only opportunity to read the transcripts. How inconsiderate to try to make someone doubt something they feel so passionate about - and not take the time to prove it.

In addition to that I don't like unsubstantiated accusations - when it comes to anything.

P.S. - I have no idea what trannysrus.com is.

[thinkaboutit]

Replying to this post puts me at risk because I will not say the politically correct thing. I have found the transcripts on SII altered, misleading, or leaving out information for a few years now. Do I have PROOF? At this moment, only my memory, but I do have the REAL transcipts stored away so I, when time allows, will go over them again.

I disagree that "no one has disputed any thing I've said about the facts of this case" comment. Possibly no one cares to debate with you because you threaten everyone who disagrees with you. Your posts have been disputed many times and the "facts" you have posted are cut and pasted to favor what you are saying, they do not tell the whole story (truth).

Defending JJ is akin to favoring one out of many of your children. It is wrong. It is so obvious that he makes up everything or manipulates quotes and generally speaking provokes everyone endlessly. He has polluted this thread with his tirades, incorrect one's at that, but you defend him because he is a ng - then you try and say that's not so. Do you think everyone here is an idiot becasue that's how you treat everyone. You bark at everybody and quite frankly I am tired of it. If you cannot treat everyone the same, you should not be a mod, and you especially should not defend those who do not deserve defending.

Well - if you would be so kind to take the time to post here some examples of how the transcripts on SII are "altered, misleading, or leaving out information " I would genuinely appreciate it.

As to the rest of your post - I won't bother responding - because I'm sure there is no point.

[thinkaboutit]

By the way, Jim, I have just reread all the Brian Peterson testimony. Your sly "IIRC his testimony, Dr Peterson said he could not absolutely rule out vaginal birth" remark is just so much smoke and mirrors, prompting me to question anything and everything you say. There was absolutely nothing like that in his testimony, and your quote of Chris Pixley is an unconscionable attempt at trying to prove an intentionally false point. IMO.

Dr. Peterson absolutely ruled out vaginal birth:

HARRIS: Doctor, in terms of going back through that, some of these other potential ideas or hypotheticals, the one that I think that we do know from the physical state of the body of Laci Peterson that you examined is, Conner was not born vaginally; is that correct?

PETERSON: That's correct.

HARRIS: Didn't come out of an incision?

PETERSON: I found no incision.

HARRIS: So the only way that the body could have come out was through that torn, frayed portion at the top of the uterus?

PETERSON: Correct.

>>>>>>>>

GERAGOS: Okay. The, I'm accepting, obviously, your, deferring to your experience that you didn't see a vaginal birth, evidence of a vaginal birth?

PETERSON: That's correct. The birth canal was closed.


>>>>>>>>
GERAGOS: Well, I'm accepting, I'm accepting the fact, deferring to your observation, that there wasn't a vaginal delivery.

PETERSON: I'm saying there wasn't a vaginal delivery either before or after death.

[Erika]

I would think Conner was born alive given these estimates.

Conner was in the Bay with his dead mother.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Hi Accordn2me!! :) I hate to break our roll - but actually Dr. D is not solid as a rock. Dr. D used Conner's femur measurement to establish that Conner was in the 50th percentile. The problem with that is Dr. Jeanty (who's table he used to determine that the femur of 64mm = 33 weeks gestation) writes that using only one long bone in the latter half of the pregnancy will not yield mathematically valid results. The four long bones - humerus, tibia, ulna and femur - should all be measured and the average taken to derive gestational age. Devore did not do that.

http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/75

For some reason that link won't work when I post it here - but this is exactly what it says:
JOURNAL ARTICLE


Estimation of gestational age from measurements of fetal long bones
P. Jeanty, F. Rodesch, D. Delbeke and J. E. Dumont


The general practice of using fetal long bone growth charts to derive gestational age does not yield mathematically valid results. The authors tried to calculate gestational age from the lengths of long bones (femur, humerus, tibia, ulna) from 12 to 40 weeks of gestation. The combined use of the four bones allows a good estimation of gestational age that may be useful should the biparietal diameter measurement be unreliable, unobtainable, or abnormal.




Furthermore, Jeanty also writes that in the first half of the pregnancy, the two standards for determining gestational age are: the crown-rump length, maximum accuracy 7 to 9 weeks and the biparietal diameter, maximum accuracy 12 to 20 weeks. We know that Laci had an ultrasound at 20 weeks and Conner's bpd was 45 mm. (Sorry but I can't find the testimony to this right now).

According to Jeanty's chart - at 20 weeks with a bpd of 45 mm or 4.5 cm - Conner would have been in the 5th percentile - not the 50th:



http://hostingprod.com/@fetalanomalies.org/BPD.html (http://hostingprod.com/@fetalanomalies.org/BPD.html)

Conners gestational age, based on his femur measurement alone in the 5th percentile would have made him older than 33 weeks. More like 36 weeks.

IMO, it appears that Devore chose the only measurement that fit into his 50 percentile/33 weeks gestation theory - and ran with it.

actually, based on being in the 5th percentile that would have POSSIBLY made him younger (smaller, bottom 5th percentile....if it was larger he'd have been in the 95th percentile) but certainly not older.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

According to Dr. Peterson, Conner was a viable baby.

I've heard of babies being born at around 20 weeks (gestational age) and surviving.

I do not understand the issue(s) with the prosecution's experts.:confused:

to the best of my knowledge, the earliest viability is in the range of 24 2/7 weeks.

cyn

[Lavindar]

to the best of my knowledge, the earliest viability is in the range of 24 2/7 weeks.

cynI believe that Dr. Peterson said he could find no organ malformations that would indicate than Conner was not viable.

Personally, I consider a liquified brain and collapsing brain plates would prove that he was not viable. jmo

[PsychNurse;~)]

I believe that Dr. Peterson said he could find no organ malformations that would indicate than Conner was not viable.

Personally, I consider a liquified brain and collapsing brain plates would prove that he was not viable. jmo

i'm pretty sure he was referring specifically to the heart and lungs which are the two main reasons leading to non-viability. the outside of conner's organs were intact, it was the inside of his organs which had liquified.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

I would think Conner was born alive given these estimates.

my question would be how was he born?

laci's birth canal was closed--conner was not a vaginal birth.

laci's uterus had no incisions lengthwise or near the pubic bone where you'd expect someone to open the abdomen to take the baby.

the uterus was abraded at the top of the fundus with an opening.

1) if someone performed a c-section why is the uterus abraded and not cut? dr. peterson testified that if there had been a cut/trauma that there would have been bleeding, etc into the surrounding tissues and there wasn't any noted.

2) if someone performed a c-section why would they cut ABOVE laci's belly button and then reach down into her uterus?

who really finds either of those reasonable?

cyn

[JustMyOpinion]

my question would be how was he born?

laci's birth canal was closed--conner was not a vaginal birth.

laci's uterus had no incisions lengthwise or near the pubic bone where you'd expect someone to open the abdomen to take the baby.

the uterus was abraded at the top of the fundus with an opening.

1) if someone performed a c-section why is the uterus abraded and not cut? dr. peterson testified that if there had been a cut/trauma that there would have been bleeding, etc into the surrounding tissues and there wasn't any noted.

2) if someone performed a c-section why would they cut ABOVE laci's belly button and then reach down into her uterus?

who really finds either of those reasonable?

cyn

And, why would her shirt be removed, but her slacks & underwear kept on?
Given all the evidence, the crude c-sec theory is not reasonable, IMO.

[adnoid]

my question would be how was he born?...who really finds either of those reasonable?

You had to ask, didn't you? :D

[cookiewench]

I'mSun - I have posted on more than one Scott Peterson message board - as I'm sure you have. I have invested two years of researching this case (yes - I came in a bit later than everyone else). Marlene's transcripts are the only transcripts I have ever had access to.

This is why it angers me so - when people make these false accusations about Marlene's transcripts:

For the longest time - when I started researching this case - I stayed neutral. I always expected to come across something that convinced me that SP murdered Laci. I found Marlene's board - I asked questions, I read the transcripts - I became convinced of Scott's innocence. I invested alot of time - time I do not have - in researching this case. I have two children, a husband and I work full time. Then I joined another forum a few months ago - and for the first time I heard G's talking about these altered transcripts. My heart stopped. To think that I had spent so much time and had been - excuse my French for a lack of a better word - screwed. So I genuinely started asking for proof of altered transcripts - I got no response - only insulted - or the typical response - I don't have time to compare the transcripts for you. It wasn't until I was on this board that someone - I believe it was Enlightenme was kind enough to tell me what all this hullaballoo about altered transcripts was about. I was relieved to find out it was simply the polygraph portion of the interview with Brocchini - and angry at the same time that the G's would take advantage of this to discredit Marlene and cause me to feel the way I did and to take away alot of people's only opportunity to read the transcripts. How inconsiderate to try to make someone doubt something they feel so passionate about - and not take the time to prove it.

In addition to that I don't like unsubstantiated accusations - when it comes to anything.

P.S. - I have no idea what trannysrus.com is.

A transcript is a transcript. I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that a person who would alter one part of them would also alter another part of them - just as it is reasonable to assume that a person who lies about one thing will lie about another thing.

This is especially significant in Marlene's case, as she is such a stickler for "quoting the transcripts". That she added something from the interview which wasn't included in the testimony/transcripts shows her personal agenda.

And I think I'm probably the only inquiring mind who would like to know why you're spending time you claim not to have in "researching" this case.

It's not as if what you or I or anyone outside of Scott's legal team thinks makes a bit of difference in the real world.

[cookiewench]

If you or Enlightenme or anyone else wants to post all day long that Marlene added a portion of Scott's interview with Brocchini regarding a polygraph to the transcripts - because this portion had been removed from the transcript the jury saw.



Marlene has them posted as "trial transcripts". Anything that was not presented at trial is part of neither the trial or the transcripts, and it's dishonest to present it as such.

Just like - the fact that by the very next morning Scott told them that he had changed his mind and would not be taking a polygraph is not part of the transcripts, IIRC.

[Lavindar]

I would think Conner was born alive given these estimates. Fot Conner to have been born alive, Laci would have had to be alive and she was not. Her uterus was still at pregnancy size - it had not retracted as would be normal after birth. Her birth canal was still closed. There was no incision on her uterus so it's the original miracle birth Didn't come via a c-section; didn't come out her vagina.

[margaritaville]

Conner's gestational age at the time of Laci's disappearance:

32 weeks and 6 days on December 23rd---> 33 weeks on Dec 24th..

Dr. Edraki's testimony.. a doctor from the clinic that Laci used to go to..

David Harris: So the actual, if you were to go through and calculate it for that last entry on 12-23, if we use that gestational age, the wheel that we're talking about, that would have actually been 32-6?
Tina Edraki: 32 weeks and six days. And then if you look at her fundal height, where that 33 is, that's when we measure the uterus and that corresponds to her 32 and six, because usually the centimeters go along with how many weeks you are, if you are an average size person, which she was.

Conner's gestational age when his body was found:

1- 9 months

The Medical Examiner testified that Conner was a full term baby, his estimated gestational age 9 months

Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, one of the other things that you mentioned was, let's see, that you figured that there would be other tests to determine, you had estimated Conner as nine months, or as, a full-term infant, correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.

2- 35 weeks to 36 weeks

Dr. Alison Galloway, a prosecution witness, testified that based on the average measurements of Conner's bones, she estimated his gestational age between 35 weeks and 36 weeks..however, she adjusted it by a margin of error of 2 weeks plus or minus .. 33 weeks to 38 weeks..

The medical examiner's testimony about Galloway's report:

Brian Peterson: Well, she gives the actual measurement of the bone, and then I believe what she's listing is reference ranges from the references that she used.
Mark Geragos: Okay. The one, the first one, when she measured the humerus bone, the right humerus bone, it was, the range for the age of the baby was 36 to 38 weeks?
Brian Peterson: That's the first table.
Mark Geragos: And the second one was 35.6 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When she, when she measured the right femur, the first table was that the baby was 36 to 38 weeks?
Brian Peterson: It is.
Mark Geragos: And that the, on the other table it was 35.1 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: And when she measured the right tibia, she got 36 to 38 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And 36.3 weeks on the other scale, correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: When she measured, is it the parietal?
Brian Peterson: Parietal.
Mark Geragos: Parietal, the right parietal, the cord height, she got that the baby was 40 weeks, according to the schedule?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And when she did the perimeter height, she got 34 weeks?
Brian Peterson: She did.
Mark Geragos: When she did the cord width, she was at 34, the baby was at 34 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: The perimeter width, 36 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Cord height, 38 to 40 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Around the frontal.
Mark Geragos: The right frontal bone. A separate bone?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And perimeter height, 34 to 36 weeks?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Cord width 36 to 38 weeks; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And perimeter width, 34 to 36 weeks, correct?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. The lowest on any of these charts that she compared the baby, the measurements to, the absolute youngest that she has, and it's only on one, two, three, four of the measurements, is 34 weeks, correct?
Brian Peterson: That's correct.
Mark Geragos: And the average is roughly 36 to 38 weeks; is it not?
Brian Peterson: Let me see. She, she states a number of age ranges in her report, and it looks to me that her ultimate conclusion is listed as 33 to 38 weeks. I'm not sure if she drew an arithmetic average, or anything.
Mark Geragos: Okay. There's no measurement that she compares to here on her appendix where the baby's age was 33 weeks, is there?
Brian Peterson: Not in this table. She refers to in her report, though, with different racial groups.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Specifically there's a number, looks like one, two, three, four, five, six, six of the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, six of the eleven measurements go as high as 38 or 40 weeks; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: They do.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that would be, she was called in for her expertise on estimating age; isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: Yes, it was
-------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Galloway's testimony:

Mark Geragos: So if I understand correctly, when you actual did the measurements the baby came back at all three measurements a -- between 35 to 36. And then when you came to your conclusion, what you did is, you put a two-week window or kind of a cushion on either side of the 35 to 36?
Alison Galloway: That's actually the protocol for the study.
Mark Geragos: So am I correct, you went this -- 35 to 36 on the measurements?
Alison Galloway: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Put two weeks on 36 to get you to 38, put two weeks on the 35 to get you to 33?
Alison Galloway: That's correct.

Conclusion: we have the following set of facts:


Conner was 33 weeks when Laci disappeared

Conner was 40 weeks when he was found, that's according to the medical examiner

The measurements of 6 out of 11 of his bones put his age as high as 38 to 40 weeks...that's according to Dr. Galloway

The average measurements of his bones put his age between 35 and 36 weeks..that's according to Dr. Galloway

Is it reasonable to infer that Conner was older than 35 weeks when he was found..at least 2 weeks older than when Laci disappeared? Yes

Your thoughts?


My thoughts...
I am an average size woman. My first child weighed 9 lbs 2 ounces was 21 3/4 inches long and if you went by the "little wheel" I delivered him at 42 weeks. My second child was born at 40 weeks, he was 23 inches long and weighed 11 pounds 4 ounces... So do you suppose had I had him a month or so early he would still have been in the "full term range" as far as measuring his bones? Answer yes...
These measurements are an estimate and maybe Connor would have been a bigger baby... You would have never looked at me pregnant and thought I was having such a big baby. I gained the normal amount of weight and measured what I should... it is all an estimate...
No one is exactly the same!!

[enlightenme]

My thoughts...
I am an average size woman. My first child weighed 9 lbs 2 ounces was 21 3/4 inches long and if you went by the "little wheel" I delivered him at 42 weeks. My second child was born at 40 weeks, he was 23 inches long and weighed 11 pounds 4 ounces... So do you suppose had I had him a month or so early he would still have been in the "full term range" as far as measuring his bones? Answer yes...
These measurements are an estimate and maybe Connor would have been a bigger baby... You would have never looked at me pregnant and thought I was having such a big baby. I gained the normal amount of weight and measured what I should... it is all an estimate...
No one is exactly the same!!


You are SOOOOO right. 40 weeks is the "average". 98.6 is the "average" temperature for MOST people but my family has a history of being under the average there.

I'm 5' 1" and had two babies who were over 8 pounds. My doctors didn't even predict that.

Dr. March trying to prove that Conner was about 4 days older when he died is ridiculous!

[One2Snoop]

You are SOOOOO right. 40 weeks is the "average". 98.6 is the "average" temperature for MOST people but my family has a history of being under the average there.

I'm 5' 1" and had two babies who were over 8 pounds. My doctors didn't even predict that.

Dr. March trying to prove that Conner was about 4 days older when he died is ridiculous!

I'll second that! :beer:

[Lavindar]

I'll second that! :beer:

Dr, Marche's field of expertise was fertility, not gestaional age or forensic anthrolopology. He imploded cuz he was trying to backstep. HE said he based his information on the medical records but where did Rene Tomlinson figure into the medical records. There was nothing in the medical records about a pregnancy test taken on the date he said. He based his information on gossip, not the medical records.

[TopGunner]

You are SOOOOO right. 40 weeks is the "average". 98.6 is the "average" temperature for MOST people but my family has a history of being under the average there.

I'm 5' 1" and had two babies who were over 8 pounds. My doctors didn't even predict that.

Dr. March trying to prove that Conner was about 4 days older when he died is ridiculous!

It wasn't just March EnL - I just about fell off my chair reading Sharon's book when she wrote about ISP on the phone with Kim Peterson, telling her to tell the media that the due date had been changed - which blew Sharon away because he was (once again) lying.:flamemad:

[Rosie_02]

It wasn't just March EnL - I just about fell off my chair reading Sharon's book when she wrote about ISP on the phone with Kim Peterson, telling her to tell the media that the due date had been changed - which blew Sharon away because he was (once again) lying.:flamemad:

Exactly! Laci talked to her mom the night she was murdered (or the night before), They talked about how laci was feeling. For someone who tells their mother ALMOST everything, you would think she would mention that the due date was moved almost a week later, then what she was originally told. Laci was so excited about Connor arriving, you would think that it would be something she would want to share with her mom.

Btw.. Hi :seeya:

[Rosie_02]

Oh .. I forgot IMO.
sorry, im new at this.
*wink

[frydaddy]

I'm on the fence about certain aspects of this case. Could you ladies please elaborate on your height, weight, and any other dimensions you deem pertinent to my making an informed decision on this portion of the case? :cool:


:biggrin:

[enlightenme]

I'm on the fence about certain aspects of this case. Could you ladies please elaborate on your height, weight, and any other dimensions you deem pertinent to my making an informed decision on this portion of the case? :cool:


:biggrin:


Fat chance frydaddy!

Oops, did I say "fat"? Okay, okay, I am working on getting these stupid 20 extra pounds off. But they ARE in nice places. :rolleyes:

[Lavindar]

I'm on the fence about certain aspects of this case. Could you ladies please elaborate on your height, weight, and any other dimensions you deem pertinent to my making an informed decision on this portion of the case? :cool:


:biggrin: I believe that information is classified. What is your security clearance please.

[I'mSun]

I'm on the fence about certain aspects of this case. Could you ladies please elaborate on your height, weight, and any other dimensions you deem pertinent to my making an informed decision on this portion of the case? :cool:


:biggrin:I'd tell you, but I don't have a link to back it up.

[frydaddy]

Using my better judgment here and not letting this thread get hijacked with off topic banter any further, I will resist asking where the nice places are, I will keep my G-4 classification to myself, and I will keep any visuals that might present themselves to a discrete minimum, since there isn't a link to back them up. I will however whine incessantly about my parade being rained on and cuss about my soggy Cheerios. :mad:

[Lavindar]

I would think Conner was born alive given these estimates. Like your avatar - is that your dog?

[thinkaboutit]

It wasn't just March EnL - I just about fell off my chair reading Sharon's book when she wrote about ISP on the phone with Kim Peterson, telling her to tell the media that the due date had been changed - which blew Sharon away because he was (once again) lying.:flamemad:

Laci's doctor must have discussed the new 2-16-03 date with Scott and Laci at one of her appointments after the second ultrasound. If Scott was lying as you say - then it is an awfully big coincidence that the new due date 2-16-03 (according to Scott) is the same as the "corrected EDC" of 2-16-03 on Laci's medical records.

Sharon also thought Scott was lying when he told her that Laci was sitting on her bench in the bathroom curling her hair. Sharon had no knowledge of a bench in the bathroom - but we all know now that she did have one.

[TopGunner]

:punch: Like your avatar - is that your dog?

Lavindar, I was thinking the same thing. That pup is a cutie!:D

[Lavindar]

Laci's doctor must have discussed the new 2-16-03 date with Scott and Laci at one of her appointments after the second ultrasound. If Scott was lying as you say - then it is an awfully big coincidence that the new due date 2-16-03 (according to Scott) is the same as the "corrected EDC" of 2-16-03 on Laci's medical records.

Sharon also thought Scott was lying when he told her that Laci was sitting on her bench in the bathroom curling her hair. Sharon had no knowledge of a bench in the bathroom - but we all know now that she did have one.

There was a picture of one - that does not mean that it was in there all the time. Amy told me she was not aware of one either. Scott could have put it there to support his "hair curling" story as well as dragging out the curling iron. Just because it was there AFTER her death, does not mean it was there prior to her death. After all, he claimed she was mopping the floor and there was a bucket and mop by the front door. He never claimed Laci put them there, did he? He claimed he got her the water to mop the floor, and amazingly, a mop and bucket appear where the maid did not leave them from the day before.

[Lavindar]

Laci's doctor must have discussed the new 2-16-03 date with Scott and Laci at one of her appointments after the second ultrasound. If Scott was lying as you say - then it is an awfully big coincidence that the new due date 2-16-03 (according to Scott) is the same as the "corrected EDC" of 2-16-03 on Laci's medical records.

Sharon also thought Scott was lying when he told her that Laci was sitting on her bench in the bathroom curling her hair. Sharon had no knowledge of a bench in the bathroom - but we all know now that she did have one.


Reread Endaki's testimony on changes of due dates.

[thinkaboutit]

There was a picture of one - that does not mean that it was in there all the time. Amy told me she was not aware of one either. Scott could have put it there to support his "hair curling" story as well as dragging out the curling iron. Just because it was there AFTER her death, does not mean it was there prior to her death. After all, he claimed she was mopping the floor and there was a bucket and mop by the front door. He never claimed Laci put them there, did he? He claimed he got her the water to mop the floor, and amazingly, a mop and bucket appear where the maid did not leave them from the day before.

Are you aware that the photo of the bench in the bathroom was taken the night of the 24th?

You really don't think it's possible that Laci had a bench in her bathroom that her mother and sister were not aware of?

[thinkaboutit]

Reread Endaki's testimony on changes of due dates.

I don't need to - the corrected EDC date was 2-16-03 per the testimony and Scott said Laci's new due date was 2-16-03. That is the only point I am making. I'm not saying they actually - officially changed her due date - I'm saying that Scott did not just pull that information out of the air - he was not "lying" as others have said he was.

[TopGunner]

Reread Endaki's testimony on changes of due dates.

Hey Lavindar, did Laci's Dr., who she saw on the 23rd, testify that he informed Laci and Scott during their visit on the 23rd that he was changing the due date to the 16th? I can't seem to find anything that confimes a changed date.

[Lavindar]

Hey Lavindar, did Laci's Dr., who she saw on the 23rd, testify that he informed Laci and Scott during their visit on the 23rd that he was changing the due date to the 16th? I can't seem to find anything that confimes a changed date.


I can find no place a doctor told Laci of a changed date. Can anyone provide that information?

[TopGunner]

I can find no place a doctor told Laci of a changed date. Can anyone provide that information?

All I've been able to find, after searching all night, is the Hollywood (MG) spin, Yip never testified to changing the date.:beer:

[Lavindar]

All I've been able to find, after searching all night, is the Hollywood (MG) spin, Yip never testified to changing the date.:beer:
YIP NEVER TESTIFIED THAT I CAN FIND

[thinkaboutit]

I guess it's just some huge coincidence that Scott pulled the 2-16-03 date out of the air and it just happened to be the corrected EDC date.

[I'mSun]

I guess it's just some huge coincidence that Scott pulled the 2-16-03 date out of the air and it just happened to be the corrected EDC date.Being as nobody can find it in the TS, it just might be a coincidence. Makes me sad to see this because it reminds me of how old Conner would be now. He would be almost 4 1/2, is he had been allowed to live. But Scott wanted them gone.

[thinkaboutit]

Being as nobody can find it in the TS, it just might be a coincidence. Makes me sad to see this because it reminds me of how old Conner would be now. He would be almost 4 1/2, is he had been allowed to live. But Scott wanted them gone.

No one can find a corrected EDC date of 2-16-03 in the TS?

[Lavindar]

No one can find a corrected EDC date of 2-16-03 in the TS? No one can find where Laci or Scott were given a change of date. The testimony says that the original date is assumed to be correct if the change is under 7 days. Dr Yip also told that to Det Owens in the preliminary testimony. Neither of the two doctors who testified stated that they notified either Scott OR Laci of a date change

[Lavindar]

I guess it's just some huge coincidence that Scott pulled the 2-16-03 date out of the air and it just happened to be the corrected EDC date.
Sure is and that he reported it AFTER the records were given to his attorneys.
Laci never told anyone that the date was changed - at least not in the testimony - and that change was made in SEPTEMBER, NOT DECEMBER

[thinkaboutit]

Sure is and that he reported it AFTER the records were given to his attorneys.
Laci never told anyone that the date was changed - at least not in the testimony - and that change was made in SEPTEMBER, NOT DECEMBER

When were Laci's medical records given to Scott's attorneys? Are you actually suggesting that Laci's medical records were given to Scott's attorneys in January of 2003?

[thinkaboutit]

No one can find where Laci or Scott were given a change of date. The testimony says that the original date is assumed to be correct if the change is under 7 days. Dr Yip also told that to Det Owens in the preliminary testimony. Neither of the two doctors who testified stated that they notified either Scott OR Laci of a date change

Okay - let me see if I have all of this straight...


Even though there is a corrected EDC of 2-16-03....because Laci didn't tell Sharon Rocha that there was a corrected EDC - then Scott is lying that there was a new due date....yes ...someone on this board said Scott was "lying". And we are to assume that the results of the second ultrasound were not discussed with Laci because she didn't discuss it with Sharon?

And because Sharon Rocha didn't know about the bench in the bathroom....then Scott may have put it there (on the 24th) so he could tell Sharon at a later date that Laci looked cute sitting on her bench styling her hair.

And because Jackie Peterson said that Laci called the Land Rover a piece of (you know what) - and she didn't tell this to Sharon or her other family members - then Jackie is not only lying - she is trying to make everyone believe that Laci confided in only her.

I think I've got it now.

[caphill]

All I've been able to find, after searching all night, is the Hollywood (MG) spin, Yip never testified to changing the date.:beer:


If you look at the exhibits presented during the trial you will see that Laci's medical records clearly show her due had been extended.

[TopGunner]

If you look at the exhibits presented during the trial you will see that Laci's medical records clearly show her due had been extended.


Clearly, I disagree: :D

19 MR. HARRIS: Q. Detective, go back through the medical
20 records. You were asked about the due date, that there
21 were, in fact, two due dates that were estimated by the
22 doctors in this particular case?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you had testified yesterday about there being
25 some difference between the two and the doctors didn't
26 change them. I want to just flesh that out for a minute.
27 Did the doctor explain to you why that he did not
28 change the due date from February 10th?

1329
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What did the doctor explain?
3 A. Explained that because they were within one week,
4 the margin of error made it such that they would keep the
5 due date.
6 Q. The doctor kind of gave you a range that there's a
7 plus or minus when you start looking at the ultrasounds?
8 A. Plus or minus --
9 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 MR. HARRIS: Q. Did the doctor give you some statement
12 about a plus or minus with the ultrasound?
13 A. Yes. He explained that there is a two-week plus or
14 minus, and if the dates line up with any time in between
15 those, they stick to the date that they originally came up
16 with.
17 Q. And did the doctor indicate to you which they
18 believed was the most accurate?
19 A. Yes. The February 10th.

[adnoid]

Clearly, I disagree: :D

Well, you've also got to remember that 2/10 didn't work for Scott, because it was Amber's birthday. As part of his dumping of Amber, Scott had planned to go to Fresno and leave that bag of presents under a tree at the Children's Hospital, as further proof he had no interest in her. Any type of attention to Conner on that day would interfere with this important task. I'm sure he ran this by Laci's family, him being such a gentleman and all, and they understood.

Here is an interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786735/) of Amber by Mat Lauer that gives some details.

I have always found that you can tell a lot about a person by their position on Amber. People that attack her, call her an ungrateful mistress who should have kept quiet, say she was a prostitute, etc. while defending Scott seem to be the sort I would want nothing to do with in my personal life. JMO.

[Lavindar]

If you look at the exhibits presented during the trial you will see that Laci's medical records clearly show her due had been extended.


BUT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY SHE WAS TOLD THAT - in fact, both doctors said it is practice NOT to change the date if the difference is LESS than 7 days.

It was a notation, not a change. And it was done in September, yet she wasn't "allegedly" (according to Scott) told this until December? And not by the doctor who made the notation?

[thinkaboutit]

BUT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY SHE WAS TOLD THAT - in fact, both doctors said it is practice NOT to change the date if the difference is LESS than 7 days.

It was a notation, not a change. And it was done in September, yet she wasn't "allegedly" (according to Scott) told this until December? And not by the doctor who made the notation?

When did Scott say that he wasn't told until December?

And a previously unanswered question of mine - when were Laci's medical records turned over to the defense?

[Lavindar]

When did Scott say that he wasn't told until December?

And a previously unanswered question of mine - when were Laci's medical records turned over to the defense?
Scott didn't mention it until January which was the first time Sharon ever heard it. The doctor's records would have been subpoenaed by the defense immediately. That is standard procedure.

[thinkaboutit]

Scott didn't mention it until January which was the first time Sharon ever heard it. The doctor's records would have been subpoenaed by the defense immediately. That is standard procedure.

Just because Scott didn't mention it until January to Sharon doesn't mean he hadn't known about it since September.

I can't imagine a woman having an ultrasound - the doctor notating a possible change in the EDC and not mentioning it to the woman.

It is NOT standard procedure for a defense to subpoena doctor's records prior to any charges being filed or before they even know whether the victim is dead yet.

[caphill]

Clearly, I disagree: :D

19 MR. HARRIS: Q. Detective, go back through the medical
20 records. You were asked about the due date, that there
21 were, in fact, two due dates that were estimated by the
22 doctors in this particular case?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you had testified yesterday about there being
25 some difference between the two and the doctors didn't
26 change them. I want to just flesh that out for a minute.
27 Did the doctor explain to you why that he did not
28 change the due date from February 10th?

1329
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What did the doctor explain?
3 A. Explained that because they were within one week,
4 the margin of error made it such that they would keep the
5 due date.
6 Q. The doctor kind of gave you a range that there's a
7 plus or minus when you start looking at the ultrasounds?
8 A. Plus or minus --
9 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. Leading.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 MR. HARRIS: Q. Did the doctor give you some statement
12 about a plus or minus with the ultrasound?
13 A. Yes. He explained that there is a two-week plus or
14 minus, and if the dates line up with any time in between
15 those, they stick to the date that they originally came up
16 with.
17 Q. And did the doctor indicate to you which they
18 believed was the most accurate?
19 A. Yes. The February 10th.


It is not a matter of whether you agree or disagree. It is a fact the estimated due date on Laci Peterson's written medical records was changed to 2/16/03.

Who is this witness that is being questioned by Mr. Harris. Why was this witness giving heresay testimony about what the Dr said to her/him? The Dr who was acually determining the info that was put on Laci's medical chart should have been the one testifying and not someone repeating what they said the Dr. said...........

[caphill]

Just because Scott didn't mention it until January to Sharon doesn't mean he hadn't known about it since September.

I can't imagine a woman having an ultrasound - the doctor notating a possible change in the EDC and not mentioning it to the woman.

It is NOT standard procedure for a defense to subpoena doctor's records prior to any charges being filed or before they even know whether the victim is dead yet.


The medical charts were presented to the court as a prosecution exhibit. Since this was a prosecution exhibit, they then cherry picked a witness that would cause some confusion for jury about the info that was clearly on this standard medical chart used for OB patients.

I agree with you that surely the Dr. would have discussed the findings of the ultrsound and the change of the due date with a new mother to be.

The original due date was the date placed on the chart by the office medical clerk/assistance when Laci first came to the office to begin her pre natal care.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about. After Laci began seeing the Drs for exams and sonograms, the Dr changed her due to a later date based on the info obtained through the medical examinations. What is so difficult to understand about that standard procedure.

This response is not directed to anyone in particular, just those who are working so hard to ignore the facts placed on the chart by the examing Dr.

[attorneywan2be]

The medical charts were presented to the court as a prosecution exhibit. Since this was a prosecution exhibit, they then cherry picked a witness that would cause some confusion for jury about the info that was clearly on this standard medical chart used for OB patients.

I agree with you that surely the Dr. would have discussed the findings of the ultrsound and the change of the due date with a new mother to be.

The original due date was the date placed on the chart by the office medical clerk/assistance when Laci first came to the office to begin her pre natal care.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about. After Laci began seeing the Drs for exams and sonograms, the Dr changed her due to a later date based on the info obtained through the medical examinations. What is so difficult to understand about that standard procedure.

This response is not directed to anyone in particular, just those who are working so hard to ignore the facts placed on the chart by the examing Dr.


I find it curious that the prosecution didn't call Laci's doctor .."Dr. Yip"


David Harris: All right. Doctor, let's try and deal with the second ultrasound. The second ultrasound. It was taken by Dr. Yip, right? You agree with that?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you saw the pictures which show you what the actual measurements were?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: So you take the actual measurements and you plug them in and you get certain dates by using the formulas in the machine, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: Those dates, by using those formulas in the machine, has a corrected due date of February 16th, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you recall reading Dr. Endraki's testimony and Dr. Tow's testimony that in their practice they didn't change the due date?
Charles March: That's correct.
David Harris: So the doctors that were there that dealt with Laci Peterson, who had the accurate information in front of them, said It makes no difference to us because it's within six days; right?
Charles March: The question has a lot of parts; and the doctors that dealt with Laci Peterson included Dr. Yip, who did change the date.
David Harris: And Dr. Tow-Der -- Dr. Tow is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And Dr. Endraki is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And they both said in their practice it is the standard practice of their office, if it's within one week, they don't change the date?
Charles March: But the date was changed in the medical records. Not by me, by Dr. Yip.
Judge Delucchi: No, the question was -- was the -- was the practice of the other two doctors that they did not change the date of birth if it was within six days?
Charles March: I -- okay. I'm sorry, sir, I misunderstand --
Judge Delucchi: I think that was the question, I believe.
Charles March: I just didn't know how many doctors
1 you were speaking about. Yes. Doctor Tow-Der does not change and Dr. Endraki does not change, but Dr. Yip does.
David Harris: And you have that information because there's a notation that it says corrected EDC of 2/16?
Charles March: Yes, sir.

[USAHICK]

Just because Scott didn't mention it until January to Sharon doesn't mean he hadn't known about it since September.

I can't imagine a woman having an ultrasound - the doctor notating a possible change in the EDC and not mentioning it to the woman.

It is NOT standard procedure for a defense to subpoena doctor's records prior to any charges being filed or before they even know whether the victim is dead yet.


Scott didn't mention it to anyone until January, and then it was to Kim Peterson - OF ALL PEOPLE - requesting she tell the MEDIA.

Now, where I come from, we'd tell family members and LE that information. The media would be our last concern.

[USAHICK]

The medical charts were presented to the court as a prosecution exhibit. Since this was a prosecution exhibit, they then cherry picked a witness that would cause some confusion for jury about the info that was clearly on this standard medical chart used for OB patients.

I agree with you that surely the Dr. would have discussed the findings of the ultrsound and the change of the due date with a new mother to be.

The original due date was the date placed on the chart by the office medical clerk/assistance when Laci first came to the office to begin her pre natal care.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about. After Laci began seeing the Drs for exams and sonograms, the Dr changed her due to a later date based on the info obtained through the medical examinations. What is so difficult to understand about that standard procedure.


This response is not directed to anyone in particular, just those who are working so hard to ignore the facts placed on the chart by the examing Dr.

Here's the fuss. The medical records were never changed. Nobody, but the KILLER - as per usual - knew about any "change." Yip never testified that he changed the due date. I believe earlier testimony posted clearly said that estimated due dates can run a week after OR A WEEK BEFORE the original due date, thus it is NOT formally changed on the records, and it was not.

So, tell me again, who's ignoring what facts?

[thinkaboutit]

Here's the fuss. The medical records were never changed. Nobody, but the KILLER - as per usual - knew about any "change." Yip never testified that he changed the due date. I believe earlier testimony posted clearly said that estimated due dates can run a week after OR A WEEK BEFORE the original due date, thus it is NOT formally changed on the records, and it was not.

So, tell me again, who's ignoring what facts?

The medical records had a corrected EDC. It was 2-16-03.

Upper right hand corner:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/56-1.jpg

Now the testimony was that they don't officially change the due date - because typically the first EDC that is calculated from the LMP is much more accurate than the EDC calculated at 20 weeks from the ultrasound since by 20 weeks - genetics take over and some babies are smaller than others as some babies are larger than others. But it is noted on the medical records and more than likely discussed with the mother.

Scott knew of the 2-16-03 date so the only logical conclusion is that the doctor discussed this with Scott and Laci at some point after the second ultrasound in September.

The only other conclusion - which is neither logical or probable is that Scott picked a date out of thin air and it magically, coincidentally turned out to be the same as the corrected EDC on Laci's medical records?

Why is it such an issue? Because Sharon didn't know about it? Just because Laci didn't tell Sharon she had a bench in her bathroom or that she wanted a new car or that the ultrasound calculated an EDC six days later than her original due date or that her husband had bought a new boat or that her husband had had an affair years earlier - doesn't mean that Laci wasn't close to her mother. I don't tell my mother everything - but I talk to her every day and we are very close. Just as Amy not knowing that Laci and Scott had hired a maid - doesn't mean they weren't close either.

[Lavindar]

The medical records had a corrected EDC. It was 2-16-03.

Upper right hand corner:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/56-1.jpg

Now the testimony was that they don't officially change the due date - because typically the first EDC that is calculated from the LMP is much more accurate than the EDC calculated at 20 weeks from the ultrasound since by 20 weeks - genetics take over and some babies are smaller than others as some babies are larger than others. But it is noted on the medical records and more than likely discussed with the mother.

knew of the 2-16-03 date so the only logical conclusion is that the doctor discussed this with Scott and Laci at some point after the second ultrasound in September.

The only other conclusion - which is neither logical or probable is that Scott picked a date out of thin air and it magically, coincidentally turned out to be the same as the corrected EDC on Laci's medical records?

Why is it such an issue? Because Sharon didn't know about it? Just because Laci didn't tell Sharon she had a bench in her bathroom or that she wanted a new car or that the ultrasound calculated an EDC six days later than her original due date or that her husband had bought a new boat or that her husband had had an affair years earlier - doesn't mean that Laci wasn't close to her mother. I don't tell my mother everything - but I talk to her every day and we are very close. Just as Amy not knowing that Laci and Scott had hired a maid - doesn't mean they weren't close either.

Yet NO DOCTOR ever said they told Laci of the date change. They had the two doctors who saw her AFTER the change date. Do we know that Dr. Yip told her of the change. Based on Det Owen's conversation with Dr. Yip, the change would not have been told as it was withint he week of the original date. That is the only testimony we have from Dr. Yip - oh and his call to the Modesto Bee denying that Laci had an ultrasound in Dec as Geragos kept trying to say
Laci allegedly knew from SEPTEMBER that her date had changed, yet told NO ONE? Nor did she put it in her pregnancy diary

Oh, and Laci and Scott NEVER hired a maid. Sharon did as a gift for Laci since she was so tired

[Lavindar]

If you look at the exhibits presented during the trial you will see that Laci's medical records clearly show her due had been extended. There was a "notation" - that does not mean the patient was notified. Dr. Yip DID NOT TESTIFY so we do not KNOW if he told Laci or not.

[accordn2me]

The prosection didn't need any more help in their slam dunk. The defense sure could have used at least one favorable witness. "Dr." Charles March certainly wasn't what they needed. Wonder why the defense didn't call Laci's doctor?

I find it curious that the prosecution didn't call Laci's doctor .."Dr. Yip"


David Harris: All right. Doctor, let's try and deal with the second ultrasound. The second ultrasound. It was taken by Dr. Yip, right? You agree with that?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you saw the pictures which show you what the actual measurements were?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: So you take the actual measurements and you plug them in and you get certain dates by using the formulas in the machine, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: Those dates, by using those formulas in the machine, has a corrected due date of February 16th, right?
Charles March: Yes, sir.
David Harris: And you recall reading Dr. Endraki's testimony and Dr. Tow's testimony that in their practice they didn't change the due date?
Charles March: That's correct.
David Harris: So the doctors that were there that dealt with Laci Peterson, who had the accurate information in front of them, said It makes no difference to us because it's within six days; right?
Charles March: The question has a lot of parts; and the doctors that dealt with Laci Peterson included Dr. Yip, who did change the date.
David Harris: And Dr. Tow-Der -- Dr. Tow is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And Dr. Endraki is his partner, isn't she?
Charles March: Yes.
David Harris: And they both said in their practice it is the standard practice of their office, if it's within one week, they don't change the date?
Charles March: But the date was changed in the medical records. Not by me, by Dr. Yip.
Judge Delucchi: No, the question was -- was the -- was the practice of the other two doctors that they did not change the date of birth if it was within six days?
Charles March: I -- okay. I'm sorry, sir, I misunderstand --
Judge Delucchi: I think that was the question, I believe.
Charles March: I just didn't know how many doctors
1 you were speaking about. Yes. Doctor Tow-Der does not change and Dr. Endraki does not change, but Dr. Yip does.
David Harris: And you have that information because there's a notation that it says corrected EDC of 2/16?
Charles March: Yes, sir.

[attorneywan2be]

Snip

Scott knew of the 2-16-03 date so the only logical conclusion is that the doctor discussed this with Scott and Laci at some point after the second ultrasound in September.

The only other conclusion - which is neither logical or probable is that Scott picked a date out of thin air and it magically, coincidentally turned out to be the same as the corrected EDC on Laci's medical records?


Snip




Excellent point..:beer:

[thinkaboutit]

Yet NO DOCTOR ever said they told Laci of the date change. They had the two doctors who saw her AFTER the change date. Do we know that Dr. Yip told her of the change. Based on Det Owen's conversation with Dr. Yip, the change would not have been told as it was withint he week of the original date. That is the only testimony we have from Dr. Yip - oh and his call to the Modesto Bee denying that Laci had an ultrasound in Dec as Geragos kept trying to say
Laci allegedly knew from SEPTEMBER that her date had changed, yet told NO ONE? Nor did she put it in her pregnancy diary

Oh, and Laci and Scott NEVER hired a maid. Sharon did as a gift for Laci since she was so tired

That was very nice of Sharon to do that for Laci - but regardless - Amy didn't know about it.

First of all - as you pointed out Dr. Yip didn't testify.

Can you point me to the testimony where an witness was asked if Laci was told about the changed EDC and they said no??

Like I said - the only other possibility is that Scott magically pulled the 2-16-03 date out of the air because I don't believe as you have claimed that Scott had access to Laci's medical records. But even if he did (which I reiterate - I don't believe he did) - he still didn't lie - if what you say is true - he got it from her medical records (which I don't believe he did).

[attorneywan2be]

There was a "notation" - that does not mean the patient was notified. Dr. Yip DID NOT TESTIFY so we do not KNOW if he told Laci or not.

So how did Scott know that Dr. Yip changed it to 2/16??

[adnoid]

So how did Scott know that Dr. Yip changed it to 2/16??

Cannot be determined from facts and testimony in evidence.

[I'mSun]

Cannot be determined from facts and testimony in evidence.You are corect! :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

Cannot be determined from facts and testimony in evidence.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/smilie_thinking-1.gif

Yep, you are correct. :beer:

[TopGunner]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/smilie_thinking-1.gif

Yep, you are correct. :beer:


Hey, wait for me!!! :beer: CHEERS!

[I'mSun]

Hey, wait for me!!! :beer: CHEERS!

LMAO!! Looks like we all agree on Adnoid's post :beer:

[adnoid]

LMAO!! Looks like we all agree on Adnoid's post :beer:

:beer: I totally agree! Good point! :beer:

[Lavindar]

Okay - let me see if I have all of this straight...


Even though there is a corrected EDC of 2-16-03....because Laci didn't tell Sharon Rocha that there was a corrected EDC - then Scott is lying that there was a new due date....yes ...someone on this board said Scott was "lying". And we are to assume that the results of the second ultrasound were not discussed with Laci because she didn't discuss it with Sharon?

And because Sharon Rocha didn't know about the bench in the bathroom....then Scott may have put it there (on the 24th) so he could tell Sharon at a later date that Laci looked cute sitting on her bench styling her hair.

And because Jackie Peterson said that Laci called the Land Rover a piece of (you know what) - and she didn't tell this to Sharon or her other family members - then Jackie is not only lying - she is trying to make everyone believe that Laci confided in only her.

I think I've got it now.

I think that it's ok for you to make up scenarios, but not for someone else to think. Do you have a copy of the medical record wehre it SAYS that patient was notified as to the change of date? You seem to have access to all the records. I believe the notation was simply a notation of the sonogram, since Laci (aka JABBER JAWS) never mentioned this to ANYONE, not even her lamaze companions.

[JustMyOpinion]

So how did Scott know that Dr. Yip changed it to 2/16??

Since Scott chose not to testify, he hasn't supplied an answer to this question. The testimony from physicians was clear. Her due date was not "changed".

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott knew of the 2-16-03 date so the only logical conclusion is that the doctor discussed this with Scott and Laci at some point after the second ultrasound in September.


.

This appears to be YOUR logical conclusion. It is not "the only logical conclusion"..IMO.
Since Scott did not testify and was not questioned on this point, you are speculating......IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

This appears to be YOUR logical conclusion. It is not "the only logical conclusion"..IMO.
Since Scott did not testify and was not questioned on this point, you are speculating......IMO.

Can you give us one other POSSIBLE logical explanation as to how Scott knew about the 2-16-03 date?

[thinkaboutit]

I think that it's ok for you to make up scenarios, but not for someone else to think. Do you have a copy of the medical record wehre it SAYS that patient was notified as to the change of date? You seem to have access to all the records. I believe the notation was simply a notation of the sonogram, since Laci (aka JABBER JAWS) never mentioned this to ANYONE, not even her lamaze companions.

If Laci didn't know - how did Scott know?

[JustMyOpinion]

Can you give us one other POSSIBLE logical explanation as to how Scott knew about the 2-16-03 date?

Perhaps he saw the dates in her chart at the 12/23 visit, perhaps he obtained her medical records after she went missing, perhaps he attended the earlier visit where the ultrasound was performed and information shared and recalled the 2/16 "date".............those are a few I can come up with.

[USAHICK]

If Laci didn't know - how did Scott know?


IMO since Scott didn't make this announcement until January and then it was to inform the media, not friends, family, or LE, it's obvious at some point after he murdered Laci and Conner he was made aware of the informal, untestified to, normal estimation of a week before to a week after the given due date. I believe YIP did this ultrasound in September so if this was a formal change of due date then Laci would have known and would have told everyone. She also would have noted it her diary.

[thinkaboutit]

Perhaps he saw the dates in her chart at the 12/23 visit, perhaps he obtained her medical records after she went missing, perhaps he attended the earlier visit where the ultrasound was performed and information shared and recalled the 2/16 "date".............those are a few I can come up with.

The only reason we are even discussing (ad nauseum) this 2/16 date is because it has been said that Scott LIED about the due date being changed. Whether he saw the dates on her chart or he obtained her medical records - it still isn't a lie.

Your last scenario "perhaps he attended the earlier visit where the ultrasound was performed and information shared and recalled the 2/16 "date"" is exactly what I think happened also.

[USAHICK]

The only reason we are even discussing (ad nauseum) this 2/16 date is because it has been said that Scott LIED about the due date being changed. Whether he saw the dates on her chart or he obtained her medical records - it still isn't a lie.

Your last scenario "perhaps he attended the earlier visit where the ultrasound was performed and information shared and recalled the 2/16 "date"" is exactly what I think happened also.


Scott did lie. He took a perfectly normal (saying the baby can arrive a week before or a week after the given due date) and manipulated it to cover his tracks. That is obvious, and nothing will convince me otherwise except for YIP taking the stand and saying the date was changed and the patients were informed by him.
Since YIP didn't testify to formally changing the date or to informing the Petersons of that change, I will take it to mean it didn't happen.

[JustMyOpinion]

The only reason we are even discussing (ad nauseum) this 2/16 date is because it has been said that Scott LIED about the due date being changed. Whether he saw the dates on her chart or he obtained her medical records - it still isn't a lie.

Your last scenario "perhaps he attended the earlier visit where the ultrasound was performed and information shared and recalled the 2/16 "date"" is exactly what I think happened also.

I don't know who "we" is. It appears to me you are stating your own reasons for participating in a discussion of the 2/16 date. Since I wasn't present when Scott had a conversation w/ Kim Petersen ( or anyone else) about the 2/16 date, and Scott chose not to testify, I don't have any way of ascertaining whether or not Scott "lied", or any way of ascertaining how he came by the information JMO. It is clear to me based on facts in evidence that Laci's due date was never changed............JMO

[adnoid]

Scott did lie. He took a perfectly normal (saying the baby can arrive a week before or a week after the given due date) and manipulated it to cover his tracks...

Or, IMO, to hopefully not have a lot of attention paid to 2/10 as he was going to be taking Amber birthday presents and trying to get together with her that day. Attention paid to the son he murdered would be inconvenient and result in possible loss of nookie.

[JustMyOpinion]

Or, IMO, to hopefully not have a lot of attention paid to 2/10 as he was going to be taking Amber birthday presents and trying to get together with her that day. Attention paid to the son he murdered would be inconvenient and result in possible loss of nookie.

ITA this is entirely possible. IMO.. SP's motivations for every act he commits are consistently and blatantly self-serving...

[attorneywan2be]

Cannot be determined from facts and testimony in evidence.

It's circumstantial evidence...

We have 2 sets of established facts:

1-Dr Yip made a notation in Laci's medical records that says corrected EDC of 2/16..
2-Scott stated that her due date changed to 2/16..

IMO, it would be illogical to infer that Scott fabricated the 2/16 date ..why? simply because there was a notation in Laci's medical records made by Dr. Yip that the corrected EDC was indeed 2/16.....we can reasonably infer that the corrected EDC was shared with Scott..

[adnoid]

It's circumstantial evidence...

We have 2 sets of established facts:

1-Dr Yip made a notation in Laci's medical records that says corrected EDC of 2/16..
2-Scott stated that her due date changed to 2/16..

IMO, it would be illogical to infer that Scott fabricated the 2/16 date ..why? simply because there was a notation in Laci's medical records made by Dr. Yip that the corrected EDC was indeed 2/16.....we can reasonably infer that the corrected EDC was shared with Scott..

You know, I really like the way you are thinking here. A lot. I'd love to apply these principals at this level of abstraction on the analysis of circumstantial evidence and the inferences one can reasonably draw to some of the other threads we have - what do you say?

[USAHICK]

Since I have seen the copies of Laci's medical charts and have seen that Dr Yip listed her estimated due after the sonogram as 2/16/03 I know it did happen.

The jury also saw the medical chart as it was presented as an evidence exhibit. I guess the jury decided to not believe their lying eyes.

I would find it highly unusual that an OB doctor would do a sonogram or any other test and not discuss the results with the patient. I have never known any of my doctors to do tests and make "secret" notations about the results.

It wasn't much of a secret since Scott happened to know the due date of his son. Was Scott present when the ultrasound was done in Sept?

Yes, I see fairies dancing when it's a full moon.

Link? Yip's testimony? Copies of the medical charts?

[attorneywan2be]

You know, I really like the way you are thinking here. A lot. I'd love to apply these principals at this level of abstraction on the analysis of circumstantial evidence and the inferences one can reasonably draw to some of the other threads we have - what do you say?


That is a great idea!!..However, starting today thru Friday, I will not be able to devote a lot of time to discuss that..I have to take care of lots of errands...IMO, this discussion would entail extensive analysis and I'm willing to do it..I look forward to discuss it..

[TopGunner]

Yes, I see fairies dancing when it's a full moon.

Link? Yip's testimony? Copies of the medical charts?

Don't hold your breath Hick! :seeya:

[Lavindar]

Yes, I see fairies dancing when it's a full moon.

Link? Yip's testimony? Copies of the medical charts? I looked in Sharon's book to see if there was a journal entry by Laci on the 24th of September. There was:

September 24, 2002

I am 20 weeks pregnant and my tummy is finally bulging out. Today we had another sonogram and we were able to find out the sex of our child. It's a boy. We were excited to know the sex of our child. It makes our pregnancy even more realistic. Now we need to focus on names nd decorating the nursery.

She does NOT mention a change of due date. Laci called sharon to tell her, and then stopped by her office to tell her again in person. But nothing about any due date change. Until I see the record nad it says DUE DATE CHANGED, I am assuming that it merely states a date based on sonogram, not an official date given the testiomny by the doctors, which I am sure will be ignored because they know NOTHING>

[adnoid]

...She does NOT mention a change of due date. Laci called sharon to tell her, and then stopped by her office to tell her again in person. But nothing about any due date change. Until I see the record nad it says DUE DATE CHANGED, I am assuming that it merely states a date based on sonogram, not an official date given the testiomny by the doctors, which I am sure will be ignored because they know NOTHING>

In re-reading the news articles from that time, the 2/10 date is the only one I see mentioned. It only seems that the 2/16 date started to be mentioned by Scott is when it got close and he needed to find some way to be with Amber on her birthday (Amber's wishes being unimportant, of course) and didn't want to have to appear sad and be tied up that day.