Switching Sides! [Archive] - Page 2 - Crime Library Message Boards

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 02:23 PM

I theorized that Laci was abducted and kept alive for several weeks after her disappearance...I think her killers left her to urinate in her pants repeatedly forming those mineral deposits that were found in the crotch area of her pants..the medical examiner testified that in order for those mineral deposits to form her pants had to have gone thru alternate cycles of wetting and drying..of course, I simply would not accept that her pants could have dried out if her body was at the bottom of the bay..in addition, those deposits were only found in the crotch area of her pants...to me that's another indication that they could have been from urine..meaning if they would analyze those deposits they might find her DNA...again, this is only based on my theory..!(my emphasis) aw2b....the medical examiner said he was not an expert qualified to make this determination, he also said he couldn't tell the different from freshwater/saltwater barnacles, he was offering one possibility for something he didn't understand. I'm sure if a geologist or some such other expert in that area were called they could fully explain the mineral deposits, or whatever they really were. However, one wasn't called. Call it a missed chance. But don't fret too much over that...like all of the other evidence that MG promised to present but didn't....I seriously doubt it would have turned out in Scott's favor.

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 02:24 PM

So in your theory, these mineral deposits are kidney stones??

In the several weeks that Laci was kept alive, she only peed and not do a number 2??

Did the abductors only give her water and no bread, crackers or candy bars (snickers)??

No, I think they possibly allowed her to go to the bathroom once or twice a day, however, a pregnant woman usually urinates frequently...specially late in the pregnancy...

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 02:27 PM

(my emphasis) aw2b....the medical examiner said he was not an expert qualified to make this determination, he also said he couldn't tell the different from freshwater/saltwater barnacles, he was offering one possibility for something he didn't understand. I'm sure if a geologist or some such other expert in that area were called they could fully explain the mineral deposits, or whatever they really were. However, one wasn't called. Call it a missed chance. But don't fret too much over that...like all of the other evidence that MG promised to present but didn't....I seriously doubt it would have turned out in Scott's favor.

I think Scott's appellate attorneys can still request that those deposits be tested..it is evidence that was never tested during the trial..IMO, the results will be in his favor..!

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 02:34 PM

I think Scott's appellate attorneys can still request that those deposits be tested..it is evidence that was never tested during the trial..IMO, the results will be in his favor..!I hope you're right. I'd like to see your mind put at ease. Unfortunately, I believe you are wrong. The mineral deposits are old news. The defense knew about those deposits in plenty of time to have them tested. They chose not to. Missed opportunity.

deputydi

05-23-2007, 02:35 PM

I think Scott's appellate attorneys can still request that those deposits be tested..it is evidence that was never tested during the trial..IMO, the results will be in his favor..!
It is also a point MG never challenged. You keep forgetting an apellate court is not a retrial of the facts. If the evidence you consider so important was never introduced at trial, it cannot be revisited during the appeal.

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 02:43 PM

I think Scott's appellate attorneys can still request that those deposits be tested..it is evidence that was never tested during the trial..IMO, the results will be in his favor..!

How do you purport to know whether or not Defense had the deposits tested?
Dr.Henry Lee was working for them, isn't it possible he ordered analysis/testing of some of the evidence? What does this have to do with an Appellate issue?

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 02:45 PM

How do you purport to know whether or not Defense had the deposits tested?
Dr.Henry Lee was working for them, isn't it possible he ordered analysis/testing of some of the evidence? What does this have to do with an Appellate issue?

Good point!

Do you know if the Peterson's have ever floated their own theory of what happened to Laci & Conner?

Wearing A Halo

05-23-2007, 02:48 PM

No, I think they possibly allowed her to go to the bathroom once or twice a day, however, a pregnant woman usually urinates frequently...specially late in the pregnancy...

Okay, is it your educated guess that these mineral deposits are kidney stones? Do you have any other EG for these mineral deposits if you don't think they are kidney stones?

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 02:52 PM

Good point!

Do you know if the Peterson's have ever floated their own theory of what happened to Laci & Conner?

I don't know that they have specificallly floated a theory. They have offered a $5,000 reward for information leading to recovery of Laci's Croton Watch. and are offering $250,000 for specific information leading to arrest & conviction for the abduction/murder of Laci Peterson OR for specific information leading to the exoneration & release of Scott Peterson.

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 02:53 PM

I hope you're right. I'd like to see your mind put at ease. Unfortunately, I believe you are wrong. The mineral deposits are old news. The defense knew about those deposits in plenty of time to have them tested. They chose not to. Missed opportunity.

Unfortunately, the defense didn't test them..but if Scott wins his appeal, the defense can test them in the second trial....I think it is also possible his appellate attorneys would get them tested on the grounds that they were evidence introduced by the prosecution that was never tested..I'm not positive if it is possible or not..!

Here is why I strongly believe that the mineral deposits came from urine: they were ONLY found in the crotch area of her pants...none was found on her bras...none was found anywhere else on her pants...!

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 02:55 PM

Unfortunately, the defense didn't test them..

How can you possibly purport to know this?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 02:57 PM

Okay, is it your educated guess that these mineral deposits are kidney stones? Do you have any other EG for these mineral deposits if you don't think they are kidney stones?

As I mentioned in my previous post, because they were only found in the crotch area of her pants I believe they came from urine..that's the only EG I have regarding the mineral deposits...

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 03:06 PM

How can you possibly purport to know this?

Why would I believe otherwise? the defense didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits..no one testified that the defense tested the mineral deposits..

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 03:08 PM

As I mentioned in my previous post, because they were only found in the crotch area of her pants I believe they came from urine..that's the only EG I have regarding the mineral deposits...

?? I think it's entirely possible someone could lose bladder control as a result of being smothered or strangled. I also think it's entirely possible membranes could have ruptured as a result of prolonged fetal distress when blood flow/oxygen supply to placenta was diminished over several minutes as a result of maternal strangulation/smother .. ( which is likely why unexpressed meconium was found still inside Conner.) But, I'm still not certain why you think Laci's urine would contain mineral deposits? There was no testimony from her care-givers that she had an abnormal urine test on 12/23, or was complaining of pain associated with something like kidney stones.. IIRC

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 03:12 PM

Why would I believe otherwise? the defense didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits..no one testified that the defense tested the mineral deposits..

Dr Henry Lee & Cyril Wecht claim they examined the remains, reviewed all of the evidence..why would Dr Henry Lee not order testing of any evidence he thought required testing or analysis..IYO? Do you think he's an incompetent criminalist?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 03:25 PM

?? I think it's entirely possible someone could lose bladder control as a result of being smothered or strangled. I also think it's entirely possible membranes could have ruptured as a result of prolonged fetal distress when blood flow/oxygen supply to placenta was diminished over several minutes as a result of maternal strangulation/smother .. ( which is likely why unexpressed meconium was found still inside Conner.) But, I'm still not certain why you think Laci's urine would contain mineral deposits? There was no testimony from her care-givers that she had an abnormal urine test on 12/23, or was complaining of pain associated with something like kidney stones.. IIRC

They found a lot of mineral deposits in the crotch area of her pants..according to the medical examiner the pants had to have gone thru repeated cycles of wetting and drying over a period of time..so I would not agree that could have occurred because of being smothered..

Laci did suffer from urinary tract infection at one point during her pregnancy..so it is quite possible she got the infection during her captivity and of course it was not treated...urinary tract infections are common during pregnancy....again this is just my theory..

Lisa Martin: Looks like I spoke to her on July 17th, advising her of her positive urinary tract infection.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Lisa Martin: And the medications were called in.

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 03:28 PM

Dr Henry Lee & Cyril Wecht claim they examined the remains, reviewed all of the evidence..why would Dr Henry Lee not order testing of any evidence he thought required testing or analysis..IYO? Do you think he's an incompetent criminalist?

I have no idea whether or not he examined the pants....I think they only examined the bodies...

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 03:31 PM

They found a lot of mineral deposits in the crotch area of her pants..according to the medical examiner the pants had to have gone thru repeated cycles of wetting and drying over a period of time..so I would not agree that could have occurred because of being smothered..

Laci did suffer from urinary tract infection at one point during her pregnancy..so it is quite possible she got the infection during her captivity and of course it was not treated...urinary tract infections are common during pregnancy....again this is just my theory..

Lisa Martin: Looks like I spoke to her on July 17th, advising her of her positive urinary tract infection.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Lisa Martin: And the medications were called in.

?? A UTI would have been detected in her 12/23 office visit ( urine samples are routine at prenatal visits in my experience) and there is NO report or notation that she was complaining of UTI symptoms on the 12/23 visit.
Since the ME couldn't even identify what the deposits were and testified he had only come up with a hypothesis.. How do you know "they HAD to have gone through repeated cycles"?? Are you saying you believe the ME's hypothesis about mineral deposits, but discount the ME's actual OPINION as to the state of remains and discount his OPINION that Laci went into the water with Conner inside?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 03:43 PM

?? A UTI would have been detected in her 12/23 office visit ( urine samples are routine at prenatal visits in my experience) and there is NO report or notation that she was complaining of UTI symptoms on the 12/23 visit.
Since the ME couldn't even identify what the deposits were and testified he had only come up with a hypothesis.. How do you know "they HAD to have gone through repeated cycles"?? Are you saying you believe the ME's hypothesis about mineral deposits, but discount the ME's actual OPINION as to the state of remains and discount his OPINION that Laci went into the water with Conner inside?

The mineralization process is common knowledge..I do agree with his hypothesis on that...and I don't agree with his opinion that Laci went into the water with Conner inside...

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 03:47 PM

The mineralization process is common knowledge..I do agree with his hypothesis on that...and I don't agree with his opinion that Laci went into the water with Conner inside...

LOL,, okay. I would think the mineral deposits ( if they were crucial evidence) would have been tested by someone other than a medical examiner, do you think Henry Lee is an incompetent criminalist? Do you think Wecht was not competent to come in and succesfully challenge the ME's testimony? What do you rely on in discounting the ME's testimony?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 03:55 PM

LOL,, okay. I would think the mineral deposits ( if they were crucial evidence) would have been tested by someone other than a medical examiner, do you think Henry Lee is an incompetent criminalist? Do you think Wecht was not competent to come in and succesfully challenge the ME's testimony? What do you rely on in discounting the ME's testimony?

I consider the twine around Conner's neck exonerating evidence that would directly contradict the ME's opinion that Laci went into the water with Conner inside...I don't accept that the twine was a debris that got over Conner's head..I think Dr. Wecht stated that the twine could not have been a debris in a million years....do you think Dr. Wecht is not competent?

Wearing A Halo

05-23-2007, 03:55 PM

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 03:59 PM

I consider the twine around Conner's neck exonerating evidence that would directly contradict the ME's opinion that Laci went into the water with Conner inside...I don't accept that the twine was a debris that got over Conner's head..I think Dr. Wecht stated that the twine could not have been a debris in a million years....do you think Dr. Wecht is not competent?

Nope, I don't think Wecht is an incompetent forensic pathologist, but he contradicted his own statements in the media that he had made about the debris prior to being hired by Geragos. I think what Wecht was willing to say on television is entirely different than what his testimony would have been under oath, JMO.
As for the tape-like material, the testimony about that came from a criminalist. Do you think Henry Lee is an incompetent criminalist? Why would he not test the tape-like material ( or the mineral deposits) and come into court & testify..IYO?

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 04:06 PM

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 04:09 PM

I think you mean "Why do you rely on the the portions of the ME's testimony that support your conclusion and discount the portions of the ME's testimony that do not support your conclusion?"......... I don't have to pick apart witnesses that I accept and say I discount 1 thing they say but accept the rest.

Just me, of course.I don't understand rejecting a credible expert's testimony in his field of expertise....yet accepting one possible theory of his in an area that he specifically testifies is not is field of expertise. :shrug:

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 04:11 PM

I spoke with my brother who has had 2 rounds of kidney stones. According to him, they actually form INSIDE your kidneys. He never had them in his underwear. They are a precipitate formed in (some part of the kidney I forgot already) that cause excruciating pain when they attempt to move out of the kidneys.
urethra, maybe?

but when they form....i bet it's not in a dry area.....

Wearing A Halo

05-23-2007, 04:16 PM

I spoke with my brother who has had 2 rounds of kidney stones. According to him, they actually form INSIDE your kidneys. He never had them in his underwear. They are a precipitate formed in (some part of the kidney I forgot already) that cause excruciating pain when they attempt to move out of the kidneys.

You are right adnoid. We (and AW2B hopefully) can conclude that these mineral deposits were not kidney stones and did not come from urine. So where did these mineral deposits come from then AW2B?

ekg

05-23-2007, 04:17 PM

:eek: Like where?

If I knew that I'd solve the case:patriot:

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 04:20 PM

To your knowledge, are kidney stones formed by repeated cycles of wetting and drying pants?

My theory has nothing to do with kidney stones..I didn't say she was passing kidney stones..

My theory:

Her captive left her to URINATE in her pants repeatedly..so the crotch area of her pants would go thru cycles of alternate wetting (from urine) and drying (between urination her pants would dry out)..forming those deposits..IMO, this probably occurred over several weeks of captivity..

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 04:24 PM

I spoke with my brother who has had 2 rounds of kidney stones. According to him, they actually form INSIDE your kidneys. He never had them in his underwear. They are a precipitate formed in (some part of the kidney I forgot already) that cause excruciating pain when they attempt to move out of the kidneys.

My theory has nothing to do with passing kidney stones into the underwear...I just explained that in my previous post...!

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 04:26 PM

OK, they precipitate from your urine in the PELVIS of the kidney (which is very wet, being full of urine all the time). In his case it was because he was DEHYDRATED and he keeps them at bay by DRINKING MORE WATER.

And I'm not going to call him again on this subject - his tone of voice is getting odd...:lol: What a beautiful post, adnoid! :rose:

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 04:30 PM

:lol: What a beautiful post, adnoid! :rose:

LOL...isn't a beautiful colorful post..!

thinkaboutit

05-23-2007, 04:32 PM

ekg

05-23-2007, 04:37 PM

To your knowledge, are kidney stones formed by repeated cycles of wetting and drying pants?

why do you keep calling them kidney stones? AW2B called them mineral deposits didn't she?

a kidney stones forms in the kidney and is passed out of the body....

AW2B is saying that the repeated urination and then drying in the panties is what caused mineral deposits to form... not that Laci passed a kidney stone and that was the cause of the mineral deposits..

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 04:39 PM

I theorized that Laci was abducted and kept alive for several weeks after her disappearance...I think her killers left her to urinate in her pants repeatedly forming those mineral deposits that were found in the crotch area of her pants..the medical examiner testified that in order for those mineral deposits to form her pants had to have gone thru alternate cycles of wetting and drying..of course, I simply would not accept that her pants could have dried out if her body was at the bottom of the bay..in addition, those deposits were only found in the crotch area of her pants...to me that's another indication that they could have been from urine..meaning if they would analyze those deposits they might find her DNA...again, this is only based on my theory..!

HEY AW2B,

I knew I was not dreaming. It was you talking about Laci being alive. I talked about that in one of my post didn't you see it. I could not remember who wrote. That is a HELL of a theory and IMO a good one if I might say. God wish you would have said something awhile back I thought I was going CRAZYYYYYYYY. Go Theory I would give you pos rep but it want let me because I have already given you so.SORRY:shrug:

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 04:40 PM

why do you keep calling them kidney stones? AW2B called them mineral deposits didn't she?

a kidney stones forms in the kidney and is passed out of the body....

AW2B is saying that the repeated urination and then drying in the panties is what caused mineral deposits to form... not that Laci passed a kidney stone and that was the cause of the mineral deposits..

ekg..thank you :seeya:

ekg

05-23-2007, 04:43 PM

You are right adnoid. We (and AW2B hopefully) can conclude that these mineral deposits were not kidney stones and did not come from urine. So where did these mineral deposits come from then AW2B?

??well of course they weren't kidney stones....and anyway, weren't you the only to be bring them up? I still can't find where AW2B said they were kidney stones..:confused:

but the mineral deposits still could have come from urine....

It's the best theory out there IMO..... I mean can you give a reason why just the crotch of her panties formed these deposits which were caused by repeated wetting and drying?

being on the bottom of bay is counter to that explanation since there wouldn't be any drying... and even if there was, it would be in more places than just the crotch wouldn't it?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 04:48 PM

HEY AW2B,

I knew I was not dreaming. It was you talking about Laci being alive. I talked about that in one of my post didn't you see it. I could not remember who wrote. That is a HELL of a theory and IMO a good one if I might say. God wish you would have said something awhile back I thought I was going CRAZYYYYYYYY. Go Theory I would give you pos rep but it want let me because I have already given you so.SORRY:shrug:

Hi dallasvic..

I posted about this theory on other message boards..Marlene's old public BB..I did mention it here a while ago..which post are you referring to where you talked about it? sorry I missed it..

Thank you for the pos rep you tried to give me...

ekg

05-23-2007, 04:48 PM

ekg..thank you :seeya:

you're welcome..

I can't see where kidney stones have anything to do with what you're talking about...... sure kidney stones are mineral deposits in the urinary tract... but you're not talking those kind...just like you're not talking about the kind of mineral deposits that form from a volcano eruption....LOL

and it's a GREAT theory BTW...

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 04:48 PM

??well of course they weren't kidney stones....and anyway, weren't you the only to be bring them up? I still can't find where AW2B said they were kidney stones..:confused:

but the mineral deposits still could have come from urine....

It's the best theory out there IMO..... I mean can you give a reason why just the crotch of her panties formed these deposits which were caused by repeated wetting and drying?

being on the bottom of bay is counter to that explanation since there wouldn't be any drying... and even if there was, it would be in more places than just the crotch wouldn't it?
No...it wouldn't necessarily be in more places that just the crotch.

And the medical examiner that proposed one possibility for those deposits said nothing about urine. You know....the ME that couldn't tell a freshwater barnacle from a saltwater barnacle!

pssst.....is there any such thing as a freshwater barnacle? :shrug:

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 04:50 PM

Thanks - but I'm not going to do it again. All that time changing colors, bold, underline, etc. derails my train of thought, and my post didn't make much sense. Sorry!

That's funny....some of your posts go over my head....but I understood that one perfectly.

I hope your BIL is not getting kidney stones again. You should check on him in a couple of weeks. :chicken:

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 04:54 PM

??well of course they weren't kidney stones....and anyway, weren't you the only to be bring them up? I still can't find where AW2B said they were kidney stones..:confused:

but the mineral deposits still could have come from urine....

It's the best theory out there IMO..... I mean can you give a reason why just the crotch of her panties formed these deposits which were caused by repeated wetting and drying?

being on the bottom of bay is counter to that explanation since there wouldn't be any drying... and even if there was, it would be in more places than just the crotch wouldn't it?

First of all, the deposits weren't tested, the ME said they looked like mineral deposits. The ME didn't say how many episodes of wetting & drying he thought it would take to form these mineral deposits... does anyone have a link to what the OP claims is common knowledge? I think the deposits are more compatible with amniotic fluid www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/77.pdf
If the membranes ruptured as a result of prolonged fetal distress due to strangulation/suffocation of Laci.. there could have been wetting/drying/wetting of the material..IMO. ( rupture/time lapse before disposal/disposal)

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 04:55 PM

Okay, is it your educated guess that these mineral deposits are kidney stones? Do you have any other EG for these mineral deposits if you don't think they are kidney stones?

Who stated they were kidney stone? I thought aw2b stated they were mineral deposits, those are two different thing. Yall I am getting :confused: :shrug:
Which one is please tell me ?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 05:07 PM

Who stated they were kidney stone? I thought aw2b stated they were mineral deposits, those are two different thing. Yall I am getting :confused: :shrug:
Which one is please tell me ?

Exactly..I was talking about the mineral deposits...

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 05:16 PM

you're welcome..

I can't see where kidney stones have anything to do with what you're talking about...... sure kidney stones are mineral deposits in the urinary tract... but you're not talking those kind...just like you're not talking about the kind of mineral deposits that form from a volcano eruption....LOL

and it's a GREAT theory BTW...

LOL...

I'm glad you agree with my theory..

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 05:18 PM

LOL,, okay. I would think the mineral deposits ( if they were crucial evidence) would have been tested by someone other than a medical examiner, do you think Henry Lee is an incompetent criminalist? Do you think Wecht was not competent to come in and succesfully challenge the ME's testimony? What do you rely on in discounting the ME's testimony?

JMO Everything that was given to Henry Lee you can believe he has had everything tested and retested. This man is GOOD. If they ever get any new updates from Henry Lee in SP favor I bet he would get a retrial and win. If it is against him he is staying on dR. I love to watch Henry work he is great.He takes things that we would never think of and show you exactly how this things happen AMAZING MAN

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 05:22 PM

Exactly..I was talking about the mineral deposits...

Thanks LMAO, I am glad you cleared that up. And GREAT theory

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 05:24 PM

JMO Everything that was given to Henry Lee you can believe he has had everything tested and retested. This man is GOOD. If they ever get any new updates from Henry Lee in SP favor I bet he would get a retrial and win. If it is against him he is staying on dR. I love to watch Henry work he is great.He takes things that we would never think of and show you exactly how this things happen AMAZING MAN

hi dallisvic
I do agree that Dr Lee would have looked at the State's evidence and tested/analyzed all of the available evidence to try to poke holes in their theory. Had he been able to successfully challenge the evidence, he would have testified under oath, IMO. There is NO WAY I believe Dr Lee would leave any "stone unturned" as an expert criminalist investigating for the defense in this case..JMO

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 05:30 PM

First of all, the deposits weren't tested, the ME said they looked like mineral deposits. The ME didn't say how many episodes of wetting & drying he thought it would take to form these mineral deposits... does anyone have a link to what the OP claims is common knowledge? I think the deposits are more compatible with amniotic fluid www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/77.pdf (http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/77.pdf)
If the membranes ruptured as a result of prolonged fetal distress due to strangulation/suffocation of Laci.. there could have been wetting/drying/wetting of the material..IMO. ( rupture/time lapse before disposal/disposal)

When someone is to the point of totally fear or being strangled ,suffocated , hit with a blunt object they lose control of bodily fictions. They don't have to be dying or fear . People that have seizures lose their functions during one and I mean #1 you know what I mean

Wearing A Halo

05-23-2007, 05:38 PM

My theory has nothing to do with kidney stones..I didn't say she was passing kidney stones..

My theory:

Her captive left her to URINATE in her pants repeatedly..so the crotch area of her pants would go thru cycles of alternate wetting (from urine) and drying (between urination her pants would dry out)..forming those deposits..IMO, this probably occurred over several weeks of captivity..

So, you believe that this sort of process: that is URINE on pants, drying and more URINE on pants form mineral deposits? If you do, please post links to this process that actually states that URINE on pants that dry, then URINE again over and over several weeks form mineral deposits on pants.

ekg

05-23-2007, 05:45 PM

OK, tell you what. Find one instance of this actually happening - not speculation, some documentation of a person actually having minerals formed in their pants from repeatedly peeing in them - and I'll concede your point.

It's not like it happens all the time and we're wondering if it happened to Laci, as far as I can tell if it happened to Laci it's the first time in the history of the world it ever happened to anyone under any conditions.

But I could be wrong. I await the documentation.

Oh please.. all the speculation about the bodies is just that. speculation b/c noone has every studied what a pregnant body would do in the SF bay...

the 'perfect storm' that brought them ashore is another item of speculation b/c it can't be reproduced...kinda like "it's the first time in the history of the world it ever happened" and it happened in this case..

we already have that one item for the history books, so why not 2?

urine contains minerals.... it stands to reason that a period of wetting and drying from frequently peeing in your pants could cause a mineral build-up...it's as good of a theory as any other...so instead of getting all crabby, gimme a different theory of how mineral deposits were formed on her panties....

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 05:54 PM

ekg

05-23-2007, 06:08 PM

I totally disagree that an experienced, credentialed medical examiner was engaging in speculation when he testified as to his findings under oath.
The storm did happen, and the hydrologist specializes in movement of sediment/objects in San Francisco Bay.
Why didn't Geragos bring Wecht to testify under oath..and bring a hydrologist to challenge/dispute the testimony of these experts..IYO?

tell that to Doctor Devore

499. Is there something -- did you take into account what happens to the bone if it's been in water? Did you build in any factor for that?

500. No, I didn't build in a factor for the water.

501. Did you talk to Doctor Galloway and ask her what her experience is with bones that have been immersed in water?

502. No.

503. Is there any of the studies that you use that talk about -- talk about what happens if the body has been in marine environments, what that does to the bones?

504. None of the authors took patients from that environments and studied them, no.

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 06:13 PM

Oh please.. all the speculation about the bodies is just that. speculation b/c noone has every studied what a pregnant body would do in the SF bay...

the 'perfect storm' that brought them ashore is another item of speculation b/c it can't be reproduced...kinda like "it's the first time in the history of the world it ever happened" and it happened in this case..

we already have that one item for the history books, so why not 2?

urine contains minerals.... it stands to reason that a period of wetting and drying from frequently peeing in your pants could cause a mineral build-up...it's as good of a theory as any other...so instead of getting all crabby, gimme a different theory of how mineral deposits were formed on her panties....Well, at least you believe they were in the SF bay!

Someone....Miss Bootsie, cookiewench, enlightenme....could have even been as far back as Lili....said something about the minerals probably having something to do with the concrete anchors Scott made to weight Laci's body down. This sounds a little more plausible than mineralized urine deposits, don't you agree?

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 06:14 PM

tell that to Doctor Devore

Dr DeVore is not a medical examiner or forensic pathologist. DeVore is an expert in maternal-fetal medicine who testified as to his opinion about Conner's gestational age.

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 06:26 PM

Well, at least you believe they were in the SF bay!

Someone....Miss Bootsie, cookiewench, enlightenme....could have even been as far back as Lili....said something about the minerals probably having something to do with the concrete anchors Scott made to weight Laci's body down. This sounds a little more plausible than mineralized urine deposits, don't you agree?

You think it is more plausible that the minerals found on Laci's pants came from the concrete anchors..!?

Then how do you explain the fact that those minerals deposits were ONLY found in the crotch area of her pants...none was found on her bras..none was found for example, on the waistband of her pants...none was found around the zipper area of her pants...let me put it this way...none was found anywhere else on her pants except for the crotch area...

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 06:31 PM

You think it is more plausible that the minerals found on Laci's pants came from the concrete anchors..!?

Then how do you explain the fact that those minerals deposits were ONLY found in the crotch area of her pants...none was found on her bras..none was found for example, on the waistband of her pants...none was found around the zipper area of her pants...let me put it this way...none was found anywhere else on her pants except for the crotch area...

I don't know what the deposits were, but I don't understand how you imagine a vivid scenario of Laci being held captive for weeks and wetting her pants daily ( but sometimes being allowed to use a toilet) when there is NO evidence to support such a theory! IF the deposits were formed by urine, ( or amniotic fluid)this could be compatible with Scott strangling/smothering her, don't you think?

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 06:46 PM

Snip
IF the deposits were formed by urine, ( or amniotic fluid)this could be compatible with Scott strangling/smothering her, don't you think?

Of course not, I totally disagree, in your scenario she would have urinated once..in other words, her pants would NOT have gone thru repeated cycles of wetting and drying OVER a period of time...

cookiewench

05-23-2007, 06:55 PM

According to the info on SII, the mineral deposits were found on the shredded tatters of the legs of the pants, not on the buttock portion.

attorneywan2be

05-23-2007, 07:09 PM

According to the info on SII, the mineral deposits were found on the shredded tatters of the legs of the pants, not on the buttock portion.

Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 07:23 PM

You think it is more plausible that the minerals found on Laci's pants came from the concrete anchors..!?

Then how do you explain the fact that those minerals deposits were ONLY found in the crotch area of her pants...none was found on her bras..none was found for example, on the waistband of her pants...none was found around the zipper area of her pants...let me put it this way...none was found anywhere else on her pants except for the crotch area...
I think it's waaaaaaaaay more plausible that the minerals found on Laci's pants came from the concrete anchors than from urine! Way, way, way WAY more! A whole lot more......way more. I'd give it 100:1 odds.

So now I need to come up with an explanation.....Oh, Kay.........I KNOW! That's where one of the anchors was!

One2Snoop

05-23-2007, 07:29 PM

No kidding? (http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052307_ctv.html?link=newsletter)

Hmmm, interestinky. I've never understood all the big hoopla about Dr. Lee, other than he was a celebrity of sorts - I sure hope he hasn't let that go to his head and screwed up in this case.

One2Snoop

05-23-2007, 07:32 PM

I think it's waaaaaaaaay more plausible that the minerals found on Laci's pants came from the concrete anchors than from urine! Way, way, way WAY more! A whole lot more......way more. I'd give it 100:1 odds.

So now I need to come up with an explanation.....Oh, Kay.........I KNOW! That's where one of the anchors was!

Good thinking A2M - That could be a reasonable explanation, IMO. Were the crystals ever tested for a saltwater/cement combination? Interesting thought.

Wearing A Halo

05-23-2007, 07:39 PM

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 07:50 PM

Of course not, I totally disagree, in your scenario she would have urinated once..in other words, her pants would NOT have gone thru repeated cycles of wetting and drying OVER a period of time...

How many cycles over what period of time would cause mineralization of urine.. where is a site that explains this ?

Otter

05-23-2007, 07:55 PM

If I say the odds are a billion kajillion to one, and say it 300 times, do I get unlimited posting privileges? And will you be my sycophant and respond to every post with "I totally agree" and "good point" and so forth?

Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! Pick me! :D

There's someone saying they theorize regarding mineral deposits. What is a theoretician?

the·o·re·ti·cian (thē'ər-ĭ-tĭsh'ən, thîr'ĭ-)
n.
One who formulates, studies, or is expert in the theory of a science or an art.

If I was speaking of mineral deposits, I would be a speculator, since I have no expertise to put forth a theory.

The noun speculator has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: someone who makes conjectures without knowing the facts

Meaning #2: someone who risks losses for the possibility of considerable gains

http://www.answers.com/

ekg

05-23-2007, 08:42 PM

This is for EKG:

AW2B states that URINE and the DRYING of URINE over weeks time is the process that forms the mineral deposits on the shreds of Laci's pants. If they are not KIDNEY STONES then WHAT ARE THEY?

Question: The Mineral Deposits found on the shreds of Laci's pants are .............?

Fill in the blank EKG or AW2B

they are mineral deposits....

.

I have no idea what kind b/c noone tested them to see... but I know what they are not...and they are not kidney stones... kidney stones are mineral deposits formed inside the urinary tract... not outside.....

you do get the difference right? or are you saying all mineral deposits are kidney stones

cookiewench

05-23-2007, 08:42 PM

ekg

05-23-2007, 08:45 PM

Oh, please yourself.

I'll take that as an admission it's impossible. Thanks.

I think you should read it again....I made no admission and even gave a plausible hypothesis that you haven't debunked..... nor have you given your own theory of the deposits yet...

ekg

05-23-2007, 08:47 PM

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 08:51 PM

Good thinking A2M - That could be a reasonable explanation, IMO. Were the crystals ever tested for a saltwater/cement combination? Interesting thought.I'm not thinking!
It wasn't me! This is somebody else's theory. I remember it from this very board...so it couldn't be that long ago....it could have been JMO but she hasn't claimed it yet, has she....

I'll try to go back and find it....but..everytime I do Buddy peels paint. I've tried to catch him with the camera but he won't let get a good shot of him. He runs when he sees me with or hears the camera turn on. LOL!

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 08:53 PM

If I say the odds are a billion kajillion to one, and say it 300 times, do I get unlimited posting privileges? And will you be my sycophant and respond to every post with "I totally agree" and "good point" and so forth?
Good point! I totally agree. :seeya:

And if anyone gets special privileges:no: ....I want some extra icons....and so forth. :lol:

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 08:54 PM

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 09:01 PM

Nope, not my theory, but it is a logical one, IMO. I'm trying to recall who posted that theory here, I'll search as well.I believe this is what I was thinking of....

Here ya go:

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8832293&postcount=71

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 09:02 PM

03-27-2007, 07:19 PM "The Case for Circumstantial Evidence" Post 71 ( Author: Wearing A Halo )

SNIP:
Dr. Peterson was merely giving clues in hopes that some expert would be called to explain these minerals. Dr. Peterson said he was not an expert in mineralogy. This is what I think it is. I am not an expert either, but just by the description, I think it is calcium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium

AND

Two different processes, "dry" and "wet," are used in the manufacture of portland cement.

Portland cement, the basic ingredient of concrete, is a closely controlled chemical combination of calcium, silicon, aluminum, iron and small amounts of other ingredients to which gypsum is added in the final grinding process to regulate the setting time of the concrete. Lime and silica make up about 85% of the mass. Common among the materials used in its manufacture are limestone, shells, and chalk or marl combined with shale, clay, slate or blast furnace slag, silica sand, and iron ore.

http://www.cement.org/basics/howmade.asp

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 09:02 PM

nice .....

real nice....

adnoid's funny too! :biggrin:

ekg

05-23-2007, 09:05 PM

I'm not thinking!
It wasn't me! This is somebody else's theory. I remember it from this very board...so it couldn't be that long ago....it could have been JMO but she hasn't claimed it yet, has she....

I'll try to go back and find it....but..everytime I do Buddy peels paint. I've tried to catch him with the camera but he won't let get a good shot of him. He runs when he sees me with or hears the camera turn on. LOL!

the problem as I see your theory is that the deposits would be in other areas besides just the crotch.. I think we can agree that the crotch area is an area that would be under exposed unless her legs were in a spread-eagle position, and since there was still some part of her left in that area I think we can rule that out.

Urine forming minerals deposits is not junk science or impossible.. it happens on the surface of catheters all the times.. along with plastic 'urine only' composting toilet systems, or if an animal pees in the same place on the carpet and it's never cleaned it can form deposits/crystals . It can also react with salt water and 'hard water' to form a gradual build up in some pipes..... so the theory that it can happen on cloth that is repeatedly soaked and dried isn't that much of a leap...

Wearing A Halo

05-23-2007, 09:06 PM

they are mineral deposits....

.

I have no idea what kind b/c noone tested them to see... but I know what they are not...and they are not kidney stones... kidney stones are mineral deposits formed inside the urinary tract... not outside.....

you do get the difference right? or are you saying all mineral deposits are kidney stones

I get it, but does AW2B get it. It is her THEORY on the premise that URINE through the process of DRYING over several weeks time produces ROUND, OVAL MINERAL DEPOSITS. I am with you that it is not Kidney stones either because I don't think that URINE through the process of drying over several weeks produces any mineral deposits. I have yet to come across any site that states this. AW2B has yet to answer, so is it possible she doesn't know what the mineral deposits are, but knows the process by which they are produced? I find that interesting.

JustMyOpinion

05-23-2007, 09:09 PM

Urine forming minerals deposits is not junk science or impossible.. it happens on the surface of catheters all the times.. along with plastic 'urine only' composting toilet systems, or if an animal pees in the same place on the carpet and it's never cleaned it can form deposits/crystals . It can also react with salt water and 'hard water' to form a gradual build up in some pipes..... so the theory that it can happen on cloth that is repeatedly soaked and dried isn't that much of a leap...

Okay, so in your opinion, deposits/crystals can be formed from urine that hasn't been cleaned , without the object going through "several cycles" of wetting/drying?

deputydi

05-23-2007, 09:24 PM

Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
This is the transcript of Brian Lee Peterson's testimony from Scott's prelim. Could you kindly point out where the word "crotch" appears.
23 There was a -- there was a peculiar shredding kind of
24 effect to those trousers. The legs were basically reduced
25 to thread, and within those threads, the calcification, the
26 stone-like material I mentioned earlier, was deposited.
27 Additionally, there was some duct tape, and where I
28 found that was sticking to the front waistband of the

1463
1 trousers. I actually first saw it on the back of her body,
2 because, again, she came in prone. But where it was
3 actually stuck was on the front of the waistband.
4 Aside from that, the button closure of the trousers was
5 intact, the zipper was intact, and there were cloth draw
6 cords inside. Those were also intact. And the front of the
7 panties -- I mentioned the buttocks was absent. The front
8 portion was also intact there.
http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm

cookiewench

05-23-2007, 09:31 PM

Urine forming minerals deposits is not junk science or impossible.. it happens on the surface of catheters all the times.. along with plastic 'urine only' composting toilet systems, or if an animal pees in the same place on the carpet and it's never cleaned it can form deposits/crystals . It can also react with salt water and 'hard water' to form a gradual build up in some pipes..... so the theory that it can happen on cloth that is repeatedly soaked and dried isn't that much of a leap...

And wouldn't that be more in the order of yellowish crystal, not round mineral deposits - and don't you think that a pathologist would be able to tell the difference? How did the pants get shredded?

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 09:55 PM

Oh please.. all the speculation about the bodies is just that. speculation b/c noone has every studied what a pregnant body would do in the SF bay...

the 'perfect storm' that brought them ashore is another item of speculation b/c it can't be reproduced...kinda like "it's the first time in the history of the world it ever happened" and it happened in this case..

we already have that one item for the history books, so why not 2?

urine contains minerals.... it stands to reason that a period of wetting and drying from frequently peeing in your pants could cause a mineral build-up...it's as good of a theory as any other...so instead of getting all crabby, gimme a different theory of how mineral deposits were formed on her panties....

I agree ,Start with if Laci was in the bay, When she was put there , if she was waited down she could have been sitting on the bottom, until the body start releasing gas that what make the body float. Water has minerals in it also,Really to me the crotch would be the only place were mineral deposits would have stayed because it would have been a closed up area especial after rigor get in and once she washed up it would have dried.Right?

Otter

05-23-2007, 10:17 PM

I'm devastated. Sniff.

http://home.no.net/birgif/glis/klemme.gif There, there. Buck up mabuddi. You know how these theorists are.

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 10:32 PM

Otter

05-23-2007, 11:00 PM

I just went back and read that link that was posted .
If you read 1446- 21- 26 Stating the part of the trousers she was wearing had shredded to the upper thigh IMO ,witch would be the crouch area. And in shredding there were calculation- stone like material. Laci's body was found in a prone position

Ummm, Laci was found washed up on the shore. She was definitely not sitting up due to the condition of what remained of her body. I'm sorry, I can't put it more delicately.

Yikes. What a thought. Is this your opinion? Or some witch's opinion?

Otter

05-23-2007, 11:01 PM

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Now wait, you can't fool me. Are you some sort of a theorist? :tongue:

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 11:25 PM

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Brilliant post, adnoid! I totally agree with you! BRAVO! :beer:

accordn2me

05-23-2007, 11:26 PM

In practice, yes....and so forth....

dallasvic

05-23-2007, 11:57 PM

Ummm, Laci was found washed up on the shore. She was definitely not sitting up due to the condition of what remained of her body. I'm sorry, I can't put it more delicately.

Yikes. What a thought. Is this your opinion? Or some witch's opinion?

Otter,
You need to go read the link on deputydi posted if you scroll down you see that post. In the questioning he state Laci was in a pron position.
ITS #1461 # 24 on that from that link
.
Outter,Everything on my post either JMO or IT WILL BE BACKED UP by a link. So All I can say is YOU could have put what you put on my neg rep. you just gave me what was it hummmm (Watch what you post it can come back and BIT You )and now it has come back and bite YOU!! And i will not give you a neg. rep . LACI BODY WAS IN A PRON POSITION>
GO READ THE DOC FROM THE LINK

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 03:10 AM

This is the transcript of Brian Lee Peterson's testimony from Scott's prelim. Could you kindly point out where the word "crotch" appears.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm

Hi deputydi..I'm confused because the post you quoted is where I posted the medical examiner's testimony where he stated that the mineral deposits were in the crotch area of her pants..!

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 03:27 AM

I get it, but does AW2B get it. It is her THEORY on the premise that URINE through the process of DRYING over several weeks time produces ROUND, OVAL MINERAL DEPOSITS. I am with you that it is not Kidney stones either because I don't think that URINE through the process of drying over several weeks produces any mineral deposits. I have yet to come across any site that states this. AW2B has yet to answer, so is it possible she doesn't know what the mineral deposits are, but knows the process by which they are produced? I find that interesting.

Again..IMO, the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants formed due to repeated cycles of wetting from urine and drying...those minerals would be consistent with the minerals found in urine..the kidney stones are formed in the urinary tract and it is entirely a different process...

dallasvic

05-24-2007, 03:40 AM

dallasvic

05-24-2007, 04:15 AM

Ummm, Laci was found washed up on the shore. She was definitely not sitting up due to the condition of what remained of her body. I'm sorry, I can't put it more delicately.

Yikes. What a thought. Is this your opinion? Or some witch's opinion?

This is not my opinion and I am not a witch. (THIS IS A FACT) Go back and read it. He stated that this was unusual , because they usually are on there backs!!!!!!!!! READ IT !!!!!!!!

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 04:15 AM

Hi aw2b,
Did you see my last post ? I think it might explain what you are talking about.

Hi dallasvic...are you referring to the post where you said that Laci's body was found in prone position?

dallasvic

05-24-2007, 04:26 AM

Hi dallasvic...are you referring to the post where you said that Laci's body was found in prone position?

Hey aw2b,

YES !! I understand exactly what you saying and I am trying to help get info that will make it right. because I am thinking the same thing you are. If you go back and read those statements that you posted . I went through them and found that info that would make you theory correct.
#1461 - #24 read that and it says she was in a pron position . body is upright. thats how those minerals got there. Check it out and let me know what you think OK?

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 05:29 AM

Hey aw2b,

YES !! I understand exactly what you saying and I am trying to help get info that will make it right. because I am thinking the same thing you are. If you go back and read those statements that you posted . I went through them and found that info that would make you theory correct.
#1461 - #24 read that and it says she was in a pron position . body is upright. thats how those minerals got there. Check it out and let me know what you think OK?

I think the killers placed her body on the shore in the prone position..I don't think she washed ashore...I think the mineral deposits formed when she was still alive, I mean as she was urinating in her pants, the urine would evaporate leaving those mineral deposits in the crotch area of her pants...that probably happened repeatedly over a period of time..the ME stated that the deposits were quite heavy..

Please elaborate in more details as to what you meant by "that's how the minerals got there due to her body being in prone position" prone position means "lying face downward"..but as I said, IMO, those minerals deposits formed when she was still alive..so we have no idea if her captives kept her in a sitting position or in a prone position or whatever..

dallasvic

05-24-2007, 05:58 AM

I think the killers placed her body on the shore in the prone position..I don't think she washed ashore...I think the mineral deposits formed when she was still alive, I mean as she was urinating in her pants, the urine would evaporate leaving those mineral deposits in the crotch area of her pants...that probably happened repeatedly over a period of time..the ME stated that the deposits were quite heavy..

Please elaborate in more details as to what you meant by "that's how the minerals got there due to her body being in prone position" prone position means "lying face downward"..but as I said, IMO, those minerals deposits formed when she was still alive..so we have no idea if her captives kept her in a sitting position or in a prone position or whatever..

If these minerals were in her upper thigh area I do believe since being in that area that they would have stayed there even if she had been in water,because her legs would have stayed shut and they could not wash away. i am just saying in that area it would be hard for them to wash away if in Water

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 08:29 AM

Again..IMO, the mineral deposits found in the crotch area of her pants formed due to repeated cycles of wetting from urine and drying...those minerals would be consistent with the minerals found in urine..the kidney stones are formed in the urinary tract and it is entirely a different process...

The ME didn't use the words "crotch area", there was no testimony as to tests which identified the minerals in these stones, how could you possibly infer the "minerals" were consistent with those found in urine?
Also, Pin Kyo testified there was no blood on the remnants of pants. How do you think a crude cesarean surgery was performed on a woman wearing her underwear & pants, and how did this leave no tears or blood evidence, IYO?
Do you still theorize someone did this crude surgery, propped up her body in a bathtub with some water in it, stored the baby elsewhere, and then planted these bodies in separate locations on the shoreline?

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=2137680
Kyo testified she examined the clothing taken from Laci's remains _ including a bra, panties and a pair of maternity pants _ and found no blood and no tears to indicate a struggle.

frydaddy

05-24-2007, 09:00 AM

Only thing I can say about this latest theory and discussion is WOOSH! Glad I was busy yesterday...I try very hard to understand another line of thought, but this deal borders on absurdity to the nth degree. Apologies to those who crafted it, it's just a lot hinky, IMO!

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 09:08 AM

The ME didn't use the words "crotch area", there was no testimony as to tests which identified the minerals in these stones, how could you possibly infer the "minerals" were consistent with those found in urine?
Also, Pin Kyo testified there was no blood on the remnants of pants. How do you think a crude cesarean surgery was performed on a woman wearing her underwear & pants, and how did this leave no tears or blood evidence, IYO?
Do you still theorize someone did this crude surgery, propped up her body in a bathtub with some water in it, stored the baby elsewhere, and then planted these bodies in separate locations on the shoreline?

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=2137680
Kyo testified she examined the clothing taken from Laci's remains _ including a bra, panties and a pair of maternity pants _ and found no blood and no tears to indicate a struggle.

JMO..why are you saying how could I infer that the minerals were consistent with those found in urine??!!...remember, we have been discussing MY THEORY..it is not based on tests or anything..I think I made it clear that it is my theory..

In one of my previous posts I posted the ME's testimony where he stated that there were mineral deposits in the crotch portion of her pants...

As to the bodies...my theory remains the same..!

ekg

05-24-2007, 09:15 AM

This is the transcript of Brian Lee Peterson's testimony from Scott's prelim. Could you kindly point out where the word "crotch" appears.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm

6. THE WITNESS: I do.Testimony of .

7. THE CLERK: Be seated. State and spell your name for the record.

8. THE WITNESS: My name is Brian Peterson. B-r-i-a-n. P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

93. You can continue.

94. The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.

that's his trial testimony......so I'm not sure what you're getting at with him not saying in the prelim:confused:

are you saying he changed his testimony from the time he testified at the Prelim to when he testified at trial?

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 09:39 AM

JMO..why are you saying how could I infer that the minerals were consistent with those found in urine??!!...remember, we have been discussing MY THEORY..it is not based on tests or anything..I think I made it clear that it is my theory..

In one of my previous posts I posted the ME's testimony where he stated that there were mineral deposits in the crotch portion of her pants...

As to the bodies...my theory remains the same..!

Then you admit your theory comes from your own vivid imagination?

ekg

05-24-2007, 09:49 AM

And wouldn't that be more in the order of yellowish crystal, not round mineral deposits - and don't you think that a pathologist would be able to tell the difference? How did the pants get shredded?

IDK what the color and shape would be....

but here's an explanation of how repetitive wetting and drying can cause a build up.. and it has a pic...

Urine also results in the build-up of ‘uric salts’ which if left untreated eventually forms ‘uric scale’.Uric scale is insoluble in water and so particularly difficult to remove. It then collects on the internal surfaces of toilets and urinals, and particularly on waste outlets and traps

(btw, it's not a pleasant pic..)

http://jadeconsumer.com/images/news4.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

on hardwood floors

Urine stains in hardwood flooring are some of the toughest stains to remove, especially if repeated soiling has turned the area black. The black staining indicates that there is a heavy build-up of dried uric salt crystals, and also that actual wood damage has taken place, as the acidic urine has burned the tannins in the wood.
~~~~~~~~

again, it stands to reason if this can happen to wood,pipes and porcelain.. then it could happen to cloth also..

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 10:02 AM

IDK what the color and shape would be....

but here's an explanation of how repetitive wetting and drying can cause a build up.. and it has a pic...

Urine also results in the build-up of ‘uric salts’ which if left untreated eventually forms ‘uric scale’.Uric scale is insoluble in water and so particularly difficult to remove. It then collects on the internal surfaces of toilets and urinals, and particularly on waste outlets and traps

(btw, it's not a pleasant pic..)

http://jadeconsumer.com/images/news4.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

on hardwood floors

Urine stains in hardwood flooring are some of the toughest stains to remove, especially if repeated soiling has turned the area black. The black staining indicates that there is a heavy build-up of dried uric salt crystals, and also that actual wood damage has taken place, as the acidic urine has burned the tannins in the wood.
~~~~~~~~

again, it stands to reason if this can happen to wood,pipes and porcelain.. then it could happen to cloth also..

And this:

Many regular cleaning products may remove the stain and even the odor temporarily but what happens is the Uric Acid crystals dry out and bond tightly to the carpet fibers and as soon as it gets humid or the carpet gets wet the odor comes right back just as strong as ever.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Removing-Cat-Urine-From-Carpet&id=391107

The Me testified:

Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 10:34 AM

ekg

05-24-2007, 10:34 AM

And this:

Many regular cleaning products may remove the stain and even the odor temporarily but what happens is the Uric Acid crystals dry out and bond tightly to the carpet fibers and as soon as it gets humid or the carpet gets wet the odor comes right back just as strong as ever.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Removing-Cat-Urine-From-Carpet&id=391107

The Me testified:

Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits

I can't see why your theory is any less valid than the arm-chair psychological assessments of Scott and his parents that are cheered and accepted....I guess its since if it's true then SII.. and we can't have that in any way,shape or form can we:rolleyes:

It's a good solid theory AW2B... better than any others I've seen presented.... the cement leaving them doesn't work b/c of the placement of the crystals and the fact that the body was supposed to be wrapped in chicken-wire and a tarp..then anchors attached and put in the bay.. how the deposits would form thru the tarp and chicken wire IDK..:shrug:

frydaddy

05-24-2007, 10:43 AM

I can't see why your theory is any less valid than the arm-chair psychological assessments of Scott and his parents that are cheered and accepted....I guess its since if it's true then SII.. and we can't have that in any way,shape or form can we:rolleyes:

It's a good solid theory AW2B... better than any others I've seen presented.... the cement leaving them doesn't work b/c of the placement of the crystals and the fact that the body was supposed to be wrapped in chicken-wire and a tarp..then anchors attached and put in the bay.. how the deposits would form thru the tarp and chicken wire IDK..:shrug:

I'd bet my next paycheck that you could find more people out of ten in agreement with the arm-chair psychological assessments, than you could out of a hundred thousand on the repetitive wet and dry from pee mineral deposits and the resulting trainwreck of an explanation of how this would have to have occured. It's simply Rod Serling material, at best. IMO

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 10:45 AM

It's a good solid theory AW2B... better than any others I've seen presented.... the cement leaving them doesn't work b/c of the placement of the crystals :

??? ME testified these round to oval stony deposits were contained within fibers of the pants, he did not testify they were found within or on the panties. I think it is entirely possible these mineralized deposits were formed from concrete residue because a concrete object was duct taped to her body in that vicinity ( there was duct tape still adhered to her lower extremities) But, since they weren't tested by Prosecution or Defense, it is impossible to know what these stones were. Why do you think Henry Lee didn't test ( or didn't testify about) these stones, or the tape-like material Conner was entangled in, or test the pants for blood from a crude cesarean surgery?

ekg

05-24-2007, 10:59 AM

I'd bet my next paycheck that you could find more people out of ten in agreement with the arm-chair psychological assessments, than you could out of a hundred thousand on the repetitive wet and dry from pee mineral deposits and the resulting trainwreck of an explanation of how this would have to have occured. It's simply Rod Serling material, at best. IMO

I disagree... I think if 100 ppl were given the ME testimony, AW2B theory and everything AW2B and I have provided as similarities on urine forming minerals on other mediums.... I think a very good percentage would agree that it's as good of a working theory as diagnosing someone you saw on TV a cpl times...

but we can't know either can we? so it's a moot point as to who is more believable......

How ya doing FD?:seeya: I haven't talked to you much since our 1st meeting/conversation..schools out here so life just got crazy...LOL:tongue: :chicken:

ekg

05-24-2007, 11:07 AM

??? ME testified these round to oval stony deposits were contained within fibers of the pants, he did not testify they were found within or on the panties. I think it is entirely possible these mineralized deposits were formed from concrete residue because a concrete object was duct taped to her body in that vicinity ( there was duct tape still adhered to her lower extremities) But, since they weren't tested by Prosecution or Defense, it is impossible to know what these stones were. Why do you think Henry Lee didn't test ( or didn't testify about) these stones, or the tape-like material Conner was entangled in, or test the pants for blood from a crude cesarean surgery?

and we think it's entirely possible that they formed from repetitive wetting from urination and then drying...

I don't see the difference here.... you are basing your theory on inadequate information and so is AW2B... but she is providing enough CE evidence to back up her claim...so what makes you so right and her so wrong? b/c it's you're opinion? or other G's opinion? so it should be given more weight or something? :no:

cookiewench

05-24-2007, 11:12 AM

IDK what the color and shape would be....

but here's an explanation of how repetitive wetting and drying can cause a build up.. and it has a pic...

Urine also results in the build-up of ‘uric salts’ which if left untreated eventually forms ‘uric scale’.Uric scale is insoluble in water and so particularly difficult to remove. It then collects on the internal surfaces of toilets and urinals, and particularly on waste outlets and traps

(btw, it's not a pleasant pic..)

http://jadeconsumer.com/images/news4.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

on hardwood floors

Urine stains in hardwood flooring are some of the toughest stains to remove, especially if repeated soiling has turned the area black. The black staining indicates that there is a heavy build-up of dried uric salt crystals, and also that actual wood damage has taken place, as the acidic urine has burned the tannins in the wood.
~~~~~~~~

again, it stands to reason if this can happen to wood,pipes and porcelain.. then it could happen to cloth also..

Yep. That explains the barnacles that were growing on Laci's exposed bones.

Face it: Ablow is a psychiatrist with many years experience, just like the ME who examined Laci's body has examined many bodies that had been in the bay.

If there was anything unusual about the mineral deposits (NOT crystals) that he saw, he would have noted it.

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 11:13 AM

I can't see why your theory is any less valid than the arm-chair psychological assessments of Scott and his parents that are cheered and accepted....
:

I don't think Keith Ablow is an "armchair psychiatrist", although the theories contained in his book are only his own theories based on his clinical experience, his review of trial evidence, interviews he did with various people ( some who know Jackie, Lee, Scott).
Since Scott wouldn't submit to an interview by the probation officer, the evidence & Scott's BEHAVIOR is the only thing the officer could utilize. Anyone reading this could conclude Scott is "without conscience and a dangerous man "( which is what Grogan wrote in the same report)Here is some of what the officer ( Rosalia Carpio) wrote in the probation report that I transcribed from PDF
File:http://www.ktvu.com/peterson/index.html

Scott Lee Peterson
The defendant's crime is horrific, and it is difficult to comprehend the full viciousness of his actions. Unlike many victims of domestic homicide, Laci Peterson had no reason to suspect her husband would kill her since the couple had no history of violence or known marital problems. In committing this crime, the defendant also prevented the birth of their child, and disposed of the victim's body ( and that of their son) in a manner that resulted in severe decomposition. This was a calculated, cold-blooded act of violence which was planned and carried out in a method devised to avoid detection. The defendant, however, was not successful in his endeavor. The bodies of his victims gave evidence to his actions, and he was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted for this heinous crime.

The defendant's criminal conduct in this matter is exceedingly serious even when compared to other crimes of murder, first degree,with special circumstances, because of his intimate relationship with the victims.
The defendant's crime is aggravated by the vulnerability of the victim, his wife, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy with the second victim, the defendant's son. He took advantage of her trust in him as her husband to commit this crime. The defendant inflicted physical harm to the victims and severe emotional trauma to surviving family members. This crime was sophisticated and indicated planning, as evidenced by the purchase of the boat. Although this officer was unable to discuss the present offense with the defendant,
there has been no suggestion of remorse in the defendant's behavior since he first became a suspect in the crime. Conversely, his behavior has often been viewed as cavalier, callous and indifferent.
**It was noted the officer attempted to meet with SP at least five times. SP was "courteous" in conveying that counsel had advised him to refrain from undergoing the interview. No letters of reference or other documents on the defendant's behalf were received for review by the Probation Dept.

http://www.ktvu.com/peterson/index.html

attorneywan2be

05-24-2007, 11:44 AM

Let me make myself clear..I'm not saying that the mineral deposits were kidney stones...

With that said:

Kidney stones that formed from uric acid are smooth and round to oval in shape..so I'm thinking that if the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants were basically uric acid crystals from her urine they will probably have the same charateristics...

[Uric-acid calculi occur most frequently. They vary in size, and are usually smooth, round, or oval in shape, and may have facets where they come into contact with each other. In color, they may be red, brown, black, or yellow.]

http://www.swsbm.com/EclecticMed/Eclectic%20Medicine_Part_5.pdf

The ME testified:

Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits

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

Mark Geragos: Okay. What do you mean by mineralization?
Brian Peterson: There was a material that I talked about in the pants, in the fibers of the pants, and it looked like rocks. They were smooth. But looked like stones basically intermeshed within the fibers.

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 12:59 PM

deputydi

05-24-2007, 01:58 PM

Hey aw2b,

YES !! I understand exactly what you saying and I am trying to help get info that will make it right. because I am thinking the same thing you are. If you go back and read those statements that you posted . I went through them and found that info that would make you theory correct.
#1461 - #24 read that and it says she was in a pron position . body is upright. thats how those minerals got there. Check it out and let me know what you think OK?
"Prone" does not mean upright. It means she was lying face down rather than "Supine" which means face up. You guys are confusing the heck outta me.

AW2B -- I don't know where your link came from, but mine was posted directly from the transcripts of the Prelim. If yours came from SII, I'd be rather cautious about believing it. I've found errors in theirs and I'm not trying to accuse anyone of deliberately changing anything. I skimmed all of his testimony and couldn't find the word "crotch" anywhere.

deputydi

05-24-2007, 02:05 PM

<snip>The ME testified:

Brian Peterson: The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits <snip>

Could you please post a link to this? As I just said, I didn't see the word "crotch" anywhere in his prelim testimony.

deputydi

05-24-2007, 02:08 PM

that's his trial testimony......so I'm not sure what you're getting at with him not saying in the prelim:confused:

are you saying he changed his testimony from the time he testified at the Prelim to when he testified at trial?
Yep. Isn't it obvious?

Did anyone here know your reply has to be at least 10 characters? LOL.

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 02:12 PM

Yep. Isn't it obvious?

Did anyone here know your reply has to be at least 10 characters? LOL.

Yepppppppp

ekg

05-24-2007, 02:20 PM

Mind if I ask where you are that school's already out? We used get out that early. Now we get out later and start earlier.

ekg....in one of your posts it said something about the urine turning the floor black. now laci had on light-colored pants. don't you think this mineral forming urine would have made some sort of stain on her pants?

I'm in sunny (hot) florida..... this will be the last year for awhile that they get out this early... it's pretty much been the standard for the last 10 yrs or so... but a new law goes in effect soon so they won't get out until june 2 next year and after....

I grew up here and we never got out until june 6-9th... and we lived with it...so I guess it won't be too bad for them..... they won't start until later in Aug. either... the last 10 yrs it's been about the 1st week to so...

funny you should mention the black stain..... IIRC there was an unexplained pinkish stain on the zipper part of her pants..now whether one has anything to do with the other IDK.. but, there was a stain on the pants, in the same area, that wasn't blood....

back to the wood.....I would guess that since it doesn't turn other things black, that the medium (the wood) itself is the factor for the black stain, not the urine

deputydi

05-24-2007, 02:20 PM

No........
Aren't you the clever one. :seeya:

ekg

05-24-2007, 02:39 PM

I don't think Keith Ablow is an "armchair psychiatrist", although the theories contained in his book are only his own theories based on his clinical experience, his review of trial evidence, interviews he did with various people ( some who know Jackie, Lee, Scott).
Since Scott wouldn't submit to an interview by the probation officer, the evidence & Scott's BEHAVIOR is the only thing the officer could utilize. Anyone reading this could conclude Scott is "without conscience and a dangerous man "( which is what Grogan wrote in the same report)Here is some of what the officer ( Rosalia Carpio) wrote in the probation report that I transcribed from PDF
File:http://www.ktvu.com/peterson/index.html

Scott Lee Peterson
The defendant's crime is horrific, and it is difficult to comprehend the full viciousness of his actions. Unlike many victims of domestic homicide, Laci Peterson had no reason to suspect her husband would kill her since the couple had no history of violence or known marital problems. In committing this crime, the defendant also prevented the birth of their child, and disposed of the victim's body ( and that of their son) in a manner that resulted in severe decomposition. This was a calculated, cold-blooded act of violence which was planned and carried out in a method devised to avoid detection. The defendant, however, was not successful in his endeavor. The bodies of his victims gave evidence to his actions, and he was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted for this heinous crime.

The defendant's criminal conduct in this matter is exceedingly serious even when compared to other crimes of murder, first degree,with special circumstances, because of his intimate relationship with the victims.
The defendant's crime is aggravated by the vulnerability of the victim, his wife, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy with the second victim, the defendant's son. He took advantage of her trust in him as her husband to commit this crime. The defendant inflicted physical harm to the victims and severe emotional trauma to surviving family members. This crime was sophisticated and indicated planning, as evidenced by the purchase of the boat. Although this officer was unable to discuss the present offense with the defendant,
there has been no suggestion of remorse in the defendant's behavior since he first became a suspect in the crime. Conversely, his behavior has often been viewed as cavalier, callous and indifferent.
**It was noted the officer attempted to meet with SP at least five times. SP was "courteous" in conveying that counsel had advised him to refrain from undergoing the interview. No letters of reference or other documents on the defendant's behalf were received for review by the Probation Dept.

http://www.ktvu.com/peterson/index.html

would you have really expected the PB officer to say any different? I mean c'mon.. could you imagine?

"Scott exhibits exceptional ability to cope with what he feels is an injustice. The simple fact that he is able to continue to live his life after the horror of losing his wife and child and then being convicted of their murders, shows that how resilient, and confident of his innocence one day being shown to the world, he is."

the PB officer took into consideration the crime he was just convicted of and made the report based on that... whats interesting is her description after actually talking with him.."SP was "courteous"

so you have what he's like on paper..... and you have what he's like in person.... it goes to prove you can't judge or diagnose unless you personally talk to the person...

ekg

05-24-2007, 02:43 PM

Yep. That explains the barnacles that were growing on Laci's exposed bones.

Face it: Ablow is a psychiatrist with many years experience, just like the ME who examined Laci's body has examined many bodies that had been in the bay.

If there was anything unusual about the mineral deposits (NOT crystals) that he saw, he would have noted it.

the fact that he noted it at all shows he did find it unusual....but since it wasn't his in expertise he might have thought LE would ask a mineralogist to take a look..

ekg

05-24-2007, 02:44 PM

Then you admit your theory comes from your own vivid imagination?

can I ask?

Where does your come from? :confused:

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 03:01 PM

can I ask?

Where does your come from? :confused:

My theory about what?

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 03:05 PM

would you have really expected the PB officer to say any different? I mean c'mon.. could you imagine?

"Scott exhibits exceptional ability to cope with what he feels is an injustice. The simple fact that he is able to continue to live his life after the horror of losing his wife and child and then being convicted of their murders, shows that how resilient, and confident of his innocence one day being shown to the world, he is."

the PB officer took into consideration the crime he was just convicted of and made the report based on that... whats interesting is her description after actually talking with him.."SP was "courteous"

so you have what he's like on paper..... and you have what he's like in person.... it goes to prove you can't judge or diagnose unless you personally talk to the person...

The probation officer took his behavior into consideration. She had nothing else to utilize, Scott refused to speak with her and no letters of reference were received on his behalf. I can make my own judgment about Scott, ( based on evidence presented at trial, reports about his conduct, information given by those who knew him, etc) but you are correct, I can't diagnose him.

ekg

05-24-2007, 03:12 PM

My theory about what?

??? ME testified these round to oval stony deposits were contained within fibers of the pants, he did not testify they were found within or on the panties. I think it is entirely possible these mineralized deposits were formed from concrete residue because a concrete object was duct taped to her body in that vicinity ( there was duct tape still adhered to her lower extremities) But, since they weren't tested by Prosecution or Defense, it is impossible to know what these stones were. Why do you think Henry Lee didn't test ( or didn't testify about) these stones, or the tape-like material Conner was entangled in, or test the pants for blood from a crude cesarean surgery?

that one...

ekg

05-24-2007, 03:17 PM

The probation officer took his behavior into consideration. She had nothing else to utilize, Scott refused to speak with her and no letters of reference were received on his behalf. I can make my own judgment about Scott, ( based on evidence presented at trial, reports about his conduct, information given by those who knew him, etc) but you are correct, I can't diagnose him.

no, since she didn't meet with him and form her opinion based on that meeting.. she took his perceived behavior to make her judgements... and her perception was augmented by the fact that he had just been convicted of a horrible crime..

what would you expect her report on a a man who was just convicted of premeditating and executing the murder of his wife and child to say?

One2Snoop

05-24-2007, 03:19 PM

snip

Did anyone here know your reply has to be at least 10 characters? LOL

Yes :tongue:

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 03:22 PM

that one...

That's not really my theory, I just think it's a possible explanation for the mineralized stones found on pant fibers. ( based in part on the fact Scott made items out of concrete and only one was still in evidence, and the finding of duct tape on Laci's lower extremities, and the evidence that Laci's body was submerged under water for 3-6 months. ) JMO The OP's entire theory ( she was held in captivity, only allowed to use a toilet sometimes, a crude c-sec was performed, she was stored in a bathtub, etc) requires a vivid imagination, IMO.

JustMyOpinion

05-24-2007, 03:26 PM

no, since she didn't meet with him and form her opinion based on that meeting.. she took his perceived behavior to make her judgements... and her perception was augmented by the fact that he had just been convicted of a horrible crime..

what would you expect her report on a a man who was just convicted of premeditating and executing the murder of his wife and child to say?

She conveyed what had been visible about his behavior ( no evident remorse, callous, cavalier, indifferent). I find it telling that nobody wrote a letter of reference on his behalf, not even his own parents. I guess he no longer served them ..JMO

One2Snoop

05-24-2007, 03:32 PM

cookiewench

05-24-2007, 04:47 PM

the fact that he noted it at all shows he did find it unusual....but since it wasn't his in expertise he might have thought LE would ask a mineralogist to take a look..

Ablow didn't make any judgement on the mineralization!

He wrote about Scott's background, history, demeanor and behavior.

cookiewench

05-24-2007, 04:49 PM

I think the killers placed her body on the shore in the prone position..I don't think she washed ashore.

Again: how did the barnacles come to be attached to her EXPOSED BONES?

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 05:11 PM

Aren't you the clever one. :seeya:adnoid's nice, funny and clever, and so forth....:hat:

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 05:17 PM

Giving credit - Very good thought Wearing a Halo! Were the tiny, smoothe round stones ever tested to see if they were consistent with cement?Sometimes I think....and sometimes I don't!

Today, I'm knitting.

one thing at a time....can't have too many tasks going on at the same time...

Otter

05-24-2007, 05:34 PM

Again: how did the barnacles come to be attached to her EXPOSED BONES?

Not only that, but why weren't these body planters seen?

Wasn't it "theorized" that SP couldn't have dumped her into the Bay without being seen? You remember, those 1,000's and 1,000's of telescopes watching him and his little bitty boat.

Good afternoon all! :seeya:

ekg

05-24-2007, 05:51 PM

Ablow didn't make any judgement on the mineralization!

He wrote about Scott's background, history, demeanor and behavior.

I know...which is why I was replying to this part of your post...ya know the part about how the ME would have noted anything unusual about the "mineral deposits (NOT crystals)"

Yep. That explains the barnacles that were growing on Laci's exposed bones.

Face it: Ablow is a psychiatrist with many years experience, just like the ME who examined Laci's body has examined many bodies that had been in the bay.

If there was anything unusual about the mineral deposits (NOT crystals) that he saw, he would have noted it.

frydaddy

05-24-2007, 05:52 PM

I disagree... I think if 100 ppl were given the ME testimony, AW2B theory and everything AW2B and I have provided as similarities on urine forming minerals on other mediums.... I think a very good percentage would agree that it's as good of a working theory as diagnosing someone you saw on TV a cpl times...

but we can't know either can we? so it's a moot point as to who is more believable......

How ya doing FD?:seeya: I haven't talked to you much since our 1st meeting/conversation..schools out here so life just got crazy...LOL :chicken:

Sorry for the delayed reply, I scooted immediately after my last post.

I'm doing well E, hope you are as well! My two kings have to go another week and a half to make up a load of snow days, but life is starting to get crazy from the ones who are already out, so I feel your pain!

As far as "the theory", I tend to doubt it. The issue is not the theory itself, it's the supporting theories required to make it plausible. Not to mention the testimony we did have and didn't have. It feels like another case of taking a small snippet of testimony and running with it, even though there was a lot of other testimony that tells a different story, IMO. Look on the bright side...I could be wrong and y'all could write for a crime show and make a lot of money. Or, y'all could end up on Maury or Ricki Lake! :tongue:

ekg

05-24-2007, 05:58 PM

Again: how did the barnacles come to be attached to her EXPOSED BONES?

it only takes 12 hrs for the barnacle to form it's shell once it's attached...

cookiewench

05-24-2007, 06:12 PM

it only takes 12 hrs for the barnacle to form it's shell once it's attached...

You honestly believe that her body was there for at least 12 hours, and that in this amount of time, the barnacle larva found her and attached themselves?

Why don't you try putting something on a jetty some evening and then see how many barnacles are on it in the morning.

I don't know why you think you know things that the ME wouldn't. You changed urine mineral crystals into round mineral deposits to support your theory already.

Wearing A Halo

05-24-2007, 06:13 PM

ekg

05-24-2007, 06:36 PM

You honestly believe that her body was there for at least 12 hours, and that in this amount of time, the barnacle larva found her and attached themselves?

Why don't you try putting something on a jetty some evening and then see how many barnacles are on it in the morning.

I don't know why you think you know things that the ME wouldn't. You changed urine mineral crystals into round mineral deposits to support your theory already.

I haven't changed anything....AW2B theorized that the mineral deposits could be from urine, I've said it's a viable theory... you still haven't showed me where it isn't.....

I haven't said I know more then the ME..... but he did say he didn't know anything about them...

how long do you think it takes a barnacle to find a host? days?months?

and I don't need to leave something at the jetty, I've already left many a bucket in the water in the Indian River Lagoon overnight X 1-3 nights.... does that count?

besides you ask "Again: how did the barnacles come to be attached to her EXPOSED BONES?" I just informed you that it only takes 12 for them to form a shell....

ekg

05-24-2007, 06:36 PM

This post above is totally off the mark! (Go Raiders!)

why....

go Bears....:cool:

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 07:32 PM

This post above is totally off the mark! (Go Raiders!)

They have JaMarcus Russell at the helm now. It's

GEAUX Raiders!

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 07:35 PM

why....

go Bears....:cool:WHY?

When you can pull for Chuckie and the Bucs....or the Dolphins!

a2me<----serious crush on Chuckie:biggrin:

ekg

05-24-2007, 08:07 PM

WHY?

When you can pull for Chuckie and the Bucs....or the Dolphins!

a2me<----serious crush on Chuckie:biggrin:

lol..... yes, Gruden a cutie.....

but he's no Urlacher....:tongue:

accordn2me

05-24-2007, 08:17 PM

lol..... yes, Gruden a cutie.....

but he's no Urlacher....:tongue:I'll have to look this one up.

While we're off topic....
Are you really in Florida, or lower Alabama?

One2Snoop

05-25-2007, 03:59 AM

Wow -- what an AMAZING FRAUD. :no:

We all know he's not the first one but how disappointing. :( It's sad for the families and frustrating from a legal standpoint. IMO, JMO.

BedOfRoses07

05-25-2007, 08:30 AM

Hmmm, but,

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy.

Anyways, DRISP's innocent 'cause:

Scotty's so hottie!

He is the internation man of mystery!

He doesn't cheat on his girlfriends!

He only lies with exceptions!

He only wants to kill dogs that bark too loud!

This ordeal would kill his mother!

Otherwise Laci would never had existed!

He is the golden child!

He lost his muscular build he had since high school!

He forgot to call his sweetie right before leaving the warehouse on his way to 90+ miles/1.5+hours away!

Mackenzie "ran" to Karen Servas!

Ron called and left a message for him (and him only) to bring whipped cream!

He can't drive 55 with a trailer hitched!

His mortiser is "yeah big!"

He forgot to tell LE that Laci was on the computer the morn' of the 24th!

He was homeless and living like a nomad out of his car!

He and the Ps are shiny happy people!

Since DRISP was investigated, suspected, arrrested, incarcerated, charged, indicted, tried, convicted, condemned and sooner or later executed, it can happen to you and me. Although I am still waiting, are you?

Ok I had just looked at this thread... And this responsed stopped me.. For one... He cheated on his pregnant wife. When he "supposedly" went out of town how does anyone know he really went out of town? How come he didn't mention to anyone that he got a new boat? If he is innocent it wouldn't be for those reason's. It would be because maybe someone did set him up.. Although the evidence and everything else still points to him. I still believe he is guilty as charged.

cookiewench

05-25-2007, 09:11 AM

I haven't changed anything....AW2B theorized that the mineral deposits could be from urine, I've said it's a viable theory... you still haven't showed me where it isn't.....

I haven't said I know more then the ME..... but he did say he didn't know anything about them...

how long do you think it takes a barnacle to find a host? days?months?

and I don't need to leave something at the jetty, I've already left many a bucket in the water in the Indian River Lagoon overnight X 1-3 nights.... does that count?

besides you ask "Again: how did the barnacles come to be attached to her EXPOSED BONES?" I just informed you that it only takes 12 for them to form a shell....

It's not a viable theory until you show that urine crystal can and do look anything like the small, round mineral deposits the ME saw.

But, I want to get one thing clear:

You believe that someone deposited Laci's remains on the shore by about 9:00 pm the night before (during the storm?), a wave containing barnacle larvae IMMEDIATELY hit her, and they grew overnight and attached themselves within a few minutes of her remains being found?

Just checkin'.

frydaddy

05-25-2007, 09:46 AM

dallasvic

05-25-2007, 10:05 AM

I think the killers placed her body on the shore in the prone position..I don't think she washed ashore...I think the mineral deposits formed when she was still alive, I mean as she was urinating in her pants, the urine would evaporate leaving those mineral deposits in the crotch area of her pants...that probably happened repeatedly over a period of time..the ME stated that the deposits were quite heavy..

Please elaborate in more details as to what you meant by "that's how the minerals got there due to her body being in prone position" prone position means "lying face downward"..but as I said, IMO, those minerals deposits formed when she was still alive..so we have no idea if her captives kept her in a sitting position or in a prone position or whatever..
Here is the part that would best fit you theory. I still think you have a GREAT theory!!!:D
17 Beneath the trousers, there were panties. There was a
18 label on the panties that read Jockey and the number seven.
19 The back of the panties, the buttock portion was absent, but
20 the elastic band, the leg band portion remained around each
21 (--upper thigh.) The -- I should get back to the trousers for a
22 second.
23 There was a -- there was a peculiar shredding kind of
24 effect to those trousers. The legs were basically reduced
25 to thread, and within those threads, the (calcification, the
26 stone-like material )I mentioned earlier, was deposited.

cookiewench

05-25-2007, 10:26 AM

Good question and if I may add here cookie...or wench if you prefer:D...how was Laci kept, that would cause Golloway to estimate 3-6 months in a marine environment, due to adipocere and the redness in her muscle tissue? I think at this point, I'd like to see the complete hypothetical theory from the few advocates endorsing this theory from kidnap to the bodies being found, along with the why's, how's, and forwhatreason's.

Some days I feel like a cookie, and some days I feel like a wench. :)

attorneywan2be

05-25-2007, 12:03 PM

Here is the part that would best fit you theory. I still think you have a GREAT theory!!!:D
17 Beneath the trousers, there were panties. There was a
18 label on the panties that read Jockey and the number seven.
19 The back of the panties, the buttock portion was absent, but
20 the elastic band, the leg band portion remained around each
21 (--upper thigh.) The -- I should get back to the trousers for a
22 second.
23 There was a -- there was a peculiar shredding kind of
24 effect to those trousers. The legs were basically reduced
25 to thread, and within those threads, the (calcification, the
26 stone-like material )I mentioned earlier, was deposited.

Hi dallas..thank you!

I agree..I think the acid in the urine caused the deterioration of the panties (buttock portion was absent) and the deterioration of the fabric of the pants causing the perculiar shredding that the ME testified about..the waistband.. the zipper area and the tag of the pants were intact..in fact, they got the brand name..style..etc.. off the tag..

attorneywan2be

05-25-2007, 12:24 PM

I would like to add this to my previous post..

Even the bra was intact..

Pin Kyo: The bra is in good shape. So it is all intact and there's no rip or tear, but there's a cut done by the autopsy -- at the autopsy.
David Harris: Is it kind of a standard practice at the autopsy for the pathologist to cut off the clothing from the victims?
Pin Kyo: To get it out of -- from the body, that's correct.

thinkaboutit

05-25-2007, 02:06 PM

You honestly believe that her body was there for at least 12 hours, and that in this amount of time, the barnacle larva found her and attached themselves?

Why don't you try putting something on a jetty some evening and then see how many barnacles are on it in the morning.

I don't know why you think you know things that the ME wouldn't. You changed urine mineral crystals into round mineral deposits to support your theory already.

But what baffles me - is that Laci was in the bay for 4 months - and she only had "a couple" of barnacles on her femur.

HARRIS: Did you happen to notice if there was anything adhering to these particular bones?

GALLOWAY: Yes. There was -- on the femur, the thigh bone there is an area that was exposed. And there was a barnacle, couple of barnacles attached to that.

Four months in the bay - why weren't there more barnacles on that bone - and why weren't there any on her other exposed bones?? :shrug:

frydaddy

05-25-2007, 02:37 PM

Some days I feel like a cookie, and some days I feel like a wench. :)

Since I might not know which days are which, I think I'll stick with Cookie full time! ;)

frydaddy

05-25-2007, 02:45 PM

But what baffles me - is that Laci was in the bay for 4 months - and she only had "a couple" of barnacles on her femur.

Four months in the bay - why weren't there more barnacles on that bone - and why weren't there any on her other exposed bones?? :shrug:

How many barnacles would you expect? :shrug:

Perhaps the planters could only find a couple barnacles to plant on Laci?
Perhaps barnacles are allergic to crystallized urine deposits?
Could be that not a lot of barnacles live in that area of the bay...poor schools or high crime maybe?

thinkaboutit

05-25-2007, 03:06 PM

How many barnacles would you expect?

I dunno :shrug: I guess I would expect more than two - and on her other bones. ;)

Could be that not a lot of barnacles live in that area of the bay...poor schools or high crime maybe?

:lol:

ekg

05-25-2007, 06:14 PM

Not only that, but why weren't these body planters seen?

Wasn't it "theorized" that SP couldn't have dumped her into the Bay without being seen? You remember, those 1,000's and 1,000's of telescopes watching him and his little bitty boat.

Good afternoon all! :seeya:

Ok. just remember you asked for it....

but maybe they were seen.....

By Guy Ashley
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Posted on Wed, Feb. 12, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO - A predawn sighting of a man in a wetsuit steering a motorized raft toward the Bay Bridge on Tuesday sparked a massive multi-agency effort to explain a report that raised grave homeland-security concerns.

But after nine hours of searching San Francisco Bay with boats and a pair of helicopters, officials could offer little to explain the sighting.

The search began soon after 3 a.m., when the captain of the Alameda-based tugboat Polaris telephoned the U.S. Coast Guard to say his boat had nearly collided with a 10-foot Zodiac-style raft about a mile south of the Bay Bridge.

The tugboat's captain reported that the raft was skippered by a man in a wetsuit with a snorkel, but the vessel disappeared into the darkness before contact could be made, said U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Neil Buschman, commanding officer for the agency's San Francisco station.

A massive search was launched, Buschman said, in large part due to the heightened terrorist alert the government issued just four days earlier.

A 41-foot rescue boat was sent onto the Bay, as well as a fleet of Coast Guard cutters. Two helicopters hovered overhead in search of the elusive raft.

Crews from the state Department of Transportation were sent below the bridge deck to search for signs of tampering, and similar inspections were performed along the periphery of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco waterfront.

Buschman said nothing suspicious was found. Nor did anything turn up that could explain what someone would be doing buzzing about the Bay in a rubber raft at 3 a.m.

The tugboat is owned by Seaway Towing Co. of Alameda, and was returning from a job in Crockett when its captain saw the raft whiz past northbound.

"This raft had no lights, which looked fairly suspicious," said Dale Kline, Seaway's general manager.

"The guy (on the raft) is either incredibly stupid or he was trying to hide something. Given the world we live in, post-9/11, we actually have trained our employees to be on the lookout for anything that appears strange."

The CHP has been conducting random truck searches throughout the Bay Area, including inspections of big rigs approaching the Bay Bridge, since the level orange alert was announced last Friday.

Other landmarks have been under heightened security since the threat level was increased, reportedly on information that populated areas might be targeted in a terrorist attack.

Still, Kline was one of several people who said he believed activities other than terrorism could explain the raft's presence in the shadow of the bridge. Kline said he knows of some people who commute to work by boat on the Bay.

"It could be someone out poaching sturgeon or kingfish," said Carrie Wilson, fisheries biologist for the state Department of Fish and Game in Monterey. "It's not that unusual for poaching to be going on out on the Bay.''

Added Kline: "It was definitely suspicious, but it's not like it would stop me from commuting across the bridge."

http://nl.newsbank.com/nlsearch.asp

Now you are a 'he did it,he's guilty,end of story" type of person..LOL...
But I'm still not sure he did....Add this story about a suspicious boater in a wetsuit and snorkel, running from LE, in the area where Laci's body washed up about 7 weeks later...and add it it with the lack of other hard evidence(imo) against Scott and you have reasonable doubt.......again IMO..

btw I don't buy the "It could be someone out poaching sturgeon or kingfish" line at all.... they aren't going to do a 'massive 9-hr search' with all the equipment they used for a single poacher...

but there you go.... someone(still unknown) was seen in the area, in the dead of night, in a boat, wearing a wet suit and snorkel, not too long before her body washed ashore....

ekg

05-25-2007, 06:15 PM

I'll have to look this one up.

While we're off topic....
Are you really in Florida, or lower Alabama?

east coast of florida...south of Cape(Nasa) Canaveral ...... why?

thinkaboutit

05-25-2007, 06:23 PM

Yeah that is what I meant. LOL

east coast of florida...south of Cape(Nasa) Canaveral ...... why?

Go Bears!! :beer: ;)

attorneywan2be

05-25-2007, 06:23 PM

It's not a viable theory until you show that urine crystal can and do look anything like the small, round mineral deposits the ME saw.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8861705&postcount=599

But, I want to get one thing clear:

You believe that someone deposited Laci's remains on the shore by about 9:00 pm the night before (during the storm?), a wave containing barnacle larvae IMMEDIATELY hit her, and they grew overnight and attached themselves within a few minutes of her remains being found?

Just checkin'.

As far as I know, Barnacles live on rocks/jetty, they can attach themselves to almost anything in no time, for example, they attach themselves to mobile marine animals such as whales...so I think barnacles were already there when her body was placed on the shore...

ekg

05-25-2007, 06:23 PM

It's not a viable theory until you show that urine crystal can and do look anything like the small, round mineral deposits the ME saw.

But, I want to get one thing clear:

You believe that someone deposited Laci's remains on the shore by about 9:00 pm the night before (during the storm?), a wave containing barnacle larvae IMMEDIATELY hit her, and they grew overnight and attached themselves within a few minutes of her remains being found?

Just checkin'.

show me the pic of mineral deposits and we'll go from there...

oh, you can't..... well then, one more time, this theory, with the available information at hand right now..... is viable...you don't have to believe it....That's your choice.. but you haven't proven it wrong either...all you have done is mock the theory.....

I don't know when she was put there... But you act like it takes days and days for barnacles to find a host and attach... it doesn't... and once they do attach it only takes 12 hrs to form a shell...Do you think it would take days or months for marine life to find her and start to feed on her? Maybe you should take your own advise and tie a piece of meat to a pier and come back in 2 hrs and see what's left of it...until then stop acting like what I'm talking is just so far out there that only aliens could have accomplished it...

accordn2me

05-25-2007, 06:38 PM

east coast of florida...south of Cape(Nasa) Canaveral ...... why?

Just wondering if you are where the water is pretty. IMO, it doesn't get pretty until you get out of lower Alabama...around Destin. ;) And if you were from lower Alabama....it would sorta shine some light on why you don't pull for the Florida teams....maybe....

You are where the water's pretty! And if I lived that close to Daytona...I'd go every year! So, now I'm jealous....:cool:

accordn2me

05-25-2007, 06:41 PM

Since Scott put Laci in the bay with all the flesh still on her bones, it would have taken some time for the bones to become exposed.

Barnacles are microscopic when they attach and then they grow.(my bold) Yeah! DUH! What adnoid said! It would have taken some time for the bones to become exposed! For real.....

You just keep these brilliant posts comin' adnoid!

Hey....do you know....how salty is the bay?

Otter

05-25-2007, 07:22 PM

Ok. just remember you asked for it....

but maybe they were seen.....

Now you are a 'he did it,he's guilty,end of story" type of person..LOL...
But I'm still not sure he did....Add this story about a suspicious boater in a wetsuit and snorkel, running from LE, in the area where Laci's body washed up about 7 weeks later...and add it it with the lack of other hard evidence(imo) against Scott and you have reasonable doubt.......again IMO..

btw I don't buy the "It could be someone out poaching sturgeon or kingfish" line at all.... they aren't going to do a 'massive 9-hr search' with all the equipment they used for a single poacher...

but there you go.... someone(still unknown) was seen in the area, in the dead of night, in a boat, wearing a wet suit and snorkel, not too long before her body washed ashore....

Hi EKG!

Yeah, it'll take a lot to convince me he didn't do it. :) And this ain't it. The theory seems to be that the bodies were planted on the shore, and as you point out this event occured 7 weeks prior to the discoveries. Its just not reasonable.

Who knows why somebody would be out at that hour doing that? I sure can understand the red alert though, blowing up the GGB would be a major coup.

Sturgeon poaching? Who knew? Seems like a lot of risk and work to go through, unless sturgeon cost a lot per pound. :tongue:

accordn2me

05-25-2007, 07:43 PM

ekg

05-25-2007, 08:40 PM

Just wondering if you are where the water is pretty. IMO, it doesn't get pretty until you get out of lower Alabama...around Destin. ;) And if you were from lower Alabama....it would sorta shine some light on why you don't pull for the Florida teams....maybe....

You are where the water's pretty! And if I lived that close to Daytona...I'd go every year! So, now I'm jealous....:cool:

as a teenager I spent 1-2 days a week in daytona... especially during spring break... but as an adult I hate the place...LOL.... the city hates tourist and their laws reflect that hate.. and now they are losing revenue from low spring break numbers,BCR, and other stuff.... serves them right IMO...But of course I really enjoyed the 'party-town' atmosphere of the past, so that's why I don't like it as much anymore..... just to go and vacation would probably be very cool tho...

Oh I like Fl college teams...... Go Gators
...... it's just the Dolphins and Buc's I have no respect for..HA!HA!

I've liked the Chi Bears since about '82-'83... my parents were huge redskin fans and I had to rebel somehow and since I was already a UF gator I picked Chi b/c of the colors..... then I started liking them b/c of Ditka, Mac, and Sweetness(W.Payton)... since the Dolphins ruined Chi's (original)perfect season I can't like them...and up until recent years, the Buc's were just the laughing stocks of football..

our beaches are nice... we don't have the white sugar sand like Destin, cocoa bch or even farther south like vero bch/Miami.... we have 'shell-sand' and in some places(around cocoa or south Patrick shores) we have HUGE coquina rocks that are brutal....but we still have awesome, awesome beaches...:cool:

attorneywan2be

05-25-2007, 08:41 PM

show me the pic of mineral deposits and we'll go from there...

oh, you can't..... well then, one more time, this theory, with the available information at hand right now..... is viable...you don't have to believe it....That's your choice.. but you haven't proven it wrong either...all you have done is mock the theory.....

I don't know when she was put there... But you act like it takes days and days for barnacles to find a host and attach... it doesn't... and once they do attach it only takes 12 hrs to form a shell...Do you think it would take days or months for marine life to find her and start to feed on her? Maybe you should take your own advise and tie a piece of meat to a pier and come back in 2 hrs and see what's left of it...until then stop acting like what I'm talking is just so far out there that only aliens could have accomplished it...

I'm wondering did they ever mention the type of barnacles they found on Laci?

BTW:

The ME testified at the prelim that there were NO barnacles on her body...

7 MR. HARRIS: I'll try to be more specific.
8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

The ME testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her body..he also said that he didn't mention anything about finding Barnacles in his autopsy report..so why did he change his testimony? from "none was on her body"...TO----> "there were barnacles (plural) on her bone"

Mark Geragos: You showed yesterday there were barnacles on the bone on some of the pictures. Do you remember that?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Originally, in the report, I think that you wrote that there were no barnacles present.
Brian Peterson: I don't think I said on, look here at my autopsy report. I did not mention barnacles one way or another in the autopsy report.
Mark Geragos: During your interview, did you tell one of the officers that you there were barnacles present?
Brian Peterson: I don't recall saying that.
Mark Geragos: Did you see any barnacles on any place other than the bone?
Brian Peterson: Again, I really don't have any independent recollection.
Mark Geragos: Is it a, you mentioned that before the break, as you sit here today, obviously you do quite a few autopsies. Is it fair to say that you really don't remember anything about this autopsy, other than what you are testifying basically from your report?
Brian Peterson: In terms of specific detail, no, I don't remember.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Did you make any determination, or is there any reflection in your report as to whether or not the barnacles that you found were either freshwater or salt water?
Brian Peterson: I wouldn't know the different if they fell on me.

cookiewench

05-25-2007, 09:05 PM

accordn2me

05-25-2007, 09:08 PM

Of course - how can my worthy adversaries report them if I don't make them?

Yes. Average specific gravity 1999-2000 as measured at Richmond is 1.02 in winter and 1.01 in summer. The Pacific ocean is 1.025, the bay is lower (less saline) because of the inflow of fresh water from the various rivers that empty into it, such as the Sacramento, Napa and Petaluma.They must be reporting how smart, funny and nice you are! You have 5 emeralds! post more and you'll soon be a "glorious beacon of light" or "splendid to look at."

I never look at my feedback, me. Don't want it to influence how I post, or other feedback I give. I have a lot of emeralds so I must be doing something right.

Um....back to the saltiness of the bay....remember when you said there are no freshwater barnacles? Would barnacles be prolific in a body of water that is not very salty? In Louisiana, we call our water like that "brackish." I've not seen barnacles in brackish water, either.

cookiewench

05-25-2007, 09:09 PM

Ok. just remember you asked for it....

but maybe they were seen.....

Now you are a 'he did it,he's guilty,end of story" type of person..LOL...
But I'm still not sure he did....Add this story about a suspicious boater in a wetsuit and snorkel, running from LE, in the area where Laci's body washed up about 7 weeks later...and add it it with the lack of other hard evidence(imo) against Scott and you have reasonable doubt.......again IMO..

btw I don't buy the "It could be someone out poaching sturgeon or kingfish" line at all.... they aren't going to do a 'massive 9-hr search' with all the equipment they used for a single poacher...

but there you go.... someone(still unknown) was seen in the area, in the dead of night, in a boat, wearing a wet suit and snorkel, not too long before her body washed ashore....

You think that Scott couldn't have dumped a body from a 14-ft. aluminum boat, but some other guy could from a 10-ft. raft???????????????

ekg

05-25-2007, 10:14 PM

Since Scott put Laci in the bay with all the flesh still on her bones, it would have taken some time for the bones to become exposed.

Barnacles are microscopic when they attach and then they grow.

what explanation do you have for her not showing any signs of any fish activity?

I can't see how its possible...:shrug:

ekg

05-25-2007, 10:18 PM

Any idea why these witnesses weren't called into court?

why would they be? noone knows if the were related to the Peterson case or not since the man in the boat wasn't caught.....

besides I can't think of many reason why MG did what he did.... I mean I can understand him thinking he used the Pros' case against them pretty damn good..but he should have known how much the Amber tapes hurt and just pounded away with his own experts and witness while at the same time using the Pros' witness like he did.....

I think he was thinking like a lawyer, in that there was enough reasonable doubt there.... but he should have been thinking like a civie instead...

ekg

05-25-2007, 10:23 PM

I'm wondering did they ever mention the type of barnacles they found on Laci?

BTW:

The ME testified at the prelim that there were NO barnacles on her body...

7 MR. HARRIS: I'll try to be more specific.
8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

The ME testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her body..he also said that he didn't mention anything about finding Barnacles in his autopsy report..so why did he change his testimony? from "none was on her body"...TO----> "there were barnacles (plural) on her bone"

Mark Geragos: You showed yesterday there were barnacles on the bone on some of the pictures. Do you remember that?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Originally, in the report, I think that you wrote that there were no barnacles present.
Brian Peterson: I don't think I said on, look here at my autopsy report. I did not mention barnacles one way or another in the autopsy report.
Mark Geragos: During your interview, did you tell one of the officers that you there were barnacles present?
Brian Peterson: I don't recall saying that.
Mark Geragos: Did you see any barnacles on any place other than the bone?
Brian Peterson: Again, I really don't have any independent recollection.
Mark Geragos: Is it a, you mentioned that before the break, as you sit here today, obviously you do quite a few autopsies. Is it fair to say that you really don't remember anything about this autopsy, other than what you are testifying basically from your report?
Brian Peterson: In terms of specific detail, no, I don't remember.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Did you make any determination, or is there any reflection in your report as to whether or not the barnacles that you found were either freshwater or salt water?
Brian Peterson: I wouldn't know the different if they fell on me.

IIRC didn't he destroy his notes or tape of the autopsy also?

DD also pointed out where he changed his testimony from the prelim and the trial in regards to the pants...

how can a witness be used against someone when they keep telling different stories is just beyond me...... and why MG didn't eviscerate the man(more) for 'flip-flopping' I don't understand either...

and pu-lease... the biggest case (probably) in his career....the Laci Peterson body.. and he can't remember...:rolleyes:

Hey Paula

05-25-2007, 10:37 PM

why would they be? noone knows if the were related to the Peterson case or not since the man in the boat wasn't caught.....

besides I can't think of many reason why MG did what he did.... I mean I can understand him thinking he used the Pros' case against them pretty damn good..but he should have known how much the Amber tapes hurt and just pounded away with his own experts and witness while at the same time using the Pros' witness like he did.....

I think he was thinking like a lawyer, in that there was enough reasonable doubt there.... but he should have been thinking like a civie instead...

Hi Ekg!

I don't know if the outcome would have been different, but if MG never told the jury he would present witnesses who saw Laci walking on 12/24, and another who saw Laci in/at the boat in the warehouse, and would've rested following the Pros' CIC, Geragos, would have retained credibility with this jury. Once a lawyer loses credibility, he is in danger of losing his case.

IMO

cookiewench

05-25-2007, 10:50 PM

attorneywan2be

05-25-2007, 10:52 PM

IIRC didn't he destroy his notes or tape of the autopsy also?

DD also pointed out where he changed his testimony from the prelim and the trial in regards to the pants...

how can a witness be used against someone when they keep telling different stories is just beyond me...... and why MG didn't eviscerate the man(more) for 'flip-flopping' I don't understand either...

and pu-lease... the biggest case (probably) in his career....the Laci Peterson body.. and he can't remember...:rolleyes:

As to the mineral deposits, IMO, the ME didn't change his testimony..he was simply more specific, at the prelim he stated that the mineral deposits were within the threads of the pants AROUND the upper legs...at the trial, he stated they were in the crotch area..but he totally changed his testimony as to finding barnacles on her body..from "none was on her body" to "there were barnacles on her bone"...in addition, he didn't write in his report that he found barnacles on her body...

11 Q. When you were -- you had talked earlier when you
12 were describing the clothing of Laci about something,
13 mineralization. What did that mean?
14 A. What I saw in the trousers that have been more or
15 less reduced to thread down around the upper legs, there
16 were round, smooth, round to oval deposits of stone.
17 I'm not a mineralogist, I'm not an anthropologist, but
18 it was quite heavy --
19 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 THE WITNESS: These were discrete deposits.
22 Again, as I tried to consider what possible mechanism
23 might have been involved there, I thought about, again, how
24 a body acts in the water, how it tends to submerge and then
25 resurface. And I think if this happened over a period of
26 time, with alternate layers of wetting and drying, it could
27 have account -- it could account for minerals building up as
28 I saw here.

attorneywan2be

05-25-2007, 10:56 PM

Could we have a link to where he changed his testimony? Just because Geragos said something doesn't make it true - in fact, the opposite was more often the case.

I posted his testimony at the prelim and his testimony at the trial (see post # 453)

cookiewench

05-25-2007, 10:56 PM

what explanation do you have for her not showing any signs of any fish activity?

I can't see how its possible...:shrug:

What are you talking about? There was very little LEFT of her!

deputydi

05-25-2007, 10:57 PM

<snip>besides I can't think of many reason why MG did what he did.... I mean I can understand him thinking he used the Pros' case against them pretty damn good..but he should have known how much the Amber tapes hurt and just pounded away with his own experts and witness while at the same time using the Pros' witness like he did.....<snip>
I agree. If he thought he nailed the pros witnesses on cross and was doing such a good job, he should have rested immediately after the DA ended his CIC. That can actually be good courtroom strategy. I just don't understand why he presented half of a defense. There really was so much more he could have done. I don't think it would have changed the verdict -- but, it might have changed the penalty. :shrug:

attorneywan2be

05-26-2007, 03:11 PM

Hi Ekg!

I don't know if the outcome would have been different, but if MG never told the jury he would present witnesses who saw Laci walking on 12/24, and another who saw Laci in/at the boat in the warehouse, and would've rested following the Pros' CIC, Geragos, would have retained credibility with this jury. Once a lawyer loses credibility, he is in danger of losing his case.

IMO

Hi Paula..

IMO, Geragos should have presented a full-scale defense CIC..he should have called the witnesses who reported to the police that they saw Laci walking the dog..those witnesses do exist, he should have taken the chance, he could have helped undo or diminish any damage that could have occurred during their cross examination...by not calling them, he basically gave the jury the impression that he didn't think they were credible..however, I do believe that at least 4 or 5 of those witnesses were definitely credible..

Hey Paula

05-26-2007, 03:37 PM

Hi Paula..

IMO, Geragos should have presented a full-scale defense CIC..he should have called the witnesses who reported to the police that they saw Laci walking the dog..those witnesses do exist, he should have taken the chance, he could have helped undo or diminish any damage that could have occurred during their cross examination...by not calling them, he basically gave the jury the impression that he didn't think they were credible..however, I do believe that at least 4 or 5 of those witnesses were definitely credible..

Hi AW2B!

Although I don't care for Geragos' flamboyant style and his habitual failures to deliver what he promises, I don't believe he is inept or incompetent, which he would have to have been if he failed to call credible witnesses who could have supported Scott's claim that Laci was alive when he left that morning. Because MG didn't call them, I honestly believe he knew the Pros could refute their testimony. What lawyer wouldn't call credible witnesses in defense of his client facing the DP? Serious malpractice charges could be brought against such a lawyer.

I've always believed there is a lot of info which was suppressed in this case, most of which we might never learn in our lifetime. It is this suppressed info, which I believe is the basis for many unanswered questions re strategies and decisions made by Geragos, which many of us question.

IMO

I hope you're enjoying the Holiday Weekend!

frydaddy

05-26-2007, 03:40 PM

Hi Paula..

IMO, Geragos should have presented a full-scale defense CIC..he should have called the witnesses who reported to the police that they saw Laci walking the dog..those witnesses do exist, he should have taken the chance, he could have helped undo or diminish any damage that could have occurred during their cross examination...by not calling them, he basically gave the jury the impression that he didn't think they were credible..however, I do believe that at least 4 or 5 of those witnesses were definitely credible..

I probably shouldn't post this knowing I won't be around to respond much this weekend...but this type of post is where you advocates lose me big time. MG was there...had the discovery...had the investigators...talked to Scott...you know? Now, I 'm not trying to be disrespectful, but what exactly do you use as evidence of these witnesses' credibility to make such a statement? How can you possibly know more than MG? If I can give you an example, if you were to tell me what it is like to walk on the moon, am I to give your account (based on what you've read, seen, or heard) more weight than say, Neil Armstrong's?

attorneywan2be

05-26-2007, 04:33 PM

I probably shouldn't post this knowing I won't be around to respond much this weekend...but this type of post is where you advocates lose me big time. MG was there...had the discovery...had the investigators...talked to Scott...you know? Now, I 'm not trying to be disrespectful, but what exactly do you use as evidence of these witnesses' credibility to make such a statement? How can you possibly know more than MG? If I can give you an example, if you were to tell me what it is like to walk on the moon, am I to give your account (based on what you've read, seen, or heard) more weight than say, Neil Armstrong's?

Based on the details these witnesses gave to the police...independent witnesses gave the same exact details that were not published..as an example:

Tony Freitas called the police on Dec 30, 2002

Mark Geragos: And he could not see a blouse or the type of shoes that she was wearing. He said the dog was reddish brown in color and the dog appeared to be pulling the woman; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said
------------------
Maldonado called the police on Jan 1, 2003

Mark Geragos: Okay. Then he said that he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner. He said it appeared the dog was pulling her. His wife had commented that the she hoped the woman didn't fall down . The dog had long hair and was blonde in color; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

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

In addition, Dalton wrote this in his book ( I didn't read the book, but others posted excerpts from his book:

Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma.
Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.

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

The Modesto police dispatch log shows two calls from Gene Pedrioli, who spotted a woman whom he thought was laci about the same time as the other witnesses did. He had to pick up a prescription at his pharmacy at 10:00 a.m. and noticed the golden retriever because it was the same color as his own dog.

The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar had spotted her. Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk, and she and the dog walked around them.

When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince police.

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

Six eyewitnesses I interviewed were convinced that they saw Laci Peterson alive and well after she was supposed to have disappeared. None of these witnesses testified at trial.

Geragos cross-examined the police about their knowledge of these witnesses and what they reported, but the court correctly instructed the jury that they could not consider this for the truth of what the witnesses said because it constituted hearsay. That meant that in their deliberations the jury was precluded from considering that six witnesses claimed to have seen laci walking her dog on the morning of December 24. If even one witness had convinced the jury of this fact, Scott should have been exonerated, since it would have established that Laci was alive well after Scott had left home.

attorneywan2be

05-26-2007, 04:44 PM

Hi AW2B!

Although I don't care for Geragos' flamboyant style and his habitual failures to deliver what he promises, I don't believe he is inept or incompetent, which he would have to have been if he failed to call credible witnesses who could have supported Scott's claim that Laci was alive when he left that morning. Because MG didn't call them, I honestly believe he knew the Pros could refute their testimony. What lawyer wouldn't call credible witnesses in defense of his client facing the DP? Serious malpractice charges could be brought against such a lawyer.

I've always believed there is a lot of info which was suppressed in this case, most of which we might never learn in our lifetime. It is this suppressed info, which I believe is the basis for many unanswered questions re strategies and decisions made by Geragos, which many of us question.

IMO

I hope you're enjoying the Holiday Weekend!

Hi Paula..I'm enjoying it..I hope you are having a good one..

IMO, Mark Geragos did a horrible job representing Scott, since I believe that his client, Scott, is FACTUALLY innocent, and I also believe that the circumstantial case was very weak..I consider Mark Geragos incompetent...I firmly believe that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

frydaddy

05-26-2007, 05:05 PM

Based on the details these witnesses gave to the police...independent witnesses gave the same exact details that were not published..as an example:

Tony Freitas called the police on Dec 30, 2002

Mark Geragos: And he could not see a blouse or the type of shoes that she was wearing. He said the dog was reddish brown in color and the dog appeared to be pulling the woman; is that right?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said
------------------
Maldonado called the police on Jan 1, 2003

Mark Geragos: Okay. Then he said that he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner. He said it appeared the dog was pulling her. His wife had commented that the she hoped the woman didn't fall down . The dog had long hair and was blonde in color; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

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

In addition, Dalton wrote this in his book ( I didn't read the book, but others posted excerpts from his book:

Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma.
Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.

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

The Modesto police dispatch log shows two calls from Gene Pedrioli, who spotted a woman whom he thought was laci about the same time as the other witnesses did. He had to pick up a prescription at his pharmacy at 10:00 a.m. and noticed the golden retriever because it was the same color as his own dog.

The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar had spotted her. Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk, and she and the dog walked around them.

When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince police.

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

Six eyewitnesses I interviewed were convinced that they saw Laci Peterson alive and well after she was supposed to have disappeared. None of these witnesses testified at trial.

Geragos cross-examined the police about their knowledge of these witnesses and what they reported, but the court correctly instructed the jury that they could not consider this for the truth of what the witnesses said because it constituted hearsay. That meant that in their deliberations the jury was precluded from considering that six witnesses claimed to have seen laci walking her dog on the morning of December 24. If even one witness had convinced the jury of this fact, Scott should have been exonerated, since it would have established that Laci was alive well after Scott had left home.

Aside from the obvious trial testimony, I have no idea what this post is supposed to tell me. No links, I don't know which are your words and which are attributed to what you heard that someone read from someone who was fired and wrote a piece of trash book to make a buck. Not to mention the fact, that none of what you provided explains how you know more about the veracity of these witnesses than Mark Geragos did. I'm more lost after your reply than before it. Think I'll go drink some beer and come back and read it...maybe my brain needs a jump start! :shrug:

JustMyOpinion

05-26-2007, 05:45 PM

Hi Paula..I'm enjoying it..I hope you are having a good one..

IMO, Mark Geragos did a horrible job representing Scott, since I believe that his client, Scott, is FACTUALLY innocent, and I also believe that the circumstantial case was very weak..I consider Mark Geragos incompetent...I firmly believe that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

Geragos opined it was a very damning circumstantial case prior to taking it.
Why do you think the Petersons & Scott retained him?
What evidence do you cite as the basis of your opinion that Geragos is "incompetent"..? ( aside from your belief that Scott is factually innocent & your belief it was a weak circumstantial case).. can you cite any other case where Geragos was cited for ineffective assistance of counsel? Is it possible Geragos had a trial strategy ( given the State's strong case, and the lack of evidence Geragos could bring to jurors that they could utilize to infer reasonable doubt) that simply failed, IYO?

attorneywan2be

05-26-2007, 07:07 PM

Geragos opined it was a very damning circumstantial case prior to taking it.
Why do you think the Petersons & Scott retained him?
What evidence do you cite as the basis of your opinion that Geragos is "incompetent"..? ( aside from your belief that Scott is factually innocent & your belief it was a weak circumstantial case).. can you cite any other case where Geragos was cited for ineffective assistance of counsel? Is it possible Geragos had a trial strategy ( given the State's strong case, and the lack of evidence Geragos could bring to jurors that they could utilize to infer reasonable doubt) that simply failed, IYO?

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one..you believe his client is guilty, so the fact that he lost the case would not mean to you that he is incompetent..on the other hand, I strongly believe that his client is innocent and the case against him was very weak..to me, since his INNOCENT client is sitting on death row----> he is incompetent...IMO, Mark Geragos did a very poor job from the beginning to the end..from the jury selection process to his closing argument.

Examples:

1- He didn't use all his pre-emptory challenges during the jury selection, I think he accepted jurors that clearly should have been rejected..

2- His cross examination of Karen Servas, he didn't challenge her timeline which was based on finding McKenzie at 10:18 am, as Karen Servas was testifying on cross, Geragos told her that they will be going through her timeline later on, the problem is, he never did, he told the judge that he will resume her cross examination after lunch, well, when they returned to court, he informed the judge that he discussed it with Mr. Distaso and that he was not going to ask anymore questions because they had a couple of witnesses they needed to rush through...IMO, that's negligence loud and clear..even judge Delucchi was clearly surprised..

3-The cross examination of Jacobson, he testified on direct that they were not able to identify the cell tower that handled Scott's call at 1:30 pm on January 11th, yet, the prosecution presented an exhibit that pointed an arrow to Hollister as his location for that call, Mark didn't ask how were they able to place Scott at Hollister if they were not able to identify the cell tower..

4-He was all over the place in order to raise reasonable doubt, but he didn't back up what he implied...he was throwing things out there... IMO, this was a very poor strategy because it probably gave the jury the impression that he was taking them for a ride..he should have focused on a single theory..for example, "the burglars abducted Laci"...however, he pointed the finger to Kim McGregor..to Amber..to the burglars..to even Ron Grantski...which is ridiculous..!

5-He was trying to be funny in a very serious murder case..a tragedy for both the Rochas and the Petersons..that was inappropriate..he knew that people in general were very passionate about this case..thus, he should have known that his jokes would have a negative impact on the jury...

6-Again, his closing argument was very weak, he should have focused and connected the dots ..rather, he was all over the place..

7-In his opening statement he promised the jury things he never delivered...IMO, that is a huge mistake...he raised the expectation only to have the jury disappointed at the end of the trial.! he lost his credibility..

8-Etc..etc..

deputydi

05-26-2007, 07:57 PM

>snip>Geragos cross-examined the police about their knowledge of these witnesses and what they reported, but the court correctly instructed the jury that they could not consider this for the truth of what the witnesses said because it constituted hearsay. That meant that in their deliberations the jury was precluded from considering that six witnesses claimed to have seen laci walking her dog on the morning of December 24. If even one witness had convinced the jury of this fact, Scott should have been exonerated, since it would have established that Laci was alive well after Scott had left home.
Yes, testimony about these witnesses by the police would have been hearsay but why didn't MG call these witnesses to the stand? Eyewitness testimony, under oath, is not hearsay.

attorneywan2be

05-26-2007, 08:01 PM

Yes, testimony about these witnesses by the police would have been hearsay but why didn't MG call these witnesses to the stand? Eyewitness testimony, under oath, is not hearsay.

That's exactly my point..he should have..!

JustMyOpinion

05-26-2007, 08:16 PM

JustMyOpinion

05-26-2007, 08:30 PM

Hey Paula

05-26-2007, 08:39 PM

Hi Paula..I'm enjoying it..I hope you are having a good one..

IMO, Mark Geragos did a horrible job representing Scott, since I believe that his client, Scott, is FACTUALLY innocent, and I also believe that the circumstantial case was very weak..I consider Mark Geragos incompetent...I firmly believe that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

Hi again AW2B!

I think MG did a good job during the Pros' CIC in cross-examining their witnesses.

If Geragos truly had credible defense witnesses, whose veracity would have gone unchallenged, yet failed to call them, then I believe in addition to including "ineffective assistance of counsel" in his appeal, that Scott should file a malpractice lawsuit against Mark Geragos, as this fatal form of gross incompetence in a DP case, far exceeds the boundaries of ineffective assistance of counsel.

IMO

deputydi

05-26-2007, 09:40 PM

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one..you believe his client is guilty, so the fact that he lost the case would not mean to you that he is incompetent..on the other hand, I strongly believe that his client is innocent and the case against him was very weak..to me, since his INNOCENT client is sitting on death row----> he is incompetent...IMO, Mark Geragos did a very poor job from the beginning to the end..from the jury selection process to his closing argument.<snip>
The fact that he lost the case is not proof of incompetence. None of the things you listed are going to rise to the level of incompetency. He made a lot of bad decisions (in our collective opinions) but bad decisions happen all the time (remember the glove debacle in the OJ trial?). This claim is probably the single most common claim on appeal and it almost never is successful. The defense atty would almost have to have come to court drunk or was seen sleeping at the table in order for this to be successful.

MG hired a high profile and very respected jury consultant. The fact that he accepted some questionable jurors was just one of those "bad decisions". It is his choice (with his client and his consultant) to accept or reject them. You can't get a retrial based on that.

I'm not going to go through your points item by item but not one of them is a valid reason for the appeals court to order a new trial. You are trying to second guess a lot of MGs decisions. None of them amount to trial error. Nice try, but it won't fly.

I had to chuckle at #7. Attorneys do this all the time and it's always a mistake. Jurors are listening -- especially to opening statements. If an attorney makes a claim, they wait for it to be backed up with testimony. When it's not, they go into deliberations wondering "why".

ekg

05-27-2007, 11:45 AM

You implied (with your 12 hour scenario) that she could have been there only 12 hours. And as someone else said, the barnacles would be microscopic at that point.

The info I found was that the people who found her body saw barnacles on it, so they weren't microscopic.

I answered your question on barnacles, I haven't had time to imply anything yet b/c I've had to keep explaining that answer to you..Just b/c you don't like the theory doesn't change the 12 hr shell formation time

Permanent Adhesion

Eventually, cyprids select a surface and attach permanently via the explosive secretion of another proteinaceous adhesive, originating from glands within the body, that hardens and embeds the antennules - tethering the cyprid to its selected surface. Metamorphosis into a juvenile barnacle then occurs within a matter of hours depending on species.

Of course they would not be microscopic..I have never said they would be... the animals themselves are(per adnoid) until they attach and then, within hrs of attachment, they form shells..

As for how long it would take for marine life to totally consume something, that depends on a lot of factors (time of year and water temperature and depth being some of them).

can you give me some facts where the time of year and water temperature and depth making playing a role in how slow/fast a body would be devoured by marine life.

It seems you're saying that it depends on the season as to whether marine life will eat and how much they'll eat..

you do understand that marine life lives at all depths right? that just b/c it 1ft or water or 1000 ft of water... something is living in that depth that needs to eat to survive.... are you trying to say that this isn't so? that marine-life will only eat depending on the depth of the water?

I'm going to have ask for some links on this also from you to prove that.....

Laci was weighted down and near the bottom - subject to crabs. Her body was in a "skeletonized" condition. She showed signs of being in a "marine environment" for quite some time after death.

the ME based his marine environment on adipocere ,the barnacles and the mineralization on the crotch areas of the pants...

If Laci was subject to crabs,lobsters,shrimp,fish,sharks etc etc... why after 4 months in an environment filled with an abundance of marine life, was there anything at all left of her? How did she still have skin left on her?

Laci's body didn't have very many barnacles on it, why not? Barnacles are free-floating and have to find a place to attach or they die..thats why it doesn't take them long to find something to attach to.... and once they do attach they stop eating until the their 'metamorphosis' is complete.....IMO If she had been in the bay for 4 months, and exposed to the marine life, there would have been nothing left of her... and what was left would have had more than a few barnacles on her...she was a food source in an environment that has evolved to a level where anything that is put in their path is eaten wholey and completely as fast as possible. and yet after 4 months in this environment, there was still soft tissue left on her? The baby was still intact?

Now I am implying that all she only had to be in the bay for atleast 12 hrs for the barnacles to form.... but before the bay she only had to be in a wet and dry area for the adipose,barnacle and the mineralization on the crotch area of the pants to happen...

was she in another area? Well, I would have to look at other evidence to decide on that issue.... all I have to decide for this issue is whether or not it's possible.......and IMO it is.... pieces of puzzled remember. You can't just look at one piece and say AHA!.. you have to look at others to get the complete picture...

ekg

05-27-2007, 12:00 PM

Um....back to the saltiness of the bay....remember when you said there are no freshwater barnacles? Would barnacles be prolific in a body of water that is not very salty? In Louisiana, we call our water like that "brackish." I've not seen barnacles in brackish water, either.

yeah.... they are in brackish water.. the intercoastal here is brackish and there are barnacles everywhere..

some of the bayou's in La have them around the docks and pylons.... fishermen have to watch out for them b/c the fish will break the fishing line on them....

ekg

05-27-2007, 12:03 PM

You think that Scott couldn't have dumped a body from a 14-ft. aluminum boat, but some other guy could from a 10-ft. raft???????????????

she would have been more decomposed by then....so I'll flip this over to you..... you think that only Scott Peterson is capable of dumping a body from a small boat without it capsizing?

cookiewench

05-27-2007, 12:09 PM

I'm practically speechless that you would even ask these things. You don't know that temperature and location would have an effect on the amount of marine feeding? As in........whether it was a busy shipping channel or deeper, stiller water?

This is the kicker, though:

"If Laci was subject to crabs,lobsters,shrimp,fish,sharks etc etc... why after 4 months in an environment filled with an abundance of marine life, was there anything at all left of her? How did she still have skin left on her?'

Where did you read that there was "skin left on her?" How do you know if she was originally wrapped in plastic or some other covering? How do you KNOW that there "should have" been nothing left of her?

"Laci's body didn't have very many barnacles on it, why not? Barnacles are free-floating and have to find a place to attach or they die..thats why it doesn't take them long to find something to attach to.... and once they do attach they stop eating until the their 'metamorphosis' is complete.....IMO If she had been in the bay for 4 months, and exposed to the marine life, there would have been nothing left of her... and what was left would have had more than a few barnacles on her...she was a food source in an environment that has evolved to a level where anything that is put in their path is eaten wholey and completely as fast as possible. and yet after 4 months in this environment, there was still soft tissue left on her? The baby was still intact?"

I would really like a link to where it was said that she "didn't have very many barnacles on her".

And I really think you need to read up on Conner's condition - that it was obvious that he had been dead for quite a long while, although "intact" because protected by the uterus - the strongest muscle in the body.

Have you read any of the testimony presented in this case?

And can you present ANY kind of evidence of an object having visible barnacles on it after 12 hours exposure?

JustMyOpinion

05-27-2007, 12:47 PM

what explanation do you have for her not showing any signs of any fish activity?

I can't see how its possible...:shrug:
http://www.findlaci2003.us/ne-autopsy-report-9-8-03.html
SNIP:
3.) Extensive changes of immersion, postmortem animal feeding, tidal effect and decomposition, estimated postmortem interval : months

accordn2me

05-27-2007, 01:06 PM

yeah.... they are in brackish water.. the intercoastal here is brackish and there are barnacles everywhere..

some of the bayou's in La have them around the docks and pylons.... fishermen have to watch out for them b/c the fish will break the fishing line on them....Really? Which ones?

JustMyOpinion

05-27-2007, 01:25 PM

Now you are a Add this story about a suspicious boater in a wetsuit and snorkel, running from LE, in the area where Laci's body washed up about 7 weeks later......

?? Where does the article indicate this raft was seen in the area where Laci's body came ashore? How does someone on a raft "run"..IYO?

frydaddy

05-27-2007, 01:32 PM

Aside from the obvious trial testimony, I have no idea what this post is supposed to tell me. No links, I don't know which are your words and which are attributed to what you heard that someone read from someone who was fired and wrote a piece of trash book to make a buck. Not to mention the fact, that none of what you provided explains how you know more about the veracity of these witnesses than Mark Geragos did. I'm more lost after your reply than before it. Think I'll go drink some beer and come back and read it...maybe my brain needs a jump start! :shrug:

I drank yesterday...read the post again...still confused! Thus, I am forced into yet more beer drinking again today. At this point, the race is on as to which will occur first: I will comprehend advocate thinking or I will attend a meeting on the 12 step program. Perhaps I should sample some homegrown for the first time, will that assist me? :shrug:

At any rate...have a great day good people...see ya when I see ya! :beer:

Hey Paula

05-27-2007, 01:39 PM

I drank yesterday...read the post again...still confused! Thus, I am forced into yet more beer drinking again today. At this point, the race is on as to which will occur first: I will comprehend advocate thinking or I will attend a meeting on the 12 step program. Perhaps I should sample some homegrown for the first time, will that assist me? :shrug:

At any rate...have a great day good people...see ya when I see ya! :beer:

Hi Frydaddy! :seeya:

Wishing you and yours a wonderful remainder of the Holiday Weekend!

ekg

05-27-2007, 02:04 PM

ekg

05-27-2007, 02:05 PM

Could we have a link to where he changed his testimony? Just because Geragos said something doesn't make it true - in fact, the opposite was more often the case.

MG didn't say that he changed the testimoy...

deputyDi did...

deputydi

05-27-2007, 02:37 PM

MG didn't say that he changed the testimoy...

deputyDi did...
It was me -- I confess. ;)

I assume you're talking about Dr Peterson's testimony. I linked to his testimony from the prelim and he never said anything about a "crotch" area. I haven't seen anyone post a link to the trial testimony where he supposedly said the mineral deposits were found in the crotch area of her pants. I'm taking everyone's word for it that the words are there and they haven't been tampered with. The description of where the deposits were located did change from the prelim to the trial.

attorneywan2be

05-27-2007, 04:13 PM

It was me -- I confess. ;)

I assume you're talking about Dr Peterson's testimony. I linked to his testimony from the prelim and he never said anything about a "crotch" area. I haven't seen anyone post a link to the trial testimony where he supposedly said the mineral deposits were found in the crotch area of her pants. I'm taking everyone's word for it that the words are there and they haven't been tampered with. The description of where the deposits were located did change from the prelim to the trial.

IMO, Dr. Peterson was more specific at the trial..he testified at the prelim that he found the mineral deposits AROUND the upper legs..he testified at the trial they were in the crotch area of her pants...I will post the original TS of the trial..

The ME's testimony at the prelim:

11 Q. When you were -- you had talked earlier when you
12 were describing the clothing of Laci about something,
13 mineralization. What did that mean?
14 A. What I saw in the trousers that have been more or
15 less reduced to thread down around the upper legs, there
16 were round, smooth, round to oval deposits of stone.
17 I'm not a mineralogist, I'm not an anthropologist, but
18 it was quite heavy --
19 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation.
20 THE COURT: Overruled.
21 THE WITNESS: These were discrete deposits.
22 Again, as I tried to consider what possible mechanism
23 might have been involved there, I thought about, again, how
24 a body acts in the water, how it tends to submerge and then
25 resurface. And I think if this happened over a period of
26 time, with alternate layers of wetting and drying, it could
27 have account -- it could account for minerals building up as
28 I saw here.

The ME's testimony at the trial:

88. THE WITNESS: There was a portion of khaki colored trousers
in place. And inside the waistband of those there was a brand name of
Motherhood. On the laundry label there was a size S. I took to mean small.
There were panties beneath the trousers. The brand on those was Jockey, and the
size was 7. The buttock portion of the panties was missing. Part of the
elastic band around each leg was still in place. With respect to further
examination of the trousers, there was a button closure in the front that was
still fastened. There was a zipper that was still in place. And in the
waistband of the trousers there were draw cords. And those were still in place
too.
89. Again, let me go to each -- you are talking about these items
were in place. Were they in the usual place of wearing?
90. They were.
91. That would include the underwear as well?
92. That's correct.
93. You can continue.
94. The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been
basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these
fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These
were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the
fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I
said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the
bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.

deputydi

05-27-2007, 04:23 PM

IMO, Dr. Peterson was more specific at the trial..he testified at the prelim that he found the mineral deposits AROUND the upper legs..he testified at the trial they were in the crotch area of her pants...I will post the original TS of the trial..
<snip>
Thanks. The change in wording probably doesn't mean much, but I'm curious as to the condition of the rest of the pant legs. Was it ONLY the upper thigh/crotch area that was shredded and contained these deposits? Since he specified the area in his testimony, I assume the lower portions of her pants weren't affected. What was holding the material together?

My questions may sound silly, but I'm serious. In trying to visualize this, I would think that the entire pant leg would have to be shredded or the lower part would have been missing -- they weren't.

attorneywan2be

05-27-2007, 04:56 PM

Thanks. The change in wording probably doesn't mean much, but I'm curious as to the condition of the rest of the pant legs. Was it ONLY the upper thigh/crotch area that was shredded and contained these deposits? Since he specified the area in his testimony, I assume the lower portions of her pants weren't affected. What was holding the material together?

My questions may sound silly, but I'm serious. In trying to visualize this, I would think that the entire pant leg would have to be shredded or the lower part would have been missing -- they weren't.

Her pants were not shredded above the crotch (the waistband was intact and so as the zipper area) and were not shredded below the crotch area, I mean it is possible that the pants would stay together if the shredding was such so it would not make complete circles to separate that part from the lower part if her pants...for example, I have seen people wearing pants that were shredded around the knees, yet the pants stayed together probably for the same reason I mentioned...

deputydi

05-27-2007, 06:52 PM

Her pants were not shredded above the crotch (the waistband was intact and so as the zipper area) and were not shredded below the crotch area, I mean it is possible that the pants would stay together if the shredding was such so it would not make complete circles to separate that part from the lower part if her pants...for example, I have seen people wearing pants that were shredded around the knees, yet the pants stayed together probably for the same reason I mentioned...
I've looked everywhere for a picture of these pants and can't find one. They were included in the exhibits so I don't understand why I can find pics of everything BUT the pants. Do any exist online?

ekg

05-27-2007, 10:56 PM

I'm practically speechless that you would even ask these things. You don't know that temperature and location would have an effect on the amount of marine feeding? As in........whether it was a busy shipping channel or deeper, stiller water?

you don't think fish,crab,shrimp,lobster, or other 'marine life' eat or live in a shipping channel? still water or deep water?:eek:

um, wow...yeah.. I'm speechless too...

you know that fish live and eat 5 miles down on the ocean floor right? where it's just above freezing,dark,and the waters are still....

This is the kicker, though:

Where did you read that there was "skin left on her?" How do you know if she was originally wrapped in plastic or some other covering? How do you KNOW that there "should have" been nothing left of her?

I would really like a link to where it was said that she "didn't have very many barnacles on her".

And I really think you need to read up on Conner's condition - that it was obvious that he had been dead for quite a long while, although "intact" because protected by the uterus - the strongest muscle in the body.

Have you read any of the testimony presented in this case?

ummmmmmm.......

95. Now, when you start -- and you are looking at this -- you are doing this external examination, do you do one side or the other? Do you do just one side?

96. Normally we receive a body in place on its back. In this case, we received the body in the prone position face down. So my initial -- one of my initial procedures was to turn the body over. Just easier to get to the body cavities that way. In addition to the clothing, I should mention there was also a portion of duct tape on the pants, on the front of the body. It actually was sticking to the front of the waistband of the trousers. From the back, I could see it around one leg. So it was just a piece of duct tape. In terms of size, the body is examined from all different angles. I'm looking at it from the right, from the left, from the front, from the back. Again, in this case, I was limited by the fact there was so much of the body absent. In fact, once I took the clothing off, on the left side of the front of the thigh there was a little bit of skin left. And that was the only skin left in this case. Elsewhere there was, in some places, skeletal muscle exposed. Other places there was still some fat beneath the skin left. But the outer layers of the skin, the tissue right beneath the skin was all absent.

97. As you go through this process of doing this examination, do you document it as you go along?

98. I do.

obviously I have since I knew there was still a little skin left on her....... so let me ask you, have you read the testimony?

maybe that's the problem.... you haven't read them...I think there is a link on scottisinnocent.com where you can read them...

136. Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one -- I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess.

137. THE COURT: Tell the jury what a femur is.

138. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Thigh bone. I was stuck on barnacles there. So seeing barnacles, to me, was suggestive that the body had been in a place with access to the organisms that forms those things, namely marine.

the only place she had barnacles was on her femur..... thats why I say there weren't that many on her...... since out of all the bones that were exposed only a femur had any sign of barnacles...

if she was wrapped then how did the marine life get to her?

and Connor and her uterus is exactly my point.... how as there any soft tissue left after 4 months of being exposed to marine life...

And can you present ANY kind of evidence of an object having visible barnacles on it after 12 hours exposure?

sure....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprid
Permanent Adhesion

Eventually, cyprids select a surface and attach permanently via the explosive secretion of another proteinaceous adhesive, originating from glands within the body, that hardens and embeds the antennules - tethering the cyprid to its selected surface. Metamorphosis into a juvenile barnacle then occurs within a matter of hours depending on species.

oh but you're right..... they don't form within 12 hrs...... my bad..... they can form within 6.

http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/51.pdf

Since losses due to dislodgement do not occur during the first few hours of rotation, except in the case of barnacles attached within six hours or less, and since they continue to take place during the entire period of rotation,it seems probable that they are not directly due to mechanical action. Possibly the mechanism is one of interference with feeding processes, followed by reduced growth rate, death and diminished adhesion.

A further point arising out of the experimental data is the fact that at equivalent current velocities 12 hour and 24 hour old barnacles show greater growth and less loss of attachment than those somewhat older. It is possible that at this stage of development, with metamorphosis incomplete, an orientation to the current may occur which facilitates feeding, although this was not actually observed.

and......

http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/94/3/236.pdf

To ascertain the numbers of barnacle cyprids attaching daily a, collecting surface of smooth, black glass was hung in the waters of Biscayne Bay at the Beach Boat Slips, Miami Beach, Florida, just below the low-tide mark. The cyprids which attached to one side of the glass (500 sq. cm.) during each 24-hour period were counted daily between 8:00 A.M. and 8:15 A.M. The surface was wiped clean after each counting. Temperature and density of the surface water were also determined at the same time. From the data salinity was calculated.The investigation was
carried out over a period of 38 months,except for short interruption isn the summers of 1943,1944and 1945.

and.......

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjan99/barnac.html
Then another complete transformation occurs. Within twelve hours after attachment it builds a shell made of several (mostly six) plates. The rest of it's life the now adult barnacle will stay positioned with it's head down.

oh and just so you don't have to ask....

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjan99/barnac.html

also explains how Cypris (barnacle larvae) free float until they attach and then the grow their shells within hours to become juvenile and then adult barnacles...

ekg

05-27-2007, 10:58 PM

http://www.findlaci2003.us/ne-autopsy-report-9-8-03.html
SNIP:
3.) Extensive changes of immersion, postmortem animal feeding, tidal effect and decomposition, estimated postmortem interval : months

cool...... can I start using The Enquirer as my source for stuff?

ekg

05-27-2007, 11:15 PM

Really? Which ones?

hey A2M...... sorry I took so long.. had to do the birthday thingy for my dad and brother today..

the 'Bayou Segnette' is one.

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=201

Summer — Pittman said he believes an angler could effectively fish around Bayou Segnette during the summer with just two rods. One with a plastic frog bait like a Stanley Ribbit, and one rigged up with braid and a jig or soft plastic.

“It’s a simple deal, really,” he said. “I fish the Ribbit from daybreak to about 8 or 9 a.m. Once the sun starts beating down, the fish will head to the shady areas. That’s when I grab my 7 1/2-foot flipping stick and go to punching.”

Braided line is an important component of punching grass for two important reasons. Some anglers may not think about barnacles that are on laydowns but can’t be seen, and a fish that bites deep in the grass has to be removed as quickly as possible.

“Braid will help you get a fish out because it doesn’t have any stretch, so you can move a fish out of the grass fast,” Pittman said. “It also cuts through grass rather than getting bogged down in it like mono. Braid also won’t fray on the barnacles or shells.”

Barataria Bay located in Louisiana, between Bayou Lafourche to the west and the Mississippi River ... is another

http://www.lagameandfish.com/fishing/la_aa022404a/
FEBRUARY

Barataria Bay
Sheepshead
The key here is to find pilings to which barnacles have attached themselves. With your push pole, scrape the sides of the pilings beneath the surface to dislodge barnacles, creating a chumming effect. Use a Carolina-rigged treble hook (a small version - these fish have very small mouths) with a shock leader. Pinch on pieces of cracked crab; shrimp will also work, but crab stays on the hook better.

I don't know much about La.. but I know the parishes are like our counties..... so are the bayous like our local lakes?

anyway.. there are 2 right there...... I can find more if you want them..

attorneywan2be

05-27-2007, 11:33 PM

Snip

I don't know much about La.. but I know the parishes are like our counties..... so are the bayous like our local lakes?

Snip

What is a Bayou?

Bayou is a Louisiana French term, from the Choctaw bayuk, meaning "small stream."

It is usually the offshoot of a river or lake in a lowland area. It is a sluggish or stagnant creek, frequently flowing through swampy terrain. The term is used mainly on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast and especially in the delta region of the Mississippi River.

Houston covers an area of 1365 sq. km (527 sq. miles). It is situated on the flat coastal plain and is drained by short, sluggish streams, known locally as bayous.

http://outreach.rice.edu/~dgabby/science/bayou/bayou.htm

ekg

05-27-2007, 11:45 PM

?? Where does the article indicate this raft was seen in the area where Laci's body came ashore?

"The search began soon after 3 a.m., when the captain of the Alameda-based tugboat Polaris telephoned the U.S. Coast Guard to say his boat had nearly collided with a 10-foot Zodiac-style raft about a mile south of the Bay Bridge."

right there......

http://img24.imagevenue.com/loc958/th_22084_map_122_958lo.JPG (http://img24.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc958&image=22084_map_122_958lo.JPG)
click to enlarge

"A" is Brooks island....I assume that you can see where Point Isabel is? even tho it's not marked..it's to the right of Brooks Island.. Interstate 80 at the bottom is the Bay Bridge...... the legend on the left says Brooks Island is approx 6 miles from the bridge... the news clipping says the boat was seen about a mile from the bridge... so I say the boat was in the area...of course 7 miles seem pretty far away..... but not when you look at the openess of the 7 miles in question....

How does someone on a raft "run"..IYO?

you are kidding right?

you understand that if I were to say....

"Joe was out driving his 1971 Mach I when he decided he would try and out run the police instead of pulling over'

or

"Tom was speeding and ran his car into a bridge'

that I don't really mean they are 'running' on their feet right? and that I'm obviously meaning they were 'running' in their cars...

same applies to how you can 'run' in a raft....

OH and "Tom and Joe" are just fictional characters to help in my examples.... and the examples are just my way of showing you how you can 'run' in a raft.. they bear no other meaning in this case at all...

ekg

05-28-2007, 12:29 AM

It was me -- I confess. ;)

snipped

I'm taking everyone's word for it that the words are there and they haven't been tampered with. The description of where the deposits were located did change from the prelim to the trial.

well mine are directly from Timex... and they are 'read only' I can copy/paste from them.. but not onto them

here's a capture of what they look like...click once to enlarge and if it's blurry, the click it again...

http://img147.imagevenue.com/loc1048/th_24844_rept_122_1048lo.JPG (http://img147.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc1048&image=24844_rept_122_1048lo.JPG)

here's the top of the page if it helps you find the testimony someplace else

194 pages $224.00
September 15, 2004
Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge

and here is Freshwater accepting it enough to post about it...

Freshwater
03-26-2007, 09:00 AM

Brian Peterson: Forensic pathologist with the Forensic Medical Group, performed autopsy on Laci and Conner Peterson, testified that he determined that Conner was a full term baby, his estimated gestational age was 9 months, testified that he found mineral deposits in the crotch area of Laci's pants, explained to the jury that those mineral deposits could be due to repeated cycles of wetting and drying of her pants over a long period of time. He testified at the preliminay hearings that there were no tooth marks or bite marks on either body.

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/archive/index.php/t-281017.html

I don't know what more I can do to assure you he said it.....:shrug:

but I think I've proven myself and that when I bring something up, I can back it with proof...

not saying you have to believe me b/c of that.... but I thought I'd throw it out there.....LOL

ekg

05-28-2007, 12:39 AM

I've looked everywhere for a picture of these pants and can't find one. They were included in the exhibits so I don't understand why I can find pics of everything BUT the pants. Do any exist online?

I think this is probably why we can't find them....

1. THE COURT: Before we go on to the next witness, does that complete the introduction of these photographs of Laci Peterson and Conner Peterson, and, also, the autopsy photos and the views at the scene?

2. MR. GERAGOS: I believe so.

3. MR. DAVID HARRIS: Yes.

4. THE COURT: No more witnesses, okay.

5. MR. GERAGOS: I believe so.

6. THE COURT: What I'm going to do in accordance with Judge Girolami's ruling then, I will, I'm going to admit these, I'm going to admit 257 through 261 into evidence and I'll order they be sealed in accordance with Judge Girolami's ruling from Modesto. Further, the Court will make its own independent findings that the Court, pursuant to 243.1 will order those photographs to be sealed for the following reasons: The overriding interest is to protect the privacy of the Rocha and Peterson family and their sensibilities. And also that the printing of those photographs in the media would inflame pubic opinion against the defendant. And the Court's of the opinion that those overriding interests supports the sealing of the record outweighs the public access to the record and that there is a substantial probability for the reasons I've stated that the overriding interest would be prejudiced if the record is not sealed and the Court cannot think of any other less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. And so I can't see of any reason why those should be printed in the media for any reason other than morbid curiosity so that's the Court's ruling. So they'll be admitted in evidence and they'll be sealed for the reasons I've stated. Okay. And, Marylin, you've got those now 257 through 261 may be sealed and they will take the same number. And it's all sealed.

and the pants photo was 257F I think...

203. 257F.

204. I talked little earlier about peculiar shredding of the trousers. And this is the effect that I was talking about. So there is still some intact material there, but a lot of it being reduced to essentially these balls of thread, pieces of thread.

205. To the left side of this photograph, do we see where the duct tape goes up towards the zipper area?

206. Right. That silvery material is the duct tape.

207. And at the top middle of the photograph, is that the bottom of the zipper, there?

and they'd fall under the seal.....??:shrug: I'm guessing anyway...

accordn2me

05-28-2007, 12:45 AM

I drank yesterday...read the post again...still confused! Thus, I am forced into yet more beer drinking again today. At this point, the race is on as to which will occur first: I will comprehend advocate thinking or I will attend a meeting on the 12 step program. Perhaps I should sample some homegrown for the first time, will that assist me? :shrug:

At any rate...have a great day good people...see ya when I see ya! (stolen beer)Betcha can't drink enough to "comprehend advocate thinking." A 12-step program will teach you how to live sober contentedly....

Hawaii is second only to Holland in the homegrown department! And I betcha it's closer to where you are... ;)

A safe and Happy Memorial day to you and yours, frydaddy! :beer:

ekg

05-28-2007, 12:54 AM

What is a Bayou?

Bayou is a Louisiana French term, from the Choctaw bayuk, meaning "small stream."

It is usually the offshoot of a river or lake in a lowland area. It is a sluggish or stagnant creek, frequently flowing through swampy terrain. The term is used mainly on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast and especially in the delta region of the Mississippi River.

Houston covers an area of 1365 sq. km (527 sq. miles). It is situated on the flat coastal plain and is drained by short, sluggish streams, known locally as bayous.

http://outreach.rice.edu/~dgabby/science/bayou/bayou.htm

ahh ok.... for awhile I never knew there were more than one.... I though it was just a huge swamp area that was all connected somehow...LOL...yeah, I'm a dunce..:tongue:

Thank AW2B:beer:

frydaddy

05-28-2007, 10:00 AM

Hi Frydaddy! :seeya:

Wishing you and yours a wonderful remainder of the Holiday Weekend!

Thank you Sweet P, we are well on our way! Same to you...what's left of it! ;)

frydaddy

05-28-2007, 10:35 AM

Betcha can't drink enough to "comprehend advocate thinking." A 12-step program will teach you how to live sober contentedly....

Hawaii is second only to Holland in the homegrown department! And I betcha it's closer to where you are... ;)

A safe and Happy Memorial day to you and yours, frydaddy! :beer:

Ixnay on the 12-step program...for the love...SOBER?...part of the 12 steps...who knew? Anyway...one more day of seeking wisdom via the assistance of one Frederick J. Miller...let's hope he doesn't let me down.

Hawaii is really number two? I'd never have thought this, given the price of importing Cheetos and other various munchies from the mainland. If I should decide to seek further enlightenment...I might need a tour guide to set me on the path...preferably somewhere near a clothing optional (not mine!) beach with good fishing and a big screen TV with HBO (gotta see my Saturday night boxing). A golf course and a Hooters nearby would also be a plus!

Okay...enough off topic rambling! Hope you have a great holiday as well!!! :patriot:

deputydi

05-28-2007, 12:30 PM

<snip>but I think I've proven myself and that when I bring something up, I can back it with proof...

not saying you have to believe me b/c of that.... but I thought I'd throw it out there.....LOL
Thank you -- I really do appreciate it. And, just for the record, I DO believe you. I do think it's a little strange that he used more specific descriptions at trial than he did during the prelim -- but I accept it as fact that he did.

enlightenme

05-28-2007, 01:14 PM

I think this is probably why we can't find them....

and the pants photo was 257F I think...

and they'd fall under the seal.....??:shrug: I'm guessing anyway...

It sure does sound as if those photos are under seal.

The jurors saw them though. As well as the autopsy photos and the photos of Conner. I think that makes them more informed than you or I. They also had access to them in deliberations so it wasn't just the "flash up on the overhead screen" that perhaps some of the court watchers (Marleen, for example) saw.

The jurors would not be allowed to even discuss the "bodies planted on the shore" theory because Geragos did not try to advance this theory nor put on witnesses to prove any element of it. The most he tried to do was question the tape around Conner but he never put on Dr. Wecht to say "it could never happen in a million years". All he did was put on Dr. March who tried to prove Conner lived about FOUR days longer than Dec. 24th and he failed, miserably.

IMO

ekg

05-28-2007, 01:37 PM

Thank you -- I really do appreciate it. And, just for the record, I DO believe you. I do think it's a little strange that he used more specific descriptions at trial than he did during the prelim -- but I accept it as fact that he did.

I'm glad I could help then....:D

Happy Memorial Day:patriot:

cookiewench

05-28-2007, 01:58 PM

you don't think fish,crab,shrimp,lobster, or other 'marine life' eat or live in a shipping channel? still water or deep water?:eek:

um, wow...yeah.. I'm speechless too...

you know that fish live and eat 5 miles down on the ocean floor right? where it's just above freezing,dark,and the waters are still....

ummmmmmm.......

obviously I have since I knew there was still a little skin left on her....... so let me ask you, have you read the testimony?

maybe that's the problem.... you haven't read them...I think there is a link on scottisinnocent.com where you can read them...

the only place she had barnacles was on her femur..... thats why I say there weren't that many on her...... since out of all the bones that were exposed only a femur had any sign of barnacles...

if she was wrapped then how did the marine life get to her?

and Connor and her uterus is exactly my point.... how as there any soft tissue left after 4 months of being exposed to marine life...

sure....

oh but you're right..... they don't form within 12 hrs...... my bad..... they can form within 6.

and......

and.......

oh and just so you don't have to ask....

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjan99/barnac.html

also explains how Cypris (barnacle larvae) free float until they attach and then the grow their shells within hours to become juvenile and then adult barnacles...

I hope I can bring myself to stop debating with you soon, because I can't make hide nor hair of what you're trying to put out there (although I don't think anyone will buy the theory that Laci was left on those rocks the night before and had visible barnacles on her by the next morning).

It's hard to understand why you can't accept that after seeing these barnacles and the condition of both Laci & Conner, the ME stated that it appeared to him that Laci had been in the ocean for several months and that Conner had been expelled recently.

The ME has seen many, many bodies that we pulled from the bay in various states and HE did the examination. Not only did YOU not examine these bodies, I'd like to know if you've ever, in your life, done an autopsy.

What exact agenda do you believe the ME had? Was he part of the vast "frame Scott" conspiracy? Why couldn't Geragos find a medical witness who could refute what the ME said?

You also seem to be intentionally misconstrueing everything I say. I SAID that the amount and type of feeding would depend on different factors. In Laci's case, it appears that she was subject to crab feeding because she was weighted down. In fact, she was seen by side-scan sonar in March, with crabs all over her body.

It appears to me that you are trying to lead people astray by making flat statements like "she had only a few barnacles on her" and "she had skin left".

When we get the actual quotes, we see that he NEVER said that she had "only a few" barnacles - what he did was talk about WHERE he found them. We also find that there was only a little bit of skin - and that it was in an area that had been covered.

As someone who's lived not far from the ocean all my life, I'm continually amazed at some of the theories I see put out there: if Laci was wrapped in a tarp, it could have, over the months she was submerged, been pulled off of her - in fact, one of the experts testified that she had probably been "rolling around" near the bottom of the bay.

Other theories I've seen postulated were that Conner couldn't have gotten over the rocks (jetty) without being smashed to pieces, and that he was above the debris line. It was testified to (and can be seen by anyone who frequents the beach), that larger, heavier objects land and then are not pulled back in with the smaller debris.

cookiewench

05-28-2007, 02:02 PM

..........and I don't know about anyone else, but my crotch is up at the top of my legs.

I see no significance at all in the doctor saying at one time "the top of her legs" and then "crotch area" another time.

Is this supposed to prove something, or tell us something?

Laci was wearing pants but no top. The uterus is the strongest muscle in the body. The uterus was protected by the pants It makes perfect sense.

attorneywan2be

05-29-2007, 01:55 PM

..........and I don't know about anyone else, but my crotch is up at the top of my legs.

I see no significance at all in the doctor saying at one time "the top of her legs" and then "crotch area" another time.

Snip

Who said otherwise?!..I think we all agree that it doesn't mean much..

I agree that he was referring to the same thing: "the crotch" area of her pants...

accordn2me

06-05-2007, 10:56 PM

Please note - I am not making light of a terrible situation. I want to make that clear. But I do have a point to make.

I just read this news bit on Kelsey Smith, (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278054,00.html) a Kansas teenager that is missing. This part especially caught my eye:

Now, what's wrong with these people? If you listen to Scott's supporters here, you should NEVER cooperate with the police! It's none of their business, and the police will just us the DNA to frame them. Perhaps they should all go out to a bar. Or "grief counseling". Whatever.

Heaven help them if they take a polygraph. They should pay more attention to covering their own behinds. Get your priorities straight, folks.

<sarcasm off>

You see, this is what happens when people really care and are genuinely concerned. They do whatever it takes to move things along. Clearly the love and care for the missing girl. What a contrast.

Feel free to report me for "lack of civility" for expressing my opinion.

I would give DNA, blood, hair....take a polygraph, do a brain scan, talk to psychics (well, give it to Scott's momma...she did hire a psychic) but whatever the police wanted me to do! Then I would be in church begging God and confessing every sin and horrible thought I ever had...every joint smoked, lustful thought or act, curse word, speeding in the car, thinking about cheating on my tests (just Math but I couldn't figure out how to do it)....you get the picture.

OT, why did they want DNA from her family if they have a tape of some guy forcing her into her car? If they get DNA from known people....it should be the boyfriend's friends and family if you ask me....and I don't even know why I think that yet...just a hunch.

One2Snoop

06-05-2007, 11:13 PM

I see the point you both (A2M and adnoid) are making regarding Kelsey Smiths Story. Why didn't Scott jump in and do everything he could to help find Laci, why didn't he do whatever it takes to find her? IMHO its because he had something to hide.

BTW I've started a thread on Kelsey here at CL. Here's the link if you all would like to join in the discussion (not much of one going yet)....

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?p=8869553#post8869553

lilmiss1960

06-09-2007, 02:39 AM

thinkaboutit

06-18-2007, 12:00 PM

well, they did get there pretty early on....

and they published a story about him being in the bay area on the 26th..

:shrug:

I was trying to find a post to quote relating to the discussion of how soon the newspapers started reporting Scott's whereabouts in the bay on the 24th. EKG - I picked yours - hope you don't mind.

It is the position of many NG's that enough information was given in the papers for anyone to have known where Scott was that day...and the purpose of the killers placing Laci's body in the bay thus ensuring the arrest of SP for the crime - wasn't out of a dislike for Scott - but simply to prevent the blame from shifting to themselves.

Today, I came across an old Modbee article - dated 1/5/03 that not only said that Scott was fishing in the bay around the Berkeley Marina - it specifically states that he said he headed northwest from the marina and fished around Brooks Island:

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5803744p-6772004c.html

Dogs and divers go to work in SF Bay - Published 01/05/03

Search dogs and scuba divers came up empty Saturday in the water and on the shore of San Francisco Bay, as the investigation continued into the disappearance of Modesto's Laci Rocha Peterson.
The day's bay search stretched from the Berkeley Marina to an island where Peterson's husband said he went fishing on Christmas Eve, the day that his wife vanished.

A half-dozen dogs, trained to pick up scents off water, rode in boats or worked along the shore.

Also Saturday, 10 dogs searched along part of the California Aqueduct and along waterways and land near Highway 132 west of Modesto.

Peterson is 27 and eight months pregnant. Her husband, Scott, 30, told police that he last saw his wife at 9:30 the morning before Christmas as he left on his fishing trip and she prepared to go for a walk with their dog in East La Loma Park, a short distance from their La Loma neighborhood home.

Peterson told police that he launched his aluminum boat at the marina, then went northwest and fished around Brooks Island, said police Sgt. Ron Clow-ard, who is directing the search.

Dogs searched on the island but did not finish Saturday, and will return this morning, Clow-ard said.

...............

"We currently have 75 percent of the water dogs in the state concentrated on this search," Cloward said.

He attributed the bay search to pleasant weather, not to new leads in the case. He said he has worked on cases where dogs successfully tracked people a year after they disappeared, so time was not of the essence in searching the bay.

It is this detailed information - going out to the public this early on that negates the strength of the CE of the bodies turning up near to where Scott was fishing that day, IMO. At least it does for me.

In addition to that......this being a shallow area - and none of these dogs hit on her scent on 1/5/03. Sonar did not find her there.

And Cheng's testimony that if Laci had been placed in deeper water - she would not "no, no way" have washed up where she did.

IMO

accordn2me

06-18-2007, 12:15 PM

I was trying to find a post to quote relating to the discussion of how soon the newspapers started reporting Scott's whereabouts in the bay on the 24th. EKG - I picked yours - hope you don't mind.

It is the position of many NG's that enough information was given in the papers for anyone to have known where Scott was that day...and the purpose of the killers placing Laci's body in the bay thus ensuring the arrest of SP for the crime - wasn't out of a dislike for Scott - but simply to prevent the blame from shifting to themselves.

Today, I came across an old Modbee article - dated 1/5/03 that not only said that Scott was fishing in the bay around the Berkeley Marina - it specifically states that he said he headed northwest from the marina and fished around Brooks Island:

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5803744p-6772004c.html

Dogs and divers go to work in SF Bay - Published 01/05/03

It is this detailed information - going out to the public this early on that negates the strength of the CE of the bodies turning up near to where Scott was fishing that day, IMO. At least it does for me.

In addition to that......this being a shallow area - and none of these dogs hit on her scent on 1/5/03. Sonar did not find her there.

And Cheng's testimony that if Laci had been placed in deeper water - she would not "no, no way" have washed up where she did.

IMODo you think the dogs would have "hit" on her when she was in a deep shipping channel weighted down?

Did Cheng testify "that if Laci" or "a body" placed in deeper water would not have washed up where she did? Remember Laci's circumstances were different than any computer simulated body. The anchors suggest she was weighted for a while but when the storm came...well you know. I'm pretty sure Cheng's computer simulated bodies were not pregnant, weighted then not, had all their limbs...then didn't, and decomposing....in various states.

thinkaboutit

06-18-2007, 12:55 PM

Do you think the dogs would have "hit" on her when she was in a deep shipping channel weighted down?

Did Cheng testify "that if Laci" or "a body" placed in deeper water would not have washed up where she did? Remember Laci's circumstances were different than any computer simulated body. The anchors suggest she was weighted for a while but when the storm came...well you know. I'm pretty sure Cheng's computer simulated bodies were not pregnant, weighted then not, had all their limbs...then didn't, and decomposing....in various states.

Yes - he did.

David Harris: Based on the simulations that you were doing for the Modesto Police Department, if the bodies were to go into those deeper parts, they would head toward the Golden Gate Bridge. They don't end up head up to the Berkeley Flat area?

Ralph Cheng: No, no way.

Cheng testified that they did several different scenarios. He was told to assume she was weighted....at one point they talked about her being wrapped in chickenwire. Why do you assume that Cheng didn't do several different similations - based on a weighted body - no weighted body?

After the bodies were found - they went back and did more similations. Now knowing the end location and the condition of the bodies when they were found - Cheng still testified that if they were placed in deeper waters they would not have ended up where they did.

accordn2me

06-18-2007, 01:07 PM

Yes - he did.

Cheng testified that they did several different scenarios. He was told to assume she was weighted....at one point they talked about her being wrapped in chickenwire. Why do you assume that Cheng didn't do several different similations - based on a weighted body - no weighted body?

After the bodies were found - they went back and did more similations. Now knowing the end location and the condition of the bodies when they were found - Cheng still testified that if they were placed in deeper waters they would not have ended up where they did.It was a just a computer simulation....a test.......only a test......not real. The conditions could not be duplicated! :no: They will never be duplicated.

Just because the dogs didn't hit doesn't mean she wasn't there. Dogs didn't find Jessica Lundsford either.....and she was right there!

What is your theory...a timeline if you will...

Time of abduction
Who
Place of storage
Approximate date of murder
Method
More storage
Was Conner born, or not
Stored.....where
Placed in water at all, never
Washed onshore or placed there

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

adnoid

08-01-2007, 12:27 AM

Lavindar

08-01-2007, 02:11 PM

IMHO ITA. :beer:
Or wanted to spend all his time on the phone with Amber.

Rachel Cory

08-01-2007, 11:40 PM

I was trying to find a post to quote relating to the discussion of how soon the newspapers started reporting Scott's whereabouts in the bay on the 24th. EKG - I picked yours - hope you don't mind.

It is the position of many NG's that enough information was given in the papers for anyone to have known where Scott was that day...and the purpose of the killers placing Laci's body in the bay thus ensuring the arrest of SP for the crime - wasn't out of a dislike for Scott - but simply to prevent the blame from shifting to themselves.

Today, I came across an old Modbee article - dated 1/5/03 that not only said that Scott was fishing in the bay around the Berkeley Marina - it specifically states that he said he headed northwest from the marina and fished around Brooks Island:

http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/story/5803744p-6772004c.html

Dogs and divers go to work in SF Bay - Published 01/05/03

It is this detailed information - going out to the public this early on that negates the strength of the CE of the bodies turning up near to where Scott was fishing that day, IMO. At least it does for me.

In addition to that......this being a shallow area - and none of these dogs hit on her scent on 1/5/03. Sonar did not find her there.

And Cheng's testimony that if Laci had been placed in deeper water - she would not "no, no way" have washed up where she did.

IMO

Hello, Thinker!

It was on the 27th of December, 2002, that I knew where Laci Peterson's husband had been three days earlier. For me, it was 'hurry, hurry, you're missing Tom Brokaw!', NBC Nightly News, which I NEVER missed. That is the first time I heard the name, Laci Peterson, and that her husband, Scott had been fishing from the Berkeley Marina in San Francisco Bay. The killers had 110 days notice where they could put that little girl. And, IMO, they did it on Palm Sunday, 2003, in the storm and under the cover of darkness. No one saw them, you can bet on that.

TopGunner

08-01-2007, 11:47 PM

Hello, Thinker!

It was on the 27th of December, 2002, that I knew where Laci Peterson's husband had been three days earlier. For me, it was 'hurry, hurry, you're missing Tom Brokaw!', NBC Nightly News, which I NEVER missed. That is the first time I heard the name, Laci Peterson, and that her husband, Scott had been fishing from the Berkeley Marina in San Francisco Bay. The killers had 110 days notice where they could put that little girl. And, IMO, they did it on Palm Sunday, 2003, in the storm and under the cover of darkness. No one saw them, you can bet on that.

Well, we've been through this a million times, but I'll wrap it up by saying ISP had exactly 21 unaccounted for hours to murder his family and dispose of them in a boat nobody knew he had, after he told several people he was going golfing. Dr. Peterson said he believes they died on the 23rd and sat submerged in the bay for 4 months.

Of course nobody saw someone dump them on Palm Sunday. How could anyone "see" something that never happened?:tongue:

Lavindar

08-02-2007, 12:51 AM

Hello, Thinker!

It was on the 27th of December, 2002, that I knew where Laci Peterson's husband had been three days earlier. For me, it was 'hurry, hurry, you're missing Tom Brokaw!', NBC Nightly News, which I NEVER missed. That is the first time I heard the name, Laci Peterson, and that her husband, Scott had been fishing from the Berkeley Marina in San Francisco Bay. The killers had 110 days notice where they could put that little girl. And, IMO, they did it on Palm Sunday, 2003, in the storm and under the cover of darkness. No one saw them, you can bet on that.

HAHA, you did NOT read the testimony. The Coast Guard was patrolling the shore on the 27th. So they were on the lookout.

Surely the EB Park Police would have seen them as they patrolled the area regularly to keep out the homeless in April.

Explain how someone who handed bodies on a daily basis for the Contra Costa Coroners office was afraid to touch Conner as he was THAT frail yet an unknown whoever could have placed him there and left no evidence to handling him?

The stretch of the imagination is mind-boggling and beyond reasonable thought

Heyes

08-02-2007, 06:24 PM

Profiler Sharon Hagen suggested Peterson is a narcissist. If this is so, he essentially may have killed Laci because she no longer reflected the image he desired to see ( Laci was just a mirror) In part, Scott needed a new source of narcissistic supply, a new mirror.. which became Amber Frey. With her, he could sucessfully project the golden image for awhile ( single, successful, wealthy, romantic, charming, perfect) I thought it was telling when Scott told Amber he needed to see her, to look into her eyes.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/081704_ctv.html
But Peterson continued pressing for a meeting. He told her he desperately needed to look into her eyes.

"What would my eyes do for you?" a skeptical Frey asked.

"I think they'd do so much ... I guess they'd either hurt really bad or they'd do so much," he said.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Rachel Cory

08-02-2007, 08:06 PM

HAHA, you did NOT read the testimony. The Coast Guard was patrolling the shore on the 27th. So they were on the lookout.

Surely the EB Park Police would have seen them as they patrolled the area regularly to keep out the homeless in April.

Explain how someone who handed bodies on a daily basis for the Contra Costa Coroners office was afraid to touch Conner as he was THAT frail yet an unknown whoever could have placed him there and left no evidence to handling him?

The stretch of the imagination is mind-boggling and beyond reasonable thought
What are you talking about when you mention the 27th? That's when the story went national. You seem to dissemble selectively. I submit that the Park Police were not patrolling in the area the night of April 13th, especially on the Albany Bulb. Hell of a storm that night. Remember? Conner was over a mile away, near the foot path on the Richmond Jetty. I HAVE read the testimony. My conclusions just don't jive with yours, and 'beyond reasonable thought'??.....back atcha.

deputydi

08-02-2007, 08:11 PM

What are you talking about when you mention the 27th? That's when the story went national. You seem to dissemble selectively. I submit that the Park Police were not patrolling in the area the night of April 13th, especially on the Albany Bulb. Hell of a storm that night. Remember? Conner was over a mile away, near the foot path on the Richmond Jetty. I HAVE read the testimony. My conclusions just don't jive with yours, and 'beyond reasonable thought'??.....back atcha.
We know where AW2B thinks Laci was kept for 2 of the 4 months she was missing. :rolleyes: Where do YOU think she was all this time?

Rachel Cory

08-02-2007, 09:13 PM

We know where AW2B thinks Laci was kept for 2 of the 4 months she was missing. :rolleyes: Where do YOU think she was all this time?
Ah, THAT IS THE QUESTION. I have thought about this since she was found and learned of the condition of her remains. First, I do not believe all of her organs, excepting the uterus, were devoured by sea life. I do not believe that her extremities and head and neck were 'pulled' from her body by phantom cement weights. I do believe that she 'sat' in some type of receptacle that allowed water to ebb and flow, forming the 'pebbles' in the crotch of her slacks, and allowing adipocere to form on her lower body. I DO believe that, had she been submerged, the decomposition would have been more uniform. Sic--her thighs would have been as skeletal as her upper torso. The lack of uniformity of decomp is very unusual. Wouldn't you agree? Where? Well, we could start in Tracy.

deputydi

08-02-2007, 10:09 PM

Ah, THAT IS THE QUESTION. I have thought about this since she was found and learned of the condition of her remains. First, I do not believe all of her organs, excepting the uterus, were devoured by sea life. I do not believe that her extremities and head and neck were 'pulled' from her body by phantom cement weights. I do believe that she 'sat' in some type of receptacle that allowed water to ebb and flow, forming the 'pebbles' in the crotch of her slacks, and allowing adipocere to form on her lower body. I DO believe that, had she been submerged, the decomposition would have been more uniform. Sic--her thighs would have been as skeletal as her upper torso. The lack of uniformity of decomp is very unusual. Wouldn't you agree? Where? Well, we could start in Tracy.
I'm no longer looking for reasonable doubt because IMO there is none to find. I don't think anyone doubts she was in water of some kind for a considerable period of time. If not the bay -- where? I got a big chuckle over the bathtub theory because no stranger abductor/killer would have gone to all that trouble keeping her alive (or dead) in a bathtub for two months or more. Why on earth would he/she take this enormous risk of being discovered? And, for what purpose? It, to me, simply defies logic. So do you have another explanation? One that is reasonable, of course.

Lavindar

08-02-2007, 11:04 PM

Ah, THAT IS THE QUESTION. I have thought about this since she was found and learned of the condition of her remains. First, I do not believe all of her organs, excepting the uterus, were devoured by sea life. I do not believe that her extremities and head and neck were 'pulled' from her body by phantom cement weights. I do believe that she 'sat' in some type of receptacle that allowed water to ebb and flow, forming the 'pebbles' in the crotch of her slacks, and allowing adipocere to form on her lower body. I DO believe that, had she been submerged, the decomposition would have been more uniform. Sic--her thighs would have been as skeletal as her upper torso. The lack of uniformity of decomp is very unusual. Wouldn't you agree? Where? Well, we could start in Tracy.

Yes, let's start. You are talking about a very sophisticated system that would allow for ebb and flow yet would NOT account for the missing soft tissue. Are you saying you know more than experts in this case testified to? She was NOT kept in the mountain top "compound" as vehicles were unable to get in during the winter, rainy season. Try someplace else where she could be kept in the EXACT environment mimicked by the Bay. Salt water is a little unusual in Tracy isn't it?

Even Dr. Stephens told Grogan exactly what would happen were she in the Bay and it just so happened to EXACTLY describe the condition in which Laci was found.