Scott Peterson's appeal

[USAHICK]

Yep..it's possible they are the same kidnappers that allowed her to urinate by the side of a busy street..the alternative would have been letting her urinate in their van...having her DNA in their van...keep in mind, that I believe that Harshman saw that incident on the 24th BEFORE Laci was reported missing and BEFORE her picture was all over the news..he reported it on Dec 28th ..according to the tip, he stated that he saw the incident 3 to 4 days earlier..so there is a strong possibility he saw her the day she was kidnapped, so the kidnappers didn't take a risk of getting caught since no one knew that Laci was missing at that point..in addition, according to the report, one of the guys restricted her movement and IMO, he definitely threatened to kill her if she would scream or make a scene..


When did anyone testify to seeing an 8 month pregnant woman urinating next to a van? When did anyone testify that they saw Laci taken away? When did anyone testify that they saw Laci and Conner, two days apart and one mile in distance apart, PLACED on the shore? When did anyone testify to finding any sort of tub that Laci was held in for 4 months? When did anyone testify that the mineral deposits found on Laci were in the crotch area ONLY and could ONLY come from urinating on herself for WEEKS? When did anyone testify that this is even a remote possibility? LINK TO TESTIMONIES PLEASE.

[attorneywan2be]

Crystals have a destinct shape to them. Very different that stones which do NOT have to have a distinct shape to them. He said they were not crystalline which means they do not have that particular molecular shape to them.


Link that crystals have a distinct shape to them...

And what do you think of the fact that kidney stones have different shapes?

[Lavindar]

86) 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. Crystals are not round or oval.

[Pampster]

Link that crystals have a distinct shape to them...

And what do you think of the fact that kidney stones have different shapes?

Different types and shapes of crystals:
http://www.chemistry.co.nz/crystal_types.htm

Stone - a lump or mass of hard consolidated mineral matter

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:stone&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[attorneywan2be]

"THEY DIDN'T LOOK CRYSTALLINE AT ALL" rules out stones with a crystalline look. It's clear as a bell - which does not look like toothbrush even if someone says, "The bell does not look like a toothbrush at all."


Based on your interpretation, do you realize that his statement would be contradicting to say the least...having the crystalline look doesn't preclude it from being a stone as well...some stones do have a crystal look..so why did he make that distinction? because IMO, he was basically answering the question that they didn't appear to be salt crystals but rather they looked like stones...

[Lavindar]

Based on your interpretation, do you realize that his statement would be contradicting to say the least...having the crystalline look doesn't preclude it from being a stone as well...some stones do have a crystal look..so why did he make that distinction? because IMO, he was basically answering the question that they didn't appear to be salt crystals but rather they looked like stones...

It also lets out quartz as quartz is a crystal. He said it was NOT crystalline - meaning it did NOT HAVE THE SHAPE OF A CRYSTAL

[Pampster]

Based on your interpretation, do you realize that his statement would be contradicting to say the least...having the crystalline look doesn't preclude it from being a stone as well...some stones do have a crystal look..so why did he make that distinction? because IMO, he was basically answering the question that they didn't appear to be salt crystals but rather they looked like stones...

In which case he would have answered totally differently. He'd made the distinction because he was comparing two totally different things. The deposits were not crystal, they were stone. If they were stone, they were not crystal and therefore were not salt. He didn't say the were crystal but not salt, did he? He said they were NOT crystalline AT ALL.

[Miss Bootsie]

evidenced by the fact that you do not understand the ME's testimony you have been quoting..he stated they didn't LOOK crystalline they were stones..he meant they weren't salt crystals they were stones...reading the prosecution's question should make it clear to you...I hope..


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/rofl.gif
I'm totally at a loss for words here.

This is exactly what I have been trying to impress upon you as to why your "urine theory" has been proven wrong.

[Pampster]

Dr. Wecht and Dr. Lee were not allowed to examine Laci's clothing according to judge Girolami's ruling..

Why didn't Mark Geragos investigate if the minral deposits found on her pants were from freshwater for example? in other words, the fact that he did not look into it has no bearing on the validity of my theory...

You're telling me that Drs. Lee and Wecht were able to examine and photograph the body as well as take tissue samples, but were prevented from even looking at the stones under a microscope? Please provide a link.

How do you know that Geragos did not investigate whether the mineral deposits were from freshwater? He may have learned they were formed in salt water. He wouldn't bring that into court, would he? But then you're contradicting yourself, first you say the defense wasn't allowed access to the stones but then you're asking why didn't Mark investigate them, which was my question in the first place. I think I'm confused.

[Lavindar]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/rofl.gif
I'm totally at a loss for words here.

This is exactly what I have been trying to impress upon you as to why your "urine theory" has been proven wrong. It is mind-boggling how they will mis-represent the testimony. crystalline is an adjective, not a noun. He did not say they weren't salt - he said they were not crystalline (having the shape of a crystal). Crystals have distinct shapes to them, stones do not. He was rulling out anything with a crystal shape. He is, after all, an MD and could have identified kidney stones. He is not a geologist, but knows what the shape of a crystal is like - it's basic geology to know the difference in shape of a crystal from a basic stone.

[attorneywan2be]

86) 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. Crystals are not round or oval.

So what is the point of this discussion? how would that have any bearing on the validity of my theory that the mineral deposits could have been from urine...stones that form from urine inside the body "kidney stones" have different shapes and textures..so the fact that the ME described them as being round to oval doesn't rule them out as being from urine...in fact, he ruled them out as being salt crystals..and he described them as being smooth as well...the problem is he didn't analyze them..he simply looked at them..

For example:

They vary in size, and are
usually smooth, round, or oval in shape[/B], and may have facets where
they come into contact with each other. In color, they may be red,
brown, black, or yellow. The [U]breakage is crystalline, revealing a
laminated formation of uric acid and ammonium urate. In children the
calculus may be entirely uratic.]


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

[USAHICK]

Yep..it's possible they are the same kidnappers that allowed her to urinate by the side of a busy street..the alternative would have been letting her urinate in their van...having her DNA in their van...keep in mind, that I believe that Harshman saw that incident on the 24th BEFORE Laci was reported missing and BEFORE her picture was all over the news..he reported it on Dec 28th ..according to the tip, he stated that he saw the incident 3 to 4 days earlier..so there is a strong possibility he saw her the day she was kidnapped, so the kidnappers didn't take a risk of getting caught since no one knew that Laci was missing at that point..in addition, according to the report, one of the guys restricted her movement and IMO, he definitely threatened to kill her if she would scream or make a scene..


IIRC he later stated he could only identify the dog, he could not be sure of the person. Earlier he stated he saw someone in a white top and black pants. We all know DRISP lied about what Laci was wearing, and Harshman didn't testify -- so once again pages and pages of posts that equate to nothing pointing toward innocence or appeal issues.

[Pampster]

attorneywan2be, post 4488:

"You need to understand the difference between the formation of stones inside the body and the formation of stones outside the body..they are based on 2 different concepts..you keep misinterpreting my theory by referring to the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants as kidney stones..based on my theory, the only common factor between kidney stones and the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants is the type of minerals that comprise them.."


And now:

"stones that form from urine inside the body "kidney stones" have different shapes and textures..so the fact that the ME described them as being round to oval doesn't rule them out as being from urine...in fact, he ruled them out as being salt crystals..and he described them as being smooth as well...the problem is he didn't analyze them..he simply looked at them.."


?????

[USAHICK]

attorneywan2be, post 4488:

"You need to understand the difference between the formation of stones inside the body and the formation of stones outside the body..they are based on 2 different concepts..you keep misinterpreting my theory by referring to the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants as kidney stones..based on my theory, the only common factor between kidney stones and the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants is the type of minerals that comprise them.."


And now:

"stones that form from urine inside the body "kidney stones" have different shapes and textures..so the fact that the ME described them as being round to oval doesn't rule them out as being from urine...in fact, he ruled them out as being salt crystals..and he described them as being smooth as well...the problem is he didn't analyze them..he simply looked at them.."


?????


LMAO :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

You're telling me that Drs. Lee and Wecht were able to examine and photograph the body as well as take tissue samples, but were prevented from even looking at the stones under a microscope? Please provide a link.

How do you know that Geragos did not investigate whether the mineral deposits were from freshwater? He may have learned they were formed in salt water. He wouldn't bring that into court, would he? But then you're contradicting yourself, first you say the defense wasn't allowed access to the stones but then you're asking why didn't Mark investigate them, which was my question in the first place. I think I'm confused.

I'm not contradicting myself...I was simply saying that the fact that he didn't look into them is not an argument that would shed any light on my theory being valid or not...(Note: MG didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits) and according to Girolami's ruling, they were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes...the mineral deposits were on her pants not on her remains..

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/Defense_examine_remains_080803.pdf

[Pampster]

I'm not contradicting myself...I was simply saying that the fact that he didn't look into them is not an argument that would shed any light on my theory being valid or not...(Note: MG didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits) and according to Girolami's ruling, they were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes...the mineral deposits were on her pants not on her remains..

http://scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/Defense_examine_remains_080803.pdf

I believe you posted the wrong link. That document pertains only to the examination of Laci's remains and says nothing about clothing or other evidence.

[attorneywan2be]

attorneywan2be, post 4488:

"You need to understand the difference between the formation of stones inside the body and the formation of stones outside the body..they are based on 2 different concepts..you keep misinterpreting my theory by referring to the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants as kidney stones..based on my theory, the only common factor between kidney stones and the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants is the type of minerals that comprise them.."


And now:

"stones that form from urine inside the body "kidney stones" have different shapes and textures..so the fact that the ME described them as being round to oval doesn't rule them out as being from urine...in fact, he ruled them out as being salt crystals..and he described them as being smooth as well...the problem is he didn't analyze them..he simply looked at them.."


?????


I'm totally surprised that you see a contradiction..!!!! the key sentence is :

"So the fact that the ME described them as being round to oval doesn't rule them out as being from urine"

Again, I'm saying that the fact they were round to oval doesn't preclude them as being from urine..since kidney stones that also form from urine have different shapes..

[Miss Bootsie]

how would that have any bearing on the validity of my theory that the mineral deposits could have been from urine

lol,You answered your own question.

in fact, he ruled them out as being salt crystals

[Lavindar]

IIRC he later stated he could only identify the dog, he could not be sure of the person. Earlier he stated he saw someone in a white top and black pants. We all know DRISP lied about what Laci was wearing, and Harshman didn't testify -- so once again pages and pages of posts that equate to nothing pointing toward innocence or appeal issues.

Harshman only called in the tip AFTER he saw the posters. They posters were all over town on the 26th yet he waits two days to call it in. He later states that it was on the 28th that he saw this person. There are also conflicting intersections at which she was allegedly seen by Harshman - three miles apart, one not having a chain link fence. Harshman was a former reserve police officer. If this incident was so striking to him, why didn't he bother to get a license plate number? And why, when this happened at a very busy intersection, was he the ONLY one to have seen this occur? Fishy story. The tip said he saw it a few days earlier, but when he was interviewed, he said it happened on the 28th. Which would you believe? A complete report or a snippet on a tip sheet?

[attorneywan2be]

I believe you posted the wrong link. That document pertains only to the examination of Laci's remains and says nothing about clothing or other evidence.

This is the ruling that pertains to what the defense experts were allowed to examine..Laci's clothes were not listed..!

[attorneywan2be]

lol,You answered your own question.

That's another misunderstanding on your part..

[Pampster]

I'm totally surprised that you see a contradiction..!!!! the key sentence is :

"So the fact that the ME described them as being round to oval doesn't rule them out as being from urine"

Again, I'm saying that the fact they were round to oval doesn't preclude them as being from urine..since kidney stones that also form from urine have different shapes..


Sheesh.... You've gone from saying the mineral deposits were not crystilline and that the kidney stone comparison did not apply to saying that they were crystilline and the ME mispoke to saying that the mineral deposits were round and stoneline like kidney stones. Are we now to assume that the ME did not misspeak since you've reversed your theory? You're contradicting yourself all over the place.

[Pampster]

This is the ruling that pertains to what the defense experts were allowed to examine..Laci's clothes were not listed..!

Of course Laci's clothes were not listed. It was a ruling ONLY about Laci and Conner's remains. That's why it's titled: Further Stipulation and Order Authorizing Defense Experts to Examine Remains.

[attorneywan2be]

Sheesh.... You've gone from saying the mineral deposits were not crystilline and that the kidney stone comparison did not apply to saying that they were crystilline and the ME mispoke to saying that the mineral deposits were round and stoneline like kidney stones. Are we now to assume that the ME did not misspeak since you've reversed your theory? You're contradicting yourself all over the place.


I noticed this is the theme of your replies ---> contradicted yourself

Your opinion doesn't make it so..I already explained the point you are missing..my theory didn't change one bit..and everything I said applies to my unchanged theory..!

[attorneywan2be]

Of course Laci's clothes were not listed. It was a ruling ONLY about Laci and Conner's remains. That's why it's titled: Further Stipulation and Order Authorizing Defense Experts to Examine Remains.


It did mention photographs..videos...anyhow, MG didn't file a motion to access the mineral deposits...that's the bottom line..

[Pampster]

I noticed this is the theme of your replies ---> contradicted yourself

..........snip.........

If the shoe fits....

[Miss Bootsie]

[QUOTE=attorneywan2be;8935715] they were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes...the mineral deposits were on her pants not on her remains..

Another spin from your interpretation.

No where is there any reference that the defense experts were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes.

I am truly amazed.:eek:

[Pampster]

It did mention photographs..videos...anyhow, MG didn't file a motion to access the mineral deposits...that's the bottom line..

Yes, it mentions photographing the REMAINS. You know what else it doesn't mention? Barbeque Sauce, concrete residue, plastic bags, tape, and a zillion other things that the defense tested. Did Geragos file a motion to examine all those things? Why not one for the mineral deposits? Maybe because none was needed?

If there was any possibility that the mineral stones were urine the defense would have been all over it.

[attorneywan2be]

Yes, it mentions photographing the REMAINS. You know what else it doesn't mention? Barbeque Sauce, concrete residue, plastic bags, tape, and a zillion other things that the defense tested. Did Geragos file a motion to examine all those things? Why not one for the mineral deposits? Maybe because none was needed?

If there was any possibility that the mineral stones were urine the defense would have been all over it.

Please post the testimony that the defense tested anything collected by the prosecution..TIA

[Pampster]

Please post the testimony that the defense tested anything collected by the prosecution..TIA

Sure, right after you post testimony showing the defense was not allowed to test the mineral deposits.

[Wearing A Halo]

What I want to know, AW2B, are you still sticking to the mineral deposits not being Kidney Stones, and at the same time them being uric acid calculi?

[Miss Bootsie]

I noticed this is the theme of your replies ---> contradicted yourself

Your opinion doesn't make it so..I already explained the point you are missing..my theory didn't change one bit..and everything I said applies to my unchanged theory..!


To your unchanged theory AW?

You started the " Urine/kidney stone" theory on SII.
At that time you theorized the deposits were kidney stones.
You even went so far as to post photos of various sizes, shapes, and types of kidney stones.

Anyone who read on SII, can attest to that.

[attorneywan2be]

Sure, right after you post testimony showing the defense was not allowed to test the mineral deposits.

Nice try..if MG didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits then there would be no ruling on whether or not they were allowed to test them...so there would be no testimony to provide..on the other hand, you are claiming that they tested zillion of things..then please post the testimony pertaining to the zillion of things they tested (plastic bag..barbeque sauce..etc...)

[Pampster]

Nice try..if MG didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits then there would be no ruling on whether or not they were allowed to test them...so there would be no testimony to provide..on the other hand, you are claiming that they tested zillion of things..then please post the testimony pertaining to the zillion of things they tested (plastic bag..barbeque sauce..etc...)

First you said the defense team was NOT ALLOWED by ruling of the judge to test the mineral deposits and provided a totally unrelated ruling as proof, now you're saying the defense didn't request access to the mineral deposits. Is it no wonder my head is spinning?

[Lavindar]

Nice try..if MG didn't file a motion requesting access to the mineral deposits then there would be no ruling on whether or not they were allowed to test them...so there would be no testimony to provide..on the other hand, you are claiming that they tested zillion of things..then please post the testimony pertaining to the zillion of things they tested (plastic bag..barbeque sauce..etc...)


So you are saying that this is NOT an appeals issue? Then why are you expounding on it on the appeals thread? Did you not start this thread? Is not the topic Scott Peterson's appeal? Yet you have continued to drag your theory out for page after page after page. You have tried to get anyone to respond to your baseless theory of urine/kidney stones. They have responded to you with testimony and you still keep hammering on it. Don't you think it's time to admit you have no facts on which to base any of your theory?

In fact, it sounds more like a fantasy than a theory imo

[Pampster]

To your unchanged theory AW?

You started the " Urine/kidney stone" theory on SII.
At that time you theorized the deposits were kidney stones.
You even went so far as to post photos of various sizes, shapes, and types of kidney stones.

Anyone who read on SII, can attest to that.

But how can that be? Kidney stones are stones, not crystals and even though the ME said the mineral deposits were not crystalline but stone, he actually meant that they were crystalline but they weren't salt crystals, and they're not related in any way to kidney stones, except that they were stones and not crystals and the fact that kidney stones are stones proves it. Free Scott!

[attorneywan2be]

To your unchanged theory AW?

You started the " Urine/kidney stone" theory on SII.
At that time you theorized the deposits were kidney stones.
You even went so far as to post photos of various sizes, shapes, and types of kidney stones.

Anyone who read on SII, can attest to that.

I think you are confusing the issues...

I never said they were kidney stones..I have always maintained that they were the result of wetting and drying of her pants due to urination...they might have similar charactaristics as the kidney stones simply because the source of their formation is the same ---> the type of minerals found in urine...

[attorneywan2be]

So you are saying that this is NOT an appeals issue? Then why are you expounding on it on the appeals thread? Did you not start this thread? Is not the topic Scott Peterson's appeal? Yet you have continued to drag your theory out for page after page after page. You have tried to get anyone to respond to your baseless theory of urine/kidney stones. They have responded to you with testimony and you still keep hammering on it. Don't you think it's time to admit you have no facts on which to base any of your theory?

In fact, it sounds more like a fantasy than a theory imo

Where in my post did I say they were not an appeal issue?? in fact, the post you quoted is precisely why they will be an appeal issue..MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits-----> ineffective assistance of counsel"

[Pampster]

Where in my post did I say they were not an appeal issue?? in fact, the post you quoted is precisely why they will be an appeal issue..MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits-----> ineffective assistance of counsel"

You have no idea whether or not Geragos investigated the mineral deposits.

[Wearing A Halo]

Okay, so, AW2B, to you they are not Kidney Stones. Well then, what are they? What name do you call these mineral deposits?

[attorneywan2be]

First you said the defense team was NOT ALLOWED by ruling of the judge to test the mineral deposits and provided a totally unrelated ruling as proof, now you're saying the defense didn't request access to the mineral deposits. Is it no wonder my head is spinning?

Let me take you step by step so you can understand..

1-I stated that based on Girolami's ruling they were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes..the mineral deposits were on her pants..the clothes were not listed as an item they can examine..

2-You stated that the ruling was about the remains only so there would be no reason to list the clothes..

3-based on what you said (#2) I stated that MG didn't file a motion requesting to test the mineral deposits....meaning, even if the ruling only pertained to the remains as you stated ..then MG didn't take further action to request access to the mineral deposits to test them...

Now..I hope your head would stop spinning...!

[attorneywan2be]

You have no idea whether or not Geragos investigated the mineral deposits.

Yes we do..based on the trial record he didn't not request access to the mineral deposits...so obviously he didn't test the mineral deposits..

[Miss Bootsie]

I think you are confusing the issues...

I never said they were kidney stones..I have always maintained that they were the result of wetting and drying of her pants due to urination...they might have similar charactaristics as the kidney stones simply because the source of their formation is the same ---> the type of minerals found in urine...

originally posted by attorneywan2be:they might have similar charactaristics as the kidney stones simply because the source of their formation is the same


Please provide info. on the type of stone you are referring to.

[Pampster]

Let me take you step by step so you can understand..

1-I stated that based on Girolami's ruling they were not allowed to examine Laci's clothes..the mineral deposits were on her pants..the clothes were not listed as an item they can examine..

2-You stated that the ruling was about the remains only so there would be no reason to list the clothes..

3-based on what you said (#2) I stated that MG didn't file a motion requesting to test the mineral deposits....meaning, even if the ruling only pertained to the remains as you stated ..then MG didn't take further action to request access to the mineral deposits to test them...

Now..I hope your head would stop spinning...!

Please provide proof that he needed to file a motion to test the clothing or that he didn't file one. Much of the paperwork in this case is still under seal. Just because it's not on SII does not mean it doesn't exist. Where can I find the defense motions asking to test evidence other than Laci's clothing?

[Pampster]

Yes we do..based on the trial record he didn't not request access to the mineral deposits...so obviously he didn't test the mineral deposits..

You'll have to forgive me. I did not realize there was a "Defense Declines to Test Clothing" motion in the trial record.

[Miss Bootsie]

Let me take you step by step so you can understand..



Everyone involved in this discussion has a lack of understanding, but you??????:eek:

That speaks for itself and should tell you something.

[USAHICK]

Yes we do..based on the trial record he didn't not request access to the mineral deposits...so obviously he didn't test the mineral deposits..


Did the thought ever occur to you that he did not request access to the mineral deposits, NOT due to ineffective council, but rather because he knew what the rest of us know, IT ALL MEANS NOTHING.

[Miss Bootsie]

Okay, so, AW2B, to you they are not Kidney Stones. Well then, what are they? What name do you call these mineral deposits?

I would be interested to know the name of and read info. on this specific type of mineral deposits as well.

[Wearing A Halo]

I would be interested to know the name of and read info. on this specific type of mineral deposits as well.

Hi Miss Bootsie, I must be on AW2B's ignore list. Same goes with ekg and all the rest of the NG's. So it goes.

[USAHICK]

This is the ruling that pertains to what the defense experts were allowed to examine..Laci's clothes were not listed..!


You are mistaken. Not only did the defense HOLD Laci's body, so her Mother could not burry her, but they most certainly did examine her clothing.

[attorneywan2be]

Okay, so, AW2B, to you they are not Kidney Stones. Well then, what are they? What name do you call these mineral deposits?

Let me make it clear AGAIN:

Comparison between kidney stones and the mineral deposits being from urine as per my theory

Kidney stones:

-Where: they form inside the kidney
-Source: minerals found in urine
-Cause/process: quote: Kidney stones form when there is a high level of calcium (hypercalciuria), oxalate (hyperoxaluria), or uric acid (hyperuricosuria) in the urine; a lack of citrate in the urine; or insufficient water in the kidneys to dissolve waste products. The kidneys must maintain an adequate amount of water in the body to remove waste products. If dehydration occurs, high levels of substances that do not dissolve completely (e.g., calcium, oxalate, uric acid) may form crystals that slowly build up into kidney stones.
Urine normally contains chemicals—citrate, magnesium, pyrophosphate—that prevent the formation of crystals. Low levels of these inhibitors can contribute to the formation of kidney stones. Of these, citrate is thought to be the most important.

http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml


Mineral deposits based on my theory..

-Where: outside the body
-Source: minerals found in urine
-Cause/process: a mineralization process..repeated cycles of wetting and drying over a period of time...the crotch area of her pants would get wet due to urination..the urine evaporates leaving deposits of minerals that form those stones..

Conclusion:the only common factor between them is the "Source of the stones"..

[attorneywan2be]

Hi Miss Bootsie, I must be on AW2B's ignore list. Same goes with ekg and all the rest of the NG's. So it goes.

No, you are not on my ignore list...I just responded to your question..

[Wearing A Halo]

Let me make it clear AGAIN:

Comparison between kidney stones and the mineral deposits being from urine as per my theory

Kidney stones:

-Where: they form inside the kidney
-Source: minerals found in urine
-Cause/process: quote: Kidney stones form when there is a high level of calcium (hypercalciuria), oxalate (hyperoxaluria), or uric acid (hyperuricosuria) in the urine; a lack of citrate in the urine; or insufficient water in the kidneys to dissolve waste products. The kidneys must maintain an adequate amount of water in the body to remove waste products. If dehydration occurs, high levels of substances that do not dissolve completely (e.g., calcium, oxalate, uric acid) may form crystals that slowly build up into kidney stones.
Urine normally contains chemicals—citrate, magnesium, pyrophosphate—that prevent the formation of crystals. Low levels of these inhibitors can contribute to the formation of kidney stones. Of these, citrate is thought to be the most important.

http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml


Mineral deposits based on my theory..

-Where: outside the body
-Source: minerals found in urine
-Cause/process: a mineralization process..repeated cycles of wetting and drying over a period of time...the crotch area of her pants would get wet due to urination..the urine evaporates leaving deposits of minerals that form those stones..
Conclusion:the only common factor between them is the "Source of the stones"..

Okay. What are these minerals named?

[USAHICK]

You are the one that suffers from a lack of understanding AW.

YOU do not understand that those minerals you are referring to contain salt. You do not understand that in either case, the urine would form crystals.

Do you not understand why Dr. Peterson was able to state positively that the stones were not crystalline?


You also don't understand that stones would not form from the residual amount of urine left on clothing after someone urinates in their pants.
There might be some crusting, but it would take more than a residual amount of urine to form a stone.

No, WE are the one's that suffer from her lack of understanding.

[Pampster]

Let me make it clear AGAIN:

Comparison between kidney stones and the mineral deposits being from urine as per my theory

Kidney stones:

-Where: they form inside the kidney
-Source: minerals found in urine
-Cause/process: quote: Kidney stones form when there is a high level of calcium (hypercalciuria), oxalate (hyperoxaluria), or uric acid (hyperuricosuria) in the urine; a lack of citrate in the urine; or insufficient water in the kidneys to dissolve waste products. The kidneys must maintain an adequate amount of water in the body to remove waste products. If dehydration occurs, high levels of substances that do not dissolve completely (e.g., calcium, oxalate, uric acid) may form crystals that slowly build up into kidney stones.
Urine normally contains chemicals—citrate, magnesium, pyrophosphate—that prevent the formation of crystals. Low levels of these inhibitors can contribute to the formation of kidney stones. Of these, citrate is thought to be the most important.

http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml


Mineral deposits based on my theory..

-Where: outside the body
-Source: minerals found in urine
-Cause/process: a mineralization process..repeated cycles of wetting and drying over a period of time...the crotch area of her pants would get wet due to urination..the urine evaporates leaving deposits of minerals that form those stones..

Conclusion:the only common factor between them is the "Source of the stones"..

You fail to mention the other "common factor" if indeed these stones formed outside of the body actually exist. They are both crystalline. Kidney stones are not stones at all but compressed crystals, usually struvite or cystine.

Conclusion: The ME declared that the mineral deposits were NOT CRYSTALLINE at all, they were stones. Therefore the mineral deposits were not caused by urine.

And we're back where we started.

[attorneywan2be]

Okay. What are these minerals named?

I'm not sure what you mean by "what are these minerals named?"

I hope you realize that "mineral deposits" is a general term referring to the process of the formation of those stones....for example... minerals deposits from freshwater...OR.. mineral deposits from saltwater...or mineral deposits from urine... the ME didn't name them..he simply referred to them as mineral deposits..the process is "mineralization".. the source would be different depending on the liquid being mineralized..

[Wearing A Halo]

I'm not sure what you mean by "what are these minerals named?"

I hope you realize that "mineral deposits" is a general term referring to the process of the formation of those stones....for example... minerals deposits from freshwater...OR.. mineral deposits from saltwater...or mineral deposits from urine... the ME didn't name them..he simply referred to them as mineral deposits..the process is "mineralization".. the source would be different depending on the liquid being mineralized..

Do you have a name for these minerals which were deposited from urine?

[Miss Bootsie]

In order to create your theory, there had to be some scientific facts from which you based your information on.
You should be able to answer the following questions.


Mineral deposits based on my theory..
Please provide a name for this specific type of mineral deposit/stone.


-Where: outside the body
Please provide info that this specific type of stone will form from the evaporation process of urine outside of the body.


-Source: minerals found in urine-
Please provide a complete composition analysis of the mineral content in urine.


Cause/process: a mineralization process..repeated cycles of wetting and drying over a period of time...the crotch area of her pants would get wet due to urination..the urine evaporates leaving deposits of minerals that form those stones..
Please provide a complete composition analysis of the minerals that formed the stones.

Conclusion:the only common factor between them is the "Source of the stones"..
Please provide a complete composition analysis of the source of the stones.

[adnoid]

...Kidney stones are not stones at all but compressed crystals, usually struvite or cystine...

...formed in the bladder due to PRECIPITATION of the minerals from solution inside the bladder, not from EVAPORATION of the solute outside the bladder.

The two processes are completely different. A solution that forms crystals due to precipitation of the solute from the solvent under one set of conditions would not necessarily produce anything, much less anything similar, due to evaporation of the solvent under different conditions.

But heck, what do facts, chemistry and physics have to do with anything? FREE SCOTT!

[attorneywan2be]

You fail to mention the other "common factor" if indeed these stones formed outside of the body actually exist. They are both crystalline. Kidney stones are not stones at all but compressed crystals, usually struvite or cystine.

Conclusion: The ME declared that the mineral deposits were NOT CRYSTALLINE at all, they were stones. Therefore the mineral deposits were not caused by urine.

And we're back where we started.



Again..he was answering the question ---> do they appear to be salt crystals?

Did he analyze the mineral deposits? NO
Can he tell by looking at them if they had a crystal structure or not? not IMO
Is the process the same as to kidney stones formation vs the mineralization outside the body..? No

In addition..for example..this reference is about kidney stones from uric acid....note: "the breakage is crystalline revealing a laminated formation of uric acid"..so an intact stone would not reveal the crystalline nature of the stone...

[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. The breakage is crystalline, revealing a
laminated formation of uric acid and ammonium urate. In children the
calculus may be entirely uratic.]

[Miss Bootsie]

...formed in the bladder due to PRECIPITATION of the minerals from solution inside the bladder, not from EVAPORATION of the solute outside the bladder.

The two processes are completely different. A solution that forms crystals due to precipitation of the solute from the solvent under one set of conditions would not necessarily produce anything, much less anything similar, due to evaporation of the solvent under different conditions.

But heck, what do facts, chemistry and physics have to do with anything? FREE SCOTT!

You're right.

It would be unlikely that crystals would form from a pool of urine outside the body, much less from residual urine on pants.

[USAHICK]

Again..he was answering the question ---> do they appear to be salt crystals?

Did he analyze the mineral deposits? NO
Can he tell by looking at them if they had a crystal structure or not? not IMO
Is the process the same as to kidney stones formation vs the mineralization outside the body..? No

In addition..for example..this reference is about kidney stones from uric acid....note: "the breakage is crystalline revealing a laminated formation of uric acid"..so an intact stone would not reveal the crystalline nature of the stone...

[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. The breakage is crystalline, revealing a
laminated formation of uric acid and ammonium urate. In children the
calculus may be entirely uratic.]


Did YOU analyze the mineral crystals? NO Can YOU tell by looking at them if they had a crystal structure or not? NO Are you more qualified then the experienced experts involved in this? NO. Will it be brought up in appeal? NO, furthermore, it CANNOT.

Now -- I'd love to see this entire thread return to it's original purpose, to discuss the potential VALID appeal issuess, and not one person's fantasy about urine formation.

[Wearing A Halo]

AW2B, you know that it is not Uric-acid calculi since it would be a type of kidney stone and you have concluded that it is not kidney stones. So, what is it then?

[Miss Bootsie]

AW2B, you know that it is not Uric-acid calculi since it would be a type of kidney stone and you have concluded that it is not kidney stones. So, what is it then?

Yup, what is it then?:confused:

[Miss Bootsie]

I'm not sure what you mean by "what are these minerals named?"

I hope you realize that "mineral deposits" is a general term referring to the process of the formation of those stones....for example... minerals deposits from freshwater...OR.. mineral deposits from saltwater...or mineral deposits from urine... the ME didn't name them..he simply referred to them as mineral deposits..the process is "mineralization".. the source would be different depending on the liquid being mineralized..

Dr. Peterson said the deposits were stones. What is the name of the stone that would form from the evaporation of urine outside the body.

Every type stone on Earth has a name.
i.e. shale stone - sand stone - Kidney stone - siltstone
Pumice stone - gem stone

What is the name of the stone that would form from urine outside the body as a result of the evaporation process?

[Lavindar]

In order to create your theory, there had to be some scientific facts from which you based your information on.
You should be able to answer the following questions.




Please provide a name for this specific type of mineral deposit/stone.



Please provide info that this specific type of stone will form from the evaporation process of urine outside of the body.


-
Please provide a complete composition analysis of the mineral content in urine.



Please provide a complete composition analysis of the minerals that formed the stones.


Please provide a complete composition analysis of the source of the stones.

Color me blond, but don't kidney stones form INSIDE the KIDNEY, not outside on the pants where someone has urinated. Isn't that why they are called KIDNEY stones?

Also how did they become meched in the tatters of her pants? Did the kidnappers shred her pants for her?

A kidney stone is a hard mass developed from crystals that separate from the urine and build up on the inner surfaces of the kidney. Normally, urine contains chemicals that prevent or inhibit the crystals from forming. These inhibitors do not seem to work for everyone, however, so some people form stones. If the crystals remain tiny enough, they will travel through the urinary tract and pass out of the body in the urine without being noticed.

[Pampster]

Again..he was answering the question ---> do they appear to be salt crystals?
------------

Dr. Peterson did not answer the question by saying, "They are crystalline, but not salt crystals." He said they are NOT CRYSTALLINE AT ALL. It's that simple. :shrug:

[accordn2me]

Where in my post did I say they were not an appeal issue?? in fact, the post you quoted is precisely why they will be an appeal issue..MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits-----> ineffective assistance of counsel"
It's an appeal issue b/c MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits? :confused:

[frydaddy]

Color me blond, but don't kidney stones form INSIDE the KIDNEY, not outside on the pants where someone has urinated. Isn't that why they are called KIDNEY stones?

Also how did they become meched in the tatters of her pants? Did the kidnappers shred her pants for her?

A kidney stone is a hard mass developed from crystals that separate from the urine and build up on the inner surfaces of the kidney. Normally, urine contains chemicals that prevent or inhibit the crystals from forming. These inhibitors do not seem to work for everyone, however, so some people form stones. If the crystals remain tiny enough, they will travel through the urinary tract and pass out of the body in the urine without being noticed.

Color me blond (shaved bald actually, brown when it grows out), but wasn't the testimony that the crotch portion was reduced to little more than tangled fibers and within those tangled fibers were the deposits? In other words, the deposits or stones formed post-tattering? Or was it that the urine deposits were so solid and strong that they were resistant to the tattering around them? Also, wouldn't the underwear absorb the bulk of the urine and thus have been more likely to contain these imaginary urine deposits? :shrug:

[frydaddy]

It's an appeal issue b/c MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits? :confused:

Hiya peach!

I think in a California Appeals first, they may actually just retry the case all over again on the first appeal, using only MG's red herrings and internet message board fantasies. I'd still put the odds at 2-1 for conviction, and even money on at least one abdominal injury from overzealous laughter.

[accordn2me]

Hiya peach!

I think in a California Appeals first, they may actually just retry the case all over again on the first appeal, using only MG's red herrings and internet message board fantasies. I'd still put the odds at 2-1 for conviction, and even money on at least one abdominal injury from overzealous laughter.
Hey daddy! :beer:

Just think...they grant an appeal b/c MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits. During 2nd trial...mineral deposits turn out to be the same concrete as the anchor found in SLP's boat. WHOOPS! Sorry to waste all that taxpayer money! :no:

Give Zeus a kiss for me! :tongue:

[TopGunner]

Hey daddy! :beer:

Just think...they grant an appeal b/c MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits. During 2nd trial...mineral deposits turn out to be the same concrete as the anchor found in SLP's boat. WHOOPS! Sorry to waste all that taxpayer money! :no:

Give Zeus a kiss for me! :tongue:


And just WHOM is Zeus? If he's tall, handsome, and available...give him a kiss for me as well. ;)

I hope the mineral deposits are finally put to bed...forever.:seeya:

[deputydi]

<snip>
I hope the mineral deposits are finally put to bed...forever.:seeya:
Don't count on it. She's off doing more research and dreaming up more fantastic theories. :read:

[deputydi]

Hiya peach!

I think in a California Appeals first, they may actually just retry the case all over again on the first appeal, using only MG's red herrings and internet message board fantasies. I'd still put the odds at 2-1 for conviction, and even money on at least one abdominal injury from overzealous laughter.
After reading through this thread, that abdominal injury is going to be mine. :lol:

[Otter]

Don't count on it. She's off doing more research and dreaming up more fantastic theories. :read:

Lol, research on what? I'm just watching hers digging deeper into a hole she started. She puts up "proof" to her "theory" and it adds up to nuttin. Maybe on some board at some time in world far, far away people listened.

Common sense has pervailed to those who may have had a question. Now the theories are desparate and pathetic, when you consider those pesky facts. All here have always had common sense, and I have to wonder if his advocates are simply shoring themselves up, out of pride.

Makes no nevermidnd to me. I went shopping today and bought more popcorn.

Carry on!

[deputydi]

Lol, research on what? I'm just watching hers digging deeper into a hole she started. She puts up "proof" to her "theory" and it adds up to nuttin. Maybe on some board at some time in world far, far away people listened. <snip>
Well, for starters she has to find a way to explain why those stones/crystals didn't dissolve in the bathtub. That'll keep her busy for a while.

[adnoid]

A pH 9 solution can be as dilute as 10 parts per million, or as concentrated as salty sea water.

That's right. pH, TDS and TSS are independent variables. A pH 9 solution can be completely aqueous, and a pH 7 solution can be supersaturated. Alkaline urine does not cause high TDS, although there may be a correlation.

Again, just facts from the scientific world. Such laws can be suspended to free Scott.

[Miss Bootsie]

That's right. pH, TDS and TSS are independent variables. A pH 9 solution can be completely aqueous, and a pH 7 solution can be supersaturated. Alkaline urine does not cause high TDS, although there may be a correlation.

Again, just facts from the scientific world. Such laws can be suspended to free Scott.

Oops, I deleted that information. Planned to re-post it with more info. tomorrow. Here it is.


Human Urine formation helps to maintain the balance of minerals and other substances in the body. For example, excess of calcium is normally eliminated through the urine. Urine also excretes ammonia, the build-up of which is harmful to the body. Human urine is the result of a mechanism that maintains the appropriate amount of water in the body. When it leaves the body, Human urine is usually around pH 6, though it may be as low as 4.5 or as high as 8.2. As urea, the compound which accounts for 75-90% of the nitrogen in urine begins to decay, hydroxide ions form, raising the pH as high as 9-9.3. The decay of urea into carbon dioxide is catalyzed by urease.


A pH 9 solution can be as dilute as 10 parts per million,
or as concentrated as salty sea water.

[Otter]

Well, for starters she has to find a way to explain why those stones/crystals didn't dissolve in the bathtub. That'll keep her busy for a while.

Little does she understand, but many things should be keeping her busy. Did Laci have gout? A genetic defict? Hyperparathydosim? Link please! Its diificult not being able to think for yourself, and she has my sympathy. We who all believe he murdererd his wife and child in cold blood don't have to gather as carrion birds.

No one has schooled me on how to post my opinion, as some have been taught. I'm very much an outsider -- I'm a "johnny come lately". Ugh! Read your own posts, lol, like they mean anything anyway.

[Miss Bootsie]

From all I've read, urine doesn't actually completely dry.

If someone was forced to continuously urinate on their clothes, the urine would not dry. There would be a build up of sticky residue, that if left, would turn into a gas.

[accordn2me]

That's right. pH, TDS and TSS are independent variables. A pH 9 solution can be completely aqueous, and a pH 7 solution can be supersaturated. Alkaline urine does not cause high TDS, although there may be a correlation.

Again, just facts from the scientific world. Such laws can be suspended to free Scott.It's gettin' deep in here! This is just about over my head. And I never knew it is lowercase p, capital H. pH.

Thanks fer the learnin'! :biggrin:

[accordn2me]

And just WHOM is Zeus? If he's tall, handsome, and available...give him a kiss for me as well. ;)

I hope the mineral deposits are finally put to bed...forever.:seeya:Kisses from Zeus may be just what you need TG. I know he's at least two out of the three. And tall is not all that. Remember SLP was tall. :cool:

[accordn2me]

Little does she understand, but many things should be keeping her busy. Did Laci have gout? A genetic defict? Hyperparathydosim? Link please! Its diificult not being able to think for yourself, and she has my sympathy. We who all believe he murdererd his wife and child in cold blood don't have to gather as carrion birds.

No one has schooled me on how to post my opinion, as some have been taught. I'm very much an outsider -- I'm a "johnny come lately". Ugh! Read your own posts, lol, like they mean anything anyway.

Johnny come lately
there's a new kid in town
everybody loves her
Now don't mess around :chicken:

OK...singing is not my forte' and my lyrics turn out to be mondegreens most of the time :biggrin:

Otter, do you see flocks of wild carrion birds very often? I would just love to see them in their native habitat. Where in Australia do you live?

[accordn2me]

Johnny come lately
there's a new kid in town
everybody loves her
Now don't mess around :chicken:

OK...singing is not my forte' and my lyrics turn out to be mondegreens most of the time :biggrin:

Otter, do you see flocks of wild carrion birds very often? I would just love to see them in their native habitat. Where in Australia do you live?

And I cross up many of the words in everyday language as well as in songs. :tongue:

I thought Otter meant Quarrion birds. DUH!

TG, you pay attention! You'll realize why when frydaddy comes along. :read:

[TopGunner]

And I cross up many of the words in everyday language as well as in songs. :tongue:

I thought Otter meant Quarrion birds. DUH!

TG, you pay attention! You'll realize why when frydaddy comes along. :read:


Why am I thinking he's single, available, and four-legged? Heck, that's still an IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL !:tongue:

[TopGunner]

Don't count on it. She's off doing more research and dreaming up more fantastic theories. :read:

Ut oh. Tha tha tha thankkksss.......for the warning DD! :chicken: :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

[Wearing A Halo]

Don't count on it. She's off doing more research and dreaming up more fantastic theories. :read:

Where is everybody? Doin' more of the; "Scott's supporters who are doing extensive research to help Scott win his appeal and prove his innocence.."?

:punch:

[USAHICK]

Again..he was answering the question ---> do they appear to be salt crystals?

Did he analyze the mineral deposits? NO
Can he tell by looking at them if they had a crystal structure or not? not IMO
Is the process the same as to kidney stones formation vs the mineralization outside the body..? No

In addition..for example..this reference is about kidney stones from uric acid....note: "the breakage is crystalline revealing a laminated formation of uric acid"..so an intact stone would not reveal the crystalline nature of the stone...

[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. The breakage is crystalline, revealing a
laminated formation of uric acid and ammonium urate. In children the
calculus may be entirely uratic.]


Can't resist: http://www.findlaci2003.us/autopsy-globe-10-7-03.html

A much sought after TV commentator, he is a member of the American
Academy of Forensic Scientists, a fellow of Britain's Royal Society of Medicine and on
the advisory board of the American College of Forensic Examiners.

His expert review of the autopsy file lead to the following conclusions:

1. Baby Conner was NOT born alive before Laci was killed or right afterward.

2. The infant died in the womb and his body floated free from his mother's body
through an opening in the body caused by decomposition.

3. Conner's body was in the water for only a short time before it was found.

4. The knotted tape wrapped around Conner's neck was debris that got tangled
with the body as it floated in San Francisco Bay and was not attached by the killer.

5. Laci was wearing light colored maternity pants with duct tape stuck on the crotch, which
made a so-called "coffin birth," a phenomenon frequently cited in the case, impossible.


More at link.

[accordn2me]

Why am I thinking he's single, available, and four-legged? Heck, that's still an IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL !:tongue:
No, he only has two legs.

[attorneywan2be]

Well, for starters she has to find a way to explain why those stones/crystals didn't dissolve in the bathtub. That'll keep her busy for a while.

This is really funny..you think that I either post and if I'm not posting then I'm probably trying to find info to answer some silly questions..well, FYI I have other things to do that have nothing to do with posting on forums...LOL :seeya:

[Heyes]

After reading through this thread, that abdominal injury is going to be mine. :lol:

Too late deputydi, too late.... I have been doubled over for at least 2 pages now! :D

[USAHICK]

This is really funny..you think that I either post and if I'm not posting then I'm probably trying to find info to answer some silly questions..well, FYI I have other things to do that have nothing to do with posting on forums...LOL :seeya:


It's darn amusing how you come back with a quick giggle and a "I have other things to do", but ignore everyone's posts all the same.

At least we'll remember where to find them when you start up again.

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be
This is really funny..you think that I either post and if I'm not posting then I'm probably trying to find info to answer some silly questions..well, FYI I have other things to do that have nothing to do with posting on forums...LOL


It's darn amusing how you come back with a quick giggle and a "I have other things to do", but ignore everyone's posts all the same.

At least we'll remember where to find them when you start up again.

Quite amusing, isn't it. ;)

[frydaddy]

It's darn amusing how you come back with a quick giggle and a "I have other things to do", but ignore everyone's posts all the same.

At least we'll remember where to find them when you start up again.

When one's pet theory gets blown to smithereens and one has to post without any other advocates around to support them, I'd imagine it would be easy to find "other things to do". ;)

[frydaddy]

Hey daddy! :beer:

Just think...they grant an appeal b/c MG didn't investigate the mineral deposits. During 2nd trial...mineral deposits turn out to be the same concrete as the anchor found in SLP's boat. WHOOPS! Sorry to waste all that taxpayer money! :no:

Give Zeus a kiss for me! :tongue:

A waste of taxpayer money indeed! Of course, isn't that what Scott is now? :D

As for Zeus...I brought it up and all I can say is, literally...:chicken:!

[deputydi]

A waste of taxpayer money indeed! Of course, isn't that what Scott is now? :D

As for Zeus...I brought it up and all I can say is, literally...:chicken:!
Yep, he sure is. I've never understood why people say a death sentence is more costly to the taxpayers than a life sentence. It seems to me that keeping someone (like Scott) in prison for the rest of his life (40/50+ yrs) would be much more expensive than a single lethal injection.

I guess if you factor in the 20 yrs he has to wait for all his appeals to be exhausted and the court's time, it isn't cheap. As far as I am aware, the State (read: taxpayers) are not Constitutionally responsible for his attorneys fees once he has been found guilty so that can't be considered a factor.

Anyone know??? :confused:

[accordn2me]

A waste of taxpayer money indeed! Of course, isn't that what Scott is now? :D

As for Zeus...I brought it up and all I can say is, literally...:chicken:!:confused:


We're under extreme heat warnings. My A/Cs in both my classroom and my house are broken. :flamemad: :flamemad: :flamemad:

Jay nay comprenday :shrug:

[TopGunner]

:confused:


We're under extreme heat warnings. My A/Cs in both my classroom and my house are broken. :flamemad: :flamemad: :flamemad:

Jay nay comprenday :shrug:

Acorn, this is not good... I'm way on the E. Coast and left the air running all day for my pups. You should go on Craigslist to see if anyone is selling one for a good price, PRONTO!

[Miss Bootsie]

:confused:


We're under extreme heat warnings. My A/Cs in both my classroom and my house are broken. :flamemad: :flamemad: :flamemad:

Jay nay comprenday :shrug:

I would be dialing up that repair man or buying me another unit really quick.

We're under a heat advisory as well. The heat index values today through the end of the week will be in the 105 to 110 degree range.

[accordn2me]

I would be dialing up that repair man or buying me another unit really quick.

We're under a heat advisory as well. The heat index values today through the end of the week will be in the 105 to 110 degree range.Luckily my cousin is a repair man. House is repaired now. Classroom is another story. It was broken most of the year before I went on sabbatical. The teacher that was in there last year had no A/C. And it's still not fixed. The kids come one week from tomorrow. I'll do parent orientation in our classroom. Maybe some parents will raise hell and get the school board off their butts. If not, I'll call our local news agency, 2OnYourSide. After Katrina, no one wanted to hear any whining about anything when half the state lost everything. But it's been two years now. It's time to fix it.

Our heat indexes are the same, MB. Y'all try to stay cool! :seeya:

[Otter]

Everyone come up to Seattle, its about 64 degrees and my furnace just kicked off again. I got a sweatshirt on.

This is an interesting site to get back O/T:

http://www.crimblawg.com/death_penalty/index.html

Its a legal blog by three appellant dp lawyers in California. They have so nicely put together all sorts of appeals in front of the 9th Circuit and the Ca Supreme Court. Its exhaustive!

So many issues, so many convictions affirmed! And no weird theories from a message board ever mentioned. :rolleyes:

[TopGunner]

Everyone come up to Seattle, its about 64 degrees and my furnace just kicked off again. I got a sweatshirt on.

This is an interesting site to get back O/T:

http://www.crimblawg.com/death_penalty/index.html

Its a legal blog by three appellant dp lawyers in California. They have so nicely put together all sorts of appeals in front of the 9th Circuit and the Ca Supreme Court. Its exhaustive!

So many issues, so many convictions affirmed! And no weird theories from a message board ever mentioned. :rolleyes:


LOL Otter, you are SO funny sometimes (a lot of times).

What I wouldn't do for your weather right now, NICE!

[deputydi]

Everyone come up to Seattle, its about 64 degrees and my furnace just kicked off again. I got a sweatshirt on.

This is an interesting site to get back O/T:

http://www.crimblawg.com/death_penalty/index.html

Its a legal blog by three appellant dp lawyers in California. They have so nicely put together all sorts of appeals in front of the 9th Circuit and the Ca Supreme Court. Its exhaustive!

So many issues, so many convictions affirmed! And no weird theories from a message board ever mentioned. :rolleyes:
Your Seattle temp sounds wonderful about now. The East Coast is sweltering.

Very interesting link. I also didn't see a single reference to outrageous message board theories.

In 2005, the California Supreme Court issued decisions in 26 death penalty appeals, affirming all 26 death sentences. The vast majority of the decisions were unanimous and affirmed the judgments in their entirety.
Maybe I haven't given the CA Supreme Ct enough credit. I've been concerned about Scott's sentence (not guilt) being overturned. The Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being extremely liberal and making some (IMO) questionable decisions.

[accordn2me]

Your Seattle temp sounds wonderful about now. The East Coast is sweltering.

Very interesting link. I also didn't see a single reference to outrageous message board theories.


Maybe I haven't given the CA Supreme Ct enough credit. I've been concerned about Scott's sentence (not guilt) being overturned. The Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being extremely liberal and making some (IMO) questionable decisions.I know I should already know this, so I'll blame the question on the heat having fried my brain. That said, are the CA Supreme Ct judges appointed? Yes...they are, aren't they? So, who is appointing these liberals?

I can't stand a liberal judge! :flamemad: But I'll hug a tree to save an owl, or sink a whaler in a split second. :hat:

[Miss Bootsie]

I know I should already know this, so I'll blame the question on the heat having fried my brain. That said, are the CA Supreme Ct judges appointed? Yes...they are, aren't they? So, who is appointing these liberals?

I can't stand a liberal judge! :flamemad: But I'll hug a tree to save an owl, or sink a whaler in a split second. :hat:

The Supreme Court Justices for the State of California are nominated by the Governer, subject to confirmation by the voters.

The US Federal Court of Appeals Judges for the Ninth circuit are appointed by the President.

[Miss Bootsie]

Your Seattle temp sounds wonderful about now. The East Coast is sweltering.

Very interesting link. I also didn't see a single reference to outrageous message board theories.


Maybe I haven't given the CA Supreme Ct enough credit. I've been concerned about Scott's sentence (not guilt) being overturned. The Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being extremely liberal and making some (IMO) questionable decisions.

Yes, and the US Supreme court has a reputation for frequently reversing decisions made by the much too liberal ninth circuit.
In March 2007, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas testified before a House Appropriations committee that the Ninth Circuit was too large and unwieldy and should be split. [6] ...

Most criticism of the Ninth Circuit can be summarized by the following two claims:

The Ninth Circuit is politically liberal and out of step with Supreme Court precedent.
The large size of the court prevents it from maintaining a coherent body of case law.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circu it

[deputydi]

Yes, and the US Supreme court has a reputation for frequently reversing decisions made by the much too liberal ninth circuit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circu it

I didn't realize that. It does bring up another question, though. IF the 9th Circuit reverses all or part of Scott's verdict and/or penalty and remands it to the lower court to retry, who has standing to appeal it? Certainly Scott's attorneys won't challenge a favorable decision by the 9th circuit and I didn't think the State had standing to challenge it either.

I hope my question is clear. In rereading it, I confused myself.

[Wearing A Halo]

Everyone come up to Seattle, its about 64 degrees and my furnace just kicked off again. I got a sweatshirt on.

This is an interesting site to get back O/T:

http://www.crimblawg.com/death_penalty/index.html

Its a legal blog by three appellant dp lawyers in California. They have so nicely put together all sorts of appeals in front of the 9th Circuit and the Ca Supreme Court. Its exhaustive!

So many issues, so many convictions affirmed! And no weird theories from a message board ever mentioned. :rolleyes:

Hi Otter, this is a very "overwhelming" website.
Good find.
:beer:

[accordn2me]

The Supreme Court Justices for the State of California are nominated by the Governer, subject to confirmation by the voters.

The US Federal Court of Appeals Judges for the Ninth circuit are appointed by the President.Thanks for clearing that up. I believe we have a US Federal Court of Appeals Ninth circuit in New Orleans. :shrug: Does each state have one? Sorry for asking. I should do my own research. But I'm lazy! Actually, thinking on this a bit....I have a second cousin that lives in Dallas. She is a federal prosecutor. She tries cases in New Orleans sometimes. Maybe Texas doesn't have this court?

[accordn2me]

I didn't realize that. It does bring up another question, though. IF the 9th Circuit reverses all or part of Scott's verdict and/or penalty and remands it to the lower court to retry, who has standing to appeal it? Certainly Scott's attorneys won't challenge a favorable decision by the 9th circuit and I didn't think the State had standing to challenge it either.

I hope my question is clear. In rereading it, I confused myself.By "had standing to challenge" do you mean the authority to do so? I'm not sure but I would think they would because if not them, who else?

The man who murdered my mom took an appeal to.....maybe it was the First circuit and that's what we have in NOLA.... :confused:

Maybe I shouldn't post when I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I love to interact with y'all! :D

[Miss Bootsie]

I didn't realize that. It does bring up another question, though. IF the 9th Circuit reverses all or part of Scott's verdict and/or penalty and remands it to the lower court to retry, who has standing to appeal it? Certainly Scott's attorneys won't challenge a favorable decision by the 9th circuit and I didn't think the State had standing to challenge it either.

I hope my question is clear. In rereading it, I confused myself.

This may answer your questions.

How a case moves through the Court
Main article: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
The vast majority of cases come before the Court by way of petitions for writs of certiorari, commonly referred to as "cert". The Court may review any case in the federal courts of appeals "by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case".[7] The Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.[8] The party that lost in the lower court is called the petitioner, and the party that prevailed is called the respondent. All case names before the Court are styled Petitioner v. Respondent, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. If the defendant is convicted, and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes Miranda v. Arizona.

The Court grants a petition for certiorari only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include, without limitation:

to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal constitution

to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings

to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.

When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a "circuit split". If the Court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.

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

[Miss Bootsie]

Thanks for clearing that up. I believe we have a US Federal Court of Appeals Ninth circuit in New Orleans. :shrug: Does each state have one? Sorry for asking. I should do my own research. But I'm lazy! Actually, thinking on this a bit....I have a second cousin that lives in Dallas. She is a federal prosecutor. She tries cases in New Orleans sometimes. Maybe Texas doesn't have this court?

No, you don't have a Federal Ninth circuit Court of appeals in New Orleans. I think the Federal Fifth circuit Court of appeals has jurisdiction over the State district court of New Orleans.



These are the States within the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit.



The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:


District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington
It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:

District Court of Guam
District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
Headquartered in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals, with 28 active judgeships. The court's regular meeting places are Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Pasadena, but panels of the court occasionally travel to hear cases in other locations within its territorial jurisdiction. Although the judges travel around the circuit, the court arranges its hearings so that cases from the northern region of the circuit are heard in Seattle or Portland, cases from southern California are heard in Pasadena, and cases from northern California, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii are heard in San Francisco. For lawyers who must come and present their cases to the court in person, this administrative grouping of cases helps to reduce the time and cost of travel.



United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit


The John Minor Wisdom U.S. Courthouse, home of the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

Eastern District of Louisiana
Middle District of Louisiana
Western District of Louisiana
Northern District of Mississippi
Southern District of Mississippi
Eastern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Southern District of Texas
Western District of Texas
The court is composed of seventeen active judges and is based at the John Minor Wisdom U.S. Courthouse in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is one of thirteen United States courts of appeals.

[Miss Bootsie]

I didn't realize that. It does bring up another question, though. IF the 9th Circuit reverses all or part of Scott's verdict and/or penalty and remands it to the lower court to retry, who has standing to appeal it? Certainly Scott's attorneys won't challenge a favorable decision by the 9th circuit and I didn't think the State had standing to challenge it either.

I hope my question is clear. In rereading it, I confused myself.

Whether the case could end up before the US Supreme Court depends on many factors.

Determination by the State being one of those factors.

[Luke Davis]

Whether the case could end up before the US Supreme Court depends on many factors.

Determination by the State being one of those factors.Wouldn't the state have the option to go to trial again?

[deputydi]

Wouldn't the state have the option to go to trial again?
Sure they have the option. I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that they will retry him if it comes to that.

[deputydi]

By "had standing to challenge" do you mean the authority to do so? I'm not sure but I would think they would because if not them, who else?

The man who murdered my mom took an appeal to.....maybe it was the First circuit and that's what we have in NOLA.... :confused:

Maybe I shouldn't post when I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I love to interact with y'all! :D

Hey, you're doing just fine. None of us have all the answers and that's the reason we're here.

[ekg]

Again..he was answering the question ---> do they appear to be salt crystals?

Did he analyze the mineral deposits? NO
Can he tell by looking at them if they had a crystal structure or not? not IMO
Is the process the same as to kidney stones formation vs the mineralization outside the body..? No

In addition..for example..this reference is about kidney stones from uric acid....note: "the breakage is crystalline revealing a laminated formation of uric acid"..so an intact stone would not reveal the crystalline nature of the stone...

[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. The breakage is crystalline, revealing a
laminated formation of uric acid and ammonium urate. In children the
calculus may be entirely uratic.]

I know it's for pet-urine removal...... but I though this description was a good one..

Uric acid contains non-soluble salt crystals, which present the biggest challenge to removing urine and its odor from surfaces and fabrics

The first two components can be washed away with ordinary cleaning and commercially-available urine odor products, but the uric acid crystals are extremely insoluble and remain tightly bonded to the surface. After initial cleaning and drying with ordinary products, it may appear that the problem is solved. However, any type of moisture will reactivate those remaining crystals and the smell returns, as strong as ever

of course I've looked for a site that talks about repeated human (uncleaned)urination on fabric, but I guess that's not enough of a problem for it to be part of a discussion anywhere....LOL

but uric acid is uric acid.. and if Laci was deprived of food or water for too many hours a day her urine would be highly concentrated and more acidic.. so I would think that could contribute to the formations that Peterson noted.. and like that pet-stain removal site says "uric acid crystals are extremely insoluble and remain tightly bonded to the surface" so IMO you are right on in your theory..

[deputydi]

When I posted my original question, I knew it was going to be as clear as pea soup. Let me try again -- there is a hypothetical question at the end.

1. The State of CA brought the original charges against Scott and he was tried and convicted at the State level. From this point on, he is no longer a plaintiff or a defendant -- he is the petitioner.

2. In CA, Scott is entitled to an automatic appeal of his death sentence. This appeal will only look at the trial record and rule on whether he got a fair trial. They don't look at new evidence, old evidence or any evidence -- only whether J Delucci ruled correctly on the defense atty's objections. MG had to put an objection on the record for it to even be considered in the first appeal. This is where we are now.

3. If this court turns down his appeal and affirms the lower court's decision, he can then submit a writ of habeas corpus to a higher court. I think this would be where the State Supreme Ct comes in. This appeal can address almost anything -- ineffective assistance of counsel, new evidence, etc.

4. If his writ is turned down again and the original judgment is affirmed, he can appeal to the Ninth Circuit which is a Federal Ct. This court doesn't review anything but the findings of the State Supreme Court.

Now -- let's say at this juncture the Ninth Circuit says the State Supreme Court erred in one of its findings and they say that because of this, the lower court should look at it again and either retry Scott or release him. My question is, can the STATE appeal this decision? Scott would be the petitioner and the State would now be the respondent and the losing party in all this legal wrangling.

I know if Scott loses and the US Supreme Court decides to hear it, there is no appeal by anyone from there. I just don't know if the State has any right to appeal an unfavorable decision by the Ninth Circuit.

[Miss Bootsie]

I know it's for pet-urine removal...... but I though this description was a good one..



of course I've looked for a site that talks about repeated human (uncleaned)urination on fabric, but I guess that's not enough of a problem for it to be part of a discussion anywhere....LOL

but uric acid is uric acid.. and if Laci was deprived of food or water for too many hours a day her urine would be highly concentrated and more acidic.. so I would think that could contribute to the formations that Peterson noted.. and like that pet-stain removal site says "uric acid crystals are extremely insoluble and remain tightly bonded to the surface" so IMO you are right on in your theory..

I believe you have overlooked a very important fact.


PETERSON: Didn't look crystalline at all. This looked like stones.

crys·tal·line 1. Being, relating to, or composed of crystal or crystals.
2. Resembling crystal, as in transparency or distinctness of structure or outline.

Dr. Peterson stated the deposits were stones.

What is the name of the stone?









.

[TopGunner]

I believe you have overlooked a very important fact.



crys·tal·line 1. Being, relating to, or composed of crystal or crystals.
2. Resembling crystal, as in transparency or distinctness of structure or outline.

Dr. Peterson stated the deposits were stones.

What is the name of the stone?

.


How did I know (psychic?) that after 5 pages from about 8 different posters who proved OVER and OVER and OVER again that the urine/crystal/salt/stones is a MOOT POINT, it would STILL be debated about?:cuss:

You have more patience than me Boots! :tongue:

[ekg]

interesting...

Crystalline structures

Solid substances are divided in two large groups, amorphous substances and crystalline substances. Crystals have defined geometrical shapes while amorphous substances have not.


a·mor·phous

Chemistry. not crystalline.


AW2B, I just can't find enough info on repeated urination/evaporation on a fabric tho.... But I wonder if the stones could have been an amorphous substance? It would be alot easier to know if we had more info on it... I guess it's just something that will have to stay as an 'unknown' .... but I do like that part of your theory... I like it for 2 reasons.. it explains the stones/crystals in that shredded section of the crotch area... and it explains why the just the back of the panty is missing. the repeated soaking with uric acid, which would be more concentrated in someone who wasn't getting enough to drink, would make the fabric in that area more degraded than parts of the same fabric in another area.... ex. the front is intact while the back is missing...



I haven't seen any other explanation on why this occurred and I :beer: you for being the only one to take that question on... :patriot:

[TopGunner]

interesting...

Crystalline structures

Solid substances are divided in two large groups, amorphous substances and crystalline substances. Crystals have defined geometrical shapes while amorphous substances have not.


a·mor·phous

Chemistry. not crystalline.


AW2B, I just can't find enough info on repeated urination/evaporation on a fabric tho.... But I wonder if the stones could have been an amorphous substance? It would be alot easier to know if we had more info on it... I guess it's just something that will have to stay as an 'unknown' .... but I do like that part of your theory... I like it for 2 reasons.. it explains the stones/crystals in that shredded section of the crotch area... and it explains why the just the back of the panty is missing. the repeated soaking with uric acid, which would be more concentrated in someone who wasn't getting enough to drink, would make the fabric in that area more degraded than parts of the same fabric in another area.... ex. the front is intact while the back is missing...



I haven't seen any other explanation on why this occurred and I :beer: you for being the only one to take that question on... :patriot:


ekg :seeya: the question AW2B "took on" has taken off into the most incredible spin of nothing I've ever seen, and has been answered multiple times multiplied by infinity. :no:

[Miss Bootsie]

How did I know (psychic?) that after 5 pages from about 8 different posters who proved OVER and OVER and OVER again that the urine/crystal/salt/stones is a MOOT POINT, it would STILL be debated about?:cuss:

You have more patience than me Boots! :tongue:

No, not really.

When a debate gets to the point of being annoying to me, I simply put the people involved on ignore until the debate ends.:tongue:

[ekg]

ekg :seeya: the question AW2B "took on" has taken off into the most incredible spin of nothing I've ever seen, and has been answered multiple times multiplied by infinity. :no:

the only thing I have seen as a reason for the spots Peterson found is someone saying they are from the concrete... but when asked why those spots are only found in the crotch area the question gets ignored...So I don't put any weight into that theory at all.....

also All I see is ppl putting down her theory, not giving their own.... and again, that doesn't answer the question of where they came from and what they are...:shrug:

I think AW2B has gone far above and beyond in her explanation of her theory when none of it matter b/c you guys don't/wont find it credible anyways... but her theory explains the condition of the pants and the panties do the best of her ability given what she's working with....

besides......it's just her opinion and hers could be right just as easily as yours... or whomever's you're talking about when you say has been answered..

[TopGunner]

the only thing I have seen as a reason for the spots Peterson found is someone saying they are from the concrete... but when asked why those spots are only found in the crotch area the question gets ignored...So I don't put any weight into that theory at all.....

also All I see is ppl putting down her theory, not giving their own.... and again, that doesn't answer the question of where they came from and what they are...:shrug:

I think AW2B has gone far above and beyond in her explanation of her theory when none of it matter b/c you guys don't/wont find it credible anyways... but her theory explains the condition of the pants and the panties do the best of her ability given what she's working with....

besides......it's just her opinion and hers could be right just as easily as yours... or whomever's you're talking about when you say has been answered..


Oh, no doubt, A+ to AW2B for EFFORT, but not for a logical conclusion. What's been responded to, in this regard, is numerous quotes by the EXPERTS, testimony has been posted, complete common sense responses why it doesn't make sense, beginning with... NOBODY TESTIFIED THAT THE CROTCH AREA WAS THE ONLY AREA THAT HAD *SPOTS*.

And when did these crystal/salt/stone/minerals become SPOTS? :shrug:

[Miss Bootsie]

the only thing I have seen as a reason for the spots Peterson found is someone saying they are from the concrete... but when asked why those spots are only found in the crotch area the question gets ignored...So I don't put any weight into that theory at all.....

also All I see is ppl putting down her theory, not giving their own.... and again, that doesn't answer the question of where they came from and what they are...:shrug:

I think AW2B has gone far above and beyond in her explanation of her theory when none of it matter b/c you guys don't/wont find it credible anyways... but her theory explains the condition of the pants and the panties do the best of her ability given what she's working with....

besides......it's just her opinion and hers could be right just as easily as yours... or whomever's you're talking about when you say has been answered..

I could just as easily state that it is my opinion the deposits were salt crystals from the salt water in the Bay, if I ignored the testimony of an expert.

The deposits were stones, they were not salt crystals and I can't ignore that fact.

You are wrong that people have ignored the questions you asked. There is no testimony whatsoever that the shredded threads or the stones were confined to the crotch area.

[Otter]

Okay, as I understand the theory of the week or month ... Laci was held captive and forced to pee on herself continually.

Let's assume that for the sake of argument :rolleyes:

Please explain to me how she became disarticulated. I'm dense, so please keep that in mind. TIA.

[ekg]

Oh, no doubt, A+ to AW2B for EFFORT, but not for a logical conclusion. What's been responded to, in this regard, is numerous quotes by the EXPERTS, testimony has been posted, complete common sense responses why it doesn't make sense, beginning with... NOBODY TESTIFIED THAT THE CROTCH AREA WAS THE ONLY AREA THAT HAD *SPOTS*.

And when did these crystal/salt/stone/minerals become SPOTS? :shrug:

they became spots b/c it easier than typing crystal/salt/stone/minerals..

so you're saying that since Peterson didn't mention he found them any other place except for the crotch then they must exist elsewhere anyway?

wow, can I do with other testimony to?

and you're wrong..... concrete leaving 'spots' thru chicken wire and a tarp and only on the shredded parts of the crotch and not anywhere else on the body/clothing is not, IMO, a common sense argument..... But the repetitive wetting/drying from urination that has a higher acid level due to dehydration, IMO explains why the back portion of the panties are missing AND why there were crystal/salt/stone/minerals deposits in the shredded remains of the crotch..

IMO of course... which is as good as anyone else:D

see IMO it's not a stretch that Laci could have been alive and held... but since a SIG can't fathom anyone but Scott doing this, anything else is unacceptable and lacking common sense..well I respectfully disagree.. noone here is anymore of an expert on this issue than AW2B so noones opinion holds any more weight than another's...:hat:
I believe AW2B has made a great argument for her theory and still haven't seen a better one...

can you give a better scenario instead of putting down hers? I'm not being snarky.. I'd really like another POV on the cause for the crystal/salt/stone/minerals and the condition of the pants and panties....

[ekg]

Okay, as I understand the theory of the week or month ... Laci was held captive and forced to pee on herself continually.

Let's assume that for the sake of argument :rolleyes:

Please explain to me how she became disarticulated. I'm dense, so please keep that in mind. TIA.

Hi Ottter.... I explained that back on page 85.. I think it was post 3387

basically she could have been put in a "stress position" and taped up to fit in a 55 gal drum/storage container...and thru the decomp process and the b/c of the 'stress position' she became disarticulated.. IMO of course..

[TopGunner]

they became spots b/c it easier than typing crystal/salt/stone/minerals..

so you're saying that since Peterson didn't mention he found them any other place except for the crotch then they must exist elsewhere anyway?

wow, can I do with other testimony to?

and you're wrong..... concrete leaving 'spots' thru chicken wire and a tarp and only on the shredded parts of the crotch and not anywhere else on the body/clothing is not, IMO, a common sense argument..... But the repetitive wetting/drying from urination that has a higher acid level due to dehydration, IMO explains why the back portion of the panties are missing AND why there were crystal/salt/stone/minerals deposits in the shredded remains of the crotch..

IMO of course... which is as good as anyone else:D

see IMO it's not a stretch that Laci could have been alive and held... but since a SIG can't fathom anyone but Scott doing this, anything else is unacceptable and lacking common sense..well I respectfully disagree.. noone here is anymore of an expert on this issue than AW2B so noones opinion holds any more weight than another's...:hat:
I believe AW2B has made a great argument for her theory and still haven't seen a better one...

can you give a better scenario instead of putting down hers? I'm not being snarky.. I'd really like another POV on the cause for the crystal/salt/stone/minerals and the condition of the pants and panties....


egk, I admire you backing AW2B - but IMO, this theory is all made up in her head. Nobody, and I mean, not even Wudge has pounded on this ridiculous theory, that because SPOTS were found in Laci's crotch area, ISP didn't murder her....please. I do not have the energy or desire to get caught up in all of this again. It has been addressed passionately, reasonably, and redundently for far too long. If you TWO need to believe he has a chance in h*ll of walking because of spots found in Laci's crotch area, then God bless you both. I'm am now out of this theory altogether, I'm done with it and will no longer respond to it because again, IMO, it's that stupid.

[TopGunner]

******TV TONIGHT******

Tonight, MSNBC channel at 11 PM EST on "MSNBC Reports" - Scott Peterson's sister discusses their relatinship and the murders of his wife and son.


Sorry guys, didn't know where to put this, thought it'd be seen the most here. :biggrin:

[deputydi]

<snip>can you give a better scenario instead of putting down hers? I'm not being snarky.. I'd really like another POV on the cause for the crystal/salt/stone/minerals and the condition of the pants and panties....
I just can't stand this anymore. :D

Could you explain to me why you and AW2B think this is such an important issue? The jury didn't think it was, MG didn't think it was -- no one but the two of you think this is the single AHA moment that is going to get Scott a new trial. Absolutely no one who was directly involved with the case gave this testimony more than a nano second of consideration. Honest -- I really don't get it.

All the experts testified to the fact that Laci's body was in the San Fran Bay for a period of MONTHS. The defense's theory was she was put there shortly after she was murdered and remained until the two bodies washed ashore. MG never even tried to present any evidence that contradicted this. If this issue was so darned important, and if anyone thought that there was another explanation, there would have been testimony presented for the jury to weigh. THERE WASN'T.

As poor as I believe MGs handling of this case was, even he didn't try to present such an outrageous theory -- and, believe me, he wasn't above spouting off outrageous theories.

I don't know what those "spots" were. You don't know. MG doesn't know. Distaso doesn't know. The jury doesn't know. And, guess what -- no one thinks they are even remotely important. Except, of course, you and AW2B.

You can theorize and google all you want. It isn't going to prove a single thing and it isn't going to get Scott a new trial.

IMO, IMO, IMO, IMO.

[Otter]

Hi Ottter.... I explained that back on page 85.. I think it was post 3387

basically she could have been put in a "stress position" and taped up to fit in a 55 gal drum/storage container...and thru the decomp process and the b/c of the 'stress position' she became disarticulated.. IMO of course..

Hi Ekg!

Oh yeah, I remember that! It was so implausible that it was a fleeting memory though.

In all due respect ... where do you get this stuff? Seriously, its utterly bizarre. IMO of course.

*otterwalksawayshakingherhead*

ETA -- You know what page number you made a specific post on??? Yikes, you're way more organized than I would ever be. Kudos, I guess.

[deputydi]

******TV TONIGHT******

Tonight, MSNBC channel at 11 PM EST on "MSNBC Reports" - Scott Peterson's sister discusses their relatinship and the murders of his wife and son.


Sorry guys, didn't know where to put this, thought it'd be seen the most here. :biggrin:
Thanks. I'll be watching.

[adnoid]

... simply put the people involved on ignore until the debate ends...

Or longer. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v468/adnoid/Animated/DancingBanana2.gif

[Miss Bootsie]

Oh, no doubt, A+ to AW2B for EFFORT, but not for a logical conclusion. What's been responded to, in this regard, is numerous quotes by the EXPERTS, testimony has been posted, complete common sense responses why it doesn't make sense, beginning with... NOBODY TESTIFIED THAT THE CROTCH AREA WAS THE ONLY AREA THAT HAD *SPOTS*.

And when did these crystal/salt/stone/minerals become SPOTS? :shrug:

I was wondering the same thing TG. SPOTS???????:confused:

[Miss Bootsie]

******TV TONIGHT******

Tonight, MSNBC channel at 11 PM EST on "MSNBC Reports" - Scott Peterson's sister discusses their relatinship and the murders of his wife and son.


Sorry guys, didn't know where to put this, thought it'd be seen the most here. :biggrin:

Thanks TG. I read this just in time.

[accordn2me]

the only thing I have seen as a reason for the spots Peterson found is someone saying they are from the concrete... but when asked why those spots are only found in the crotch area the question gets ignored...So I don't put any weight into that theory at all.....

also All I see is ppl putting down her theory, not giving their own.... and again, that doesn't answer the question of where they came from and what they are...:shrug:

I think AW2B has gone far above and beyond in her explanation of her theory when none of it matter b/c you guys don't/wont find it credible anyways... but her theory explains the condition of the pants and the panties do the best of her ability given what she's working with....

besides......it's just her opinion and hers could be right just as easily as yours... or whomever's you're talking about when you say has been answered..I didn't ignore the question. I can't tell you the number of the post but I said something to the effect of SLP placed one of the anchors in Laci's crotch area and that's how the "spots" got there. They're concrete, IMO.

How long do you theorize that Laci was held alive peeing on herself...and how long was she alive and deprived of food and water before her urine became so concentrated as to form "spots" in her crotch and eat the back of her panties away....before they finally killed her and dumped/planted her body? Did the spots form while she was alive or as she decomposed?

[Miss Bootsie]

they became spots b/c it easier than typing crystal/salt/stone/minerals..

so you're saying that since Peterson didn't mention he found them any other place except for the crotch then they must exist elsewhere anyway?

wow, can I do with other testimony to?

and you're wrong..... concrete leaving 'spots' thru chicken wire and a tarp and only on the shredded parts of the crotch and not anywhere else on the body/clothing is not, IMO, a common sense argument..... But the repetitive wetting/drying from urination that has a higher acid level due to dehydration, IMO explains why the back portion of the panties are missing AND why there were crystal/salt/stone/minerals deposits in the shredded remains of the crotch..

IMO of course... which is as good as anyone else:D

see IMO it's not a stretch that Laci could have been alive and held... but since a SIG can't fathom anyone but Scott doing this, anything else is unacceptable and lacking common sense..well I respectfully disagree.. noone here is anymore of an expert on this issue than AW2B so noones opinion holds any more weight than another's...:hat:
I believe AW2B has made a great argument for her theory and still haven't seen a better one...

can you give a better scenario instead of putting down hers? I'm not being snarky.. I'd really like another POV on the cause for the crystal/salt/stone/minerals and the condition of the pants and panties....

This is getting so ridiculous, its past being amusing.

Why are you here defending AW's theory. Can't she speak for herself?

You're right. None of us are experts, but at least we base our opinions from the testimony.

I won't give an opinion on salt/crystals because the testimony would go against that opinion.

If you had taken time to read on the "Evidence that Points to Scott" thread, you would have found other theories.
This is my opinion of what the stones may have been,that I copied from that thread.

As you can see, at least I can give the name of the stone.



Because the stony deposits were not crystalline, my first choice is that the deposits were associated with the silt in SF Bay. i.e. - Shale


Quote:
Shale: A fine-grained sedimentary rock formed by the consolidation of clay, silt, or mud

Again, because the stones were not crystalline, my second choice is, small particles of rock worn into tiny pieces on the shoreline.



Also, the concrete theory is reasonable. At least the testimony supports Accord's opinion.
Its very possible the stony deposits came from a portion of degraded concrete. Stones are the coarse aggregate.

[accordn2me]

they became spots b/c it easier than typing crystal/salt/stone/minerals..

so you're saying that since Peterson didn't mention he found them any other place except for the crotch then they must exist elsewhere anyway?

wow, can I do with other testimony to?

and you're wrong..... concrete leaving 'spots' thru chicken wire and a tarp and only on the shredded parts of the crotch and not anywhere else on the body/clothing is not, IMO, a common sense argument..... But the repetitive wetting/drying from urination that has a higher acid level due to dehydration, IMO explains why the back portion of the panties are missing AND why there were crystal/salt/stone/minerals deposits in the shredded remains of the crotch..

IMO of course... which is as good as anyone else:D

see IMO it's not a stretch that Laci could have been alive and held... but since a SIG can't fathom anyone but Scott doing this, anything else is unacceptable and lacking common sense..well I respectfully disagree.. noone here is anymore of an expert on this issue than AW2B so noones opinion holds any more weight than another's...:hat:
I believe AW2B has made a great argument for her theory and still haven't seen a better one...

can you give a better scenario instead of putting down hers? I'm not being snarky.. I'd really like another POV on the cause for the crystal/salt/stone/minerals and the condition of the pants and panties....

IF there was chicken wire and/or a tarp, they could have been placed around the concrete anchor and body. Concrete is definitely a better theory, if I do say so myself.

[accordn2me]

No, you don't have a Federal Ninth circuit Court of appeals in New Orleans. I think the Federal Fifth circuit Court of appeals has jurisdiction over the State district court of New Orleans.



These are the States within the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit.You are like having my own personal moving walkway (like in airports) through the vast information highway of the worldwide web!

Thanks for the lessons! :rose: :rose:

[Miss Bootsie]

egk, I admire you backing AW2B.

*Snipped


You are kind TG, but I sure don't admire what has taken place here.

[Riviera]

Let's get back on topic please---->Scott Peterson's appeal

My suggestion for those of you who wish to continue discussing the crystals/salt/stone/minerals, etc... should start a new thread for that specific topic and let this one move forward.

Thank you

R

[TopGunner]

Let's get back on topic please---->Scott Peterson's appeal

My suggestion for those of you who wish to continue discussing the crystals/salt/stone/minerals, etc... should start a new thread for that specific topic and let this one move forward.

Thank you

R

Riviera, you are my hero, THANK YOU! :patriot: :D

[frydaddy]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/14/MNG71ABKB31.DTL

Sorry if this is a redundant link.

[TopGunner]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/14/MNG71ABKB31.DTL

Sorry if this is a redundant link.

Great link FD, good stuff for both sides to chew on! I'm running out to mow before it gets too hot, but at some point today, I hope to review/debate about issues found at this link in detail. :D

[deputydi]

Let's get back on topic please---->Scott Peterson's appeal

My suggestion for those of you who wish to continue discussing the crystals/salt/stone/minerals, etc... should start a new thread for that specific topic and let this one move forward.

Thank you

R
No ----- THANK YOU! :D

[accordn2me]

According to some legal analysts, the defense has one potentially strong issue on appeal: Delucchi's removal of three jurors, two of them in the last days before the guilty verdict. The first juror to be dismissed, for misconduct three weeks into the trial, said he was leaning toward acquittal.

Can we have a refresher on the 3 jurors removed? I seem to have forgotten one all together....let me count:

1. Justin Falconer....first Juror 5

2. second Juror 5...the doctor/lawyer/fit of conscience know-it-all

oh yeah!

3. the research lady

Personally, I think all 3 removals will stand. The most questionable removal, IMO, is the second J5 because they were in the middle of deliberations. Then RN goes and makes the comments about not starting all over again. *headbang icon*

Ya know, if jury deliberations are private...and they are....it seems wrong to hold them accountable when a few jurors speak out with personal recollections of what went on behind closed doors. Don't y'all think?

Let me say...the jurors I admire most...the ones who've kept their mouths shut and refused to capitalize on this case. Kudos to them!

[accordn2me]

.... an automatic appeal to the state Supreme Court.

That court upholds more than 90 percent of the death sentences it reviews. Peterson's best hope may lie in the federal courts, which overturn nearly half of all death sentences.

Forgive me if this has already been asked, discussed, and/or answered. Is it really true the federal courts overturn nearly 50% of all death sentences? Doesn't that seem high?

If "overturned" is the sentence reduced to LWOP, with no retrial, or what?

[deputydi]

<snip>Personally, I think all 3 removals will stand. The most questionable removal, IMO, is the second J5 because they were in the middle of deliberations. Then RN goes and makes the comments about not starting all over again. *headbang icon*

Ya know, if jury deliberations are private...and they are....it seems wrong to hold them accountable when a few jurors speak out with personal recollections of what went on behind closed doors. Don't y'all think?

Let me say...the jurors I admire most...the ones who've kept their mouths shut and refused to capitalize on this case. Kudos to them!
I think the Dr/Lawyer dismissal will be upheld along with the other two. From what I remember, he told the Judge he could no longer deliberate and the others said he refused to participate. He was angry because they wouldn't do it his way. The judge had every right to dismiss a juror who refused to deliberate and/or discuss the case with his fellow jurors.

I totally agree with your last two paragraphs.

[deputydi]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/14/MNG71ABKB31.DTL

Sorry if this is a redundant link.
Great find. I'll read it more thoroughly tonight.

[enlightenme]

Can we have a refresher on the 3 jurors removed? I seem to have forgotten one all together....let me count:

1. Justin Falconer....first Juror 5

2. second Juror 5...the doctor/lawyer/fit of conscience know-it-all

oh yeah!

3. the research lady

Personally, I think all 3 removals will stand. The most questionable removal, IMO, is the second J5 because they were in the middle of deliberations. Then RN goes and makes the comments about not starting all over again. *headbang icon*

Ya know, if jury deliberations are private...and they are....it seems wrong to hold them accountable when a few jurors speak out with personal recollections of what went on behind closed doors. Don't y'all think?

Let me say...the jurors I admire most...the ones who've kept their mouths shut and refused to capitalize on this case. Kudos to them!


Amen to that! I admire the jurors who just kept quiet! Jury deliberations are sancrosect and should remain that way. For the SIIs, one juror's statement is attributed to the WHOLE jury, which is wrong as well.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Amen to that! I admire the jurors who just kept quiet! Jury deliberations are sancrosect and should remain that way. For the SIIs, one juror's statement is attributed to the WHOLE jury, which is wrong as well.
Amen to that!

[TopGunner]

I think the Dr/Lawyer dismissal will be upheld along with the other two. From what I remember, he told the Judge he could no longer deliberate and the others said he refused to participate. He was angry because they wouldn't do it his way. The judge had every right to dismiss a juror who refused to deliberate and/or discuss the case with his fellow jurors.

I totally agree with your last two paragraphs.


Didn't Jackson ASKED to be dismissed, becasue everyone didn't want to go through HIS handwritten notes, and IIRC, there were many notebooks filled?

[ekg]

egk, I admire you backing AW2B - but IMO, this theory is all made up in her head. Nobody, and I mean, not even Wudge has pounded on this ridiculous theory, that because SPOTS were found in Laci's crotch area, ISP didn't murder her....please. I do not have the energy or desire to get caught up in all of this again. It has been addressed passionately, reasonably, and redundently for far too long. If you TWO need to believe he has a chance in h*ll of walking because of spots found in Laci's crotch area, then God bless you both. I'm am now out of this theory altogether, I'm done with it and will no longer respond to it because again, IMO, it's that stupid.

it is absolutely your choice to not comment again on this theory... but to call it stupid is just plain hurtful IMO.....

I don't need to believe in anything.... but I want to know why something is..and aw2b's theory is a good theory of why IMO.

What I don't understand is why it is so outrageous that Laci could have been held against her will and b/c of her physical condition, forced to pee her pants at times........ is it that this would just never ever happen in a million-zillion years to anyone? Or is that y'all are just so sure Scott did it, that nothing else can be possible?

IMO both answers require a level of certainty that I am just not capable of.. but more power to those that are.:shrug: .... and regardless, I wouldn't call you stupid for that certainty either way.

[ekg]

I just can't stand this anymore. :D

Could you explain to me why you and AW2B think this is such an important issue? The jury didn't think it was, MG didn't think it was -- no one but the two of you think this is the single AHA moment that is going to get Scott a new trial. Absolutely no one who was directly involved with the case gave this testimony more than a nano second of consideration. Honest -- I really don't get it.

All the experts testified to the fact that Laci's body was in the San Fran Bay for a period of MONTHS. The defense's theory was she was put there shortly after she was murdered and remained until the two bodies washed ashore. MG never even tried to present any evidence that contradicted this. If this issue was so darned important, and if anyone thought that there was another explanation, there would have been testimony presented for the jury to weigh. THERE WASN'T.

As poor as I believe MGs handling of this case was, even he didn't try to present such an outrageous theory -- and, believe me, he wasn't above spouting off outrageous theories.

I don't know what those "spots" were. You don't know. MG doesn't know. Distaso doesn't know. The jury doesn't know. And, guess what -- no one thinks they are even remotely important. Except, of course, you and AW2B.

You can theorize and google all you want. It isn't going to prove a single thing and it isn't going to get Scott a new trial.

IMO, IMO, IMO, IMO.


so why should I take the time, once again, to explain it to you?

and instead of telling me how bad aw2b theory is and how far off I am for believing it........ why don't you give another one?

[ekg]

Hi Ekg!

Oh yeah, I remember that! It was so implausible that it was a fleeting memory though.

In all due respect ... where do you get this stuff? Seriously, its utterly bizarre. IMO of course.

*otterwalksawayshakingherhead*

ETA -- You know what page number you made a specific post on??? Yikes, you're way more organized than I would ever be. Kudos, I guess.


there's a button on top of the page that says "SEARCH", then click Advanced search then you can Search by Key Word(s): and the User name...then.. bam, there ya go page number and all...easy-peesey

[Lavindar]

Your Seattle temp sounds wonderful about now. The East Coast is sweltering.

Very interesting link. I also didn't see a single reference to outrageous message board theories.


Maybe I haven't given the CA Supreme Ct enough credit. I've been concerned about Scott's sentence (not guilt) being overturned. The Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being extremely liberal and making some (IMO) questionable decisions.

It's that liberal leaning that has me concerned too, DD. Still, given the trial, I'd say teh most liberal they would go is LWOP which is OK with me. As long as he never takes another breath of free air, I'm happy.

[ekg]

I didn't ignore the question. I can't tell you the number of the post but I said something to the effect of SLP placed one of the anchors in Laci's crotch area and that's how the "spots" got there. They're concrete, IMO.

How long do you theorize that Laci was held alive peeing on herself...and how long was she alive and deprived of food and water before her urine became so concentrated as to form "spots" in her crotch and eat the back of her panties away....before they finally killed her and dumped/planted her body? Did the spots form while she was alive or as she decomposed?


the spots didn't eat the back of her panties away..but the urine might have degraded the fabric so that they were in less of a condition than the rest of the pantiess so they 'rotted' away faster

~~what is your theory on why just the back is missing?

she was pregnant, pregnant women pee alot.. wouldn't have had to be more than a cpl days... but I think aw2b thinks it was longer.

she wouldn't have had to go without water for more than a few hours before her urine became concentrated.... yours(everyones) is every morning you wake up...your 1st 'pee' of the day is more concentrated from just holding it while you slept.

How many times she would have to pee on them for the 'spots' to form is the question I can't find an answer to... all I can point you on that question is pet-stain websites.. and we both know that wouldn't be good enough 'science' here.... so unfortunately we have to guess since there just aren't any websites out there that talk about a pregnant adult being force to pee in her pants over and over again.

now your theory....... why weren't the 'spot's anywhere else then? and how did they get thru the chicken wire and tarp? Did Peterson say they were concrete? are you saying that the concrete molecules kinda 'wafted' to the crotch area and accumulated there? or that a piece of concrete fell off and floated up and attached to the crotch area? can you explain more?

[Lavindar]

Wouldn't the state have the option to go to trial again?
I think that's only in case of a hung jury or mistrial w/o prejudice. If court orders it retried - it's a whole new case.

[Lavindar]

When I posted my original question, I knew it was going to be as clear as pea soup. Let me try again -- there is a hypothetical question at the end.

1. The State of CA brought the original charges against Scott and he was tried and convicted at the State level. From this point on, he is no longer a plaintiff or a defendant -- he is the petitioner.

2. In CA, Scott is entitled to an automatic appeal of his death sentence. This appeal will only look at the trial record and rule on whether he got a fair trial. They don't look at new evidence, old evidence or any evidence -- only whether J Delucci ruled correctly on the defense atty's objections. MG had to put an objection on the record for it to even be considered in the first appeal. This is where we are now.

3. If this court turns down his appeal and affirms the lower court's decision, he can then submit a writ of habeas corpus to a higher court. I think this would be where the State Supreme Ct comes in. This appeal can address almost anything -- ineffective assistance of counsel, new evidence, etc.

4. If his writ is turned down again and the original judgment is affirmed, he can appeal to the Ninth Circuit which is a Federal Ct. This court doesn't review anything but the findings of the State Supreme Court.

Now -- let's say at this juncture the Ninth Circuit says the State Supreme Court erred in one of its findings and they say that because of this, the lower court should look at it again and either retry Scott or release him. My question is, can the STATE appeal this decision? Scott would be the petitioner and the State would now be the respondent and the losing party in all this legal wrangling.

I know if Scott loses and the US Supreme Court decides to hear it, there is no appeal by anyone from there. I just don't know if the State has any right to appeal an unfavorable decision by the Ninth Circuit.

I don't think the State has the right to any kind of appeals. That's why the system is prejudiced in favor of the defense

[Miss Bootsie]

It's that liberal leaning that has me concerned too, DD. Still, given the trial, I'd say teh most liberal they would go is LWOP which is OK with me. As long as he never takes another breath of free air, I'm happy.

I agree Lav. I think LWOP is the most SP can hope for.

[Miss Bootsie]

Didn't Jackson ASKED to be dismissed, becasue everyone didn't want to go through HIS handwritten notes, and IIRC, there were many notebooks filled?

That is my understanding of the way it went.

[Lavindar]

IF there was chicken wire and/or a tarp, they could have been placed around the concrete anchor and body. Concrete is definitely a better theory, if I do say so myself.

What about small stones on the shoreline, pea gravel sized. If she was partically submerged, the shredded part could have been twisting in the water. The stones were enmeshed I believe was the word.

A picture would certainly be helpful as I understood the shredded parts of the pants to be thigh level, and not necessarily in the crotch area

[Lavindar]

Didn't Jackson ASKED to be dismissed, becasue everyone didn't want to go through HIS handwritten notes, and IIRC, there were many notebooks filled?

There was also an issue of his violation of the agreed upon speaking time for each juror. Not to mention, he didn't want to take a vote. He was grandstanding imo and definitely making things hard for everyone else. He also attempted to discuss the case outside the deliberation room which he HAD TO KNOW could get him canned. Worked for Falconer.

[ekg]

IF there was chicken wire and/or a tarp, they could have been placed around the concrete anchor and body. Concrete is definitely a better theory, if I do say so myself.

I don't think it's a better theory at all.. but it is a different one, so thank you...:beer:


and are you saying that scott put anchors on her, rolled chicken wire on her, then rolled her up in a tarp, and then tossed her out of the boat?

when did he do all that work? and how did he lift the dead weight of the body,anchors,chicken wire and tarp? and not capsize the boat?:confused: :confused:

and it would be HUGE wouldn't it? I mean all those anchors,chicken wire and tarp? I don't remember how much space there was b/t the seats? but was there enough room in between the seats to put her while she was all wrapped up like this?

:confused:

[attorneywan2be]

the spots didn't eat the back of her panties away..but the urine might have degraded the fabric so that they were in less of a condition than the rest of the pantiess so they 'rotted' away faster

~~what is your theory on why just the back is missing?

she was pregnant, pregnant women pee alot.. wouldn't have had to be more than a cpl days... but I think aw2b thinks it was longer.

she wouldn't have had to go without water for more than a few hours before her urine became concentrated.... yours(everyones) is every morning you wake up...your 1st 'pee' of the day is more concentrated from just holding it while you slept.

How many times she would have to pee on them for the 'spots' to form is the question I can't find an answer to... all I can point you on that question is pet-stain websites.. and we both know that wouldn't be good enough 'science' here.... so unfortunately we have to guess since there just aren't any websites out there that talk about a pregnant adult being force to pee in her pants over and over again.

now your theory....... why weren't the 'spot's anywhere else then? and how did they get thru the chicken wire and tarp? Did Peterson say they were concrete? are you saying that the concrete molecules kinda 'wafted' to the crotch area and accumulated there? or that a piece of concrete fell off and floated up and attached to the crotch area? can you explain more?

Hi ekg..:seeya: First let me thank you for your kind support..(check your PM)

I agree..IMO, the accumulation of acid in the urine caused the degradation of the fabric of her panties..that would explain why the back was missing..if this was not the cause, then why was the back of her panties missing? given the fact, that it was protected by the pants?

Again, why weren't those deposits embedded in the fractures of her ribs?..why were't they found on any other item of her clothings?..the bra..the area above the crotch where the zipper is..etc..etc..

I think MG should have tested those deposits..!

[ekg]

Let's get back on topic please---->Scott Peterson's appeal

My suggestion for those of you who wish to continue discussing the crystals/salt/stone/minerals, etc... should start a new thread for that specific topic and let this one move forward.

Thank you

R

my bad...... I just saw this, sorry....:o

[attorneywan2be]

IMO:

1-Insufficient evidence to support the verdict..there was Zero evidence as to the murder..no cause of death..no place of death..no time of death..no motive was ever identified..if the appellate court would reverse based on that, Double Jeopary would attach.. the jury in this case had to have speculated big time..

2-The jury experimenting with the boat..Beratlis stated on Greta's show on Dec 14, 2004 that the jury had questions in their minds about the stability of the boat and the buoyancy..he got into the boat and rocked it to determine the stability of the boat..thus creating evidence not presented in court.

3-The removal of juror #5 Justin Falconer..

4-The removal of juror # 5 Gregory Jackson (during deliberations), Jackson told the judge that he felt he was threatened by other jurors and that there were comments made to him that made him think his safety was at issue....Guinasso stated on ABC that in his opinion, had Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury.. he also stated that before Jackson was removed he was leading the jury in the defense direction..so IMO, it is a coerced verdict..they threatened the only juror that was holding out for acquital..

5-Richelle Nice, juror #7 stated on court TV that they didn't deliberate anew after the judge replaced a juror during deliberations..it is a violation of jury instructions..

6-Mary Mylett, juror # 10 stated to Modesto Bee that she was dreaming during the trial each night about being part of the Rochas..and that those dreams helped her heal from the nightmares of the day..that indicates extreme bias (which she should have mentioned to the judge) and also indicates she made up her mind of guilt as early as July..otherwise, why would she think of her days in court as nightmares.. she also stated that for 6 months she watched Sharon Rocha from the jury box..according to the jury instructions she was not supposed to be influenced by anything other than the evidence presented in court..so why was she watching her for 6 months?

7-Belemissieri stated on Greta's show on Dec 14, 2004 that he noticed that Scott didn't show any remorse during the guilt phase..and that was a point of discussion in the deliberations..this is a violation of the right to remain silent..in addition, this indicates that he expected to see remorse during the guilt phase..that would only indicate one thing..he made up his mind about guilt during the trial and before deliberations..

8-Delucchi erred by allowing the prosecution to demonstrate to the jury using a living person, Kim Fulbright, that it was possible to place Laci's body in the toolbox and the boat..this demonstration obviously didn't replicate the prosecution's theory..Rigor Mortis and the 5 imaginary anchors were not taken into account..this demonstration is misleading to say the least and is highly prejudicial..

9-Delucchi erred by disallowing the defense's boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the event in question..this is the exact point he disregarded when he allowed the prosecution's demonstration..

10-Delucchi erred by allowing Amber's tapes..they are highly prejudicial with zero evidentiary value..

11-Delucchi erred by allowing the dog evidence..this is unproven unreliable evidence that is highly prejudicial..

12- Ineffective assistance of counsel..Geragos made a lot of serious mistakes

13-Pre-trial negative publicity and media circus


Bumping ..maybe we can discuss each of those potential appeal issues..

[TopGunner]

I agree Lav. I think LWOP is the most SP can hope for.

Although I have no concerns that ISP will walk, and I believe the evidence was overwhelming against him (IMO!!!), and I think he got MORE than a fair trial, and (and and and) I completely believe that Delucchi handled the jurors with all the knowledge and experience he brought to the table, and therefore none of THAT will be an issue - I do think ISP has a 50/50 chance of LWOP.

My question is - if he WERE to get LWOP, wouldn't that be even worse than where he is now? He'd have a cell mate, he'd be exposed to the general population, etc., wouldn't he?

[attorneywan2be]

- I do think ISP has a 50/50 chance of LWOP.



On what basis did you form this opinion..I mean based on what issue do you think the court of appeal would reduce his sentence to LWOP?

[TopGunner]

it is absolutely your choice to not comment again on this theory... but to call it stupid is just plain hurtful IMO.....

I don't need to believe in anything.... but I want to know why something is..and aw2b's theory is a good theory of why IMO.

What I don't understand is why it is so outrageous that Laci could have been held against her will and b/c of her physical condition, forced to pee her pants at times........ is it that this would just never ever happen in a million-zillion years to anyone? Or is that y'all are just so sure Scott did it, that nothing else can be possible?

IMO both answers require a level of certainty that I am just not capable of.. but more power to those that are.:shrug: .... and regardless, I wouldn't call you stupid for that certainty either way.

ekg, I was NOT calling YOU or your post "stupid". Go back and read it again, I am not a name caller. I said the THEORY, IMO, is stupid - big difference. And I stand by what I said, IMO, it's the stupidest theory ever thrown out there, but again - that's not personal to you or to AW2B (as I told her a few days ago as well). Rivera had a great suggestion, rather than FLOOD this thread with a subject that's been addressed on both sides, and will never be resolved, start a new thread for this theory only and that way, everyone who chooses to participate can.

I don't see how these blessed stones or SPOTS can erase months and months of evidence that led only to the convicted. It's like "OMG there were SPOTS on Laci that nobody can explain so let's just forget ISP told 2 people that he lost his wife and this would be his FIRST holdiay without her, before she was lost. Let's just forget the boat nobody knew about, the golfing alibi, the "morning decision" to get the boat wet, even though the licence was purchase days before that. Let's forget the party in Paris, the run for Mexico, the attempt to sell the house furnished before Laci was missing for 2 weeks. Let's just FORGET that he was the last person to ever see Laci alive and he lied about what she was wearing - cloths and jewelry. Let's forget he refused to get in front of the media to beg for her return, he refused to see John Walsh, he refused to take a lie detector test ... all becasuse of SPOTS that nobody connected with the entire trial has ever, one single time, mentioned or implied that the SPOTS are fishy, no pun.:cuss:

[deputydi]

Hi ekg..:seeya: First let me thank you for your kind support..(check your PM)

I agree..IMO, the accumulation of acid in the urine caused the degradation of the fabric of her panties..that would explain why the back was missing..if this was not the cause, then why was the back of her panties missing? given the fact, that it was protected by the pants?

Again, why weren't those deposits embedded in the fractures of her ribs?..why were't they found on any other item of her clothings?..the bra..the area above the crotch where the zipper is..etc..etc..

I think MG should have tested those deposits..!
Riviera asked that we get back o/t and move this discussion to an appropriate thread. Can we do that ---------- puhleeze.

[Miss Bootsie]

my bad...... I just saw this, sorry....:o

You miss quite a lot, obviously.

[attorneywan2be]

Riviera asked that we get back o/t and move this discussion to an appropriate thread. Can we do that ---------- puhleeze.


I saw Riviera's post..I did move the discussion to "evidence that points to innocence" thread..in fact, I started with a question addressed to the people that disagree with the theory that urine was the source of the mineral deposits..

[Lavindar]

Although I have no concerns that ISP will walk, and I believe the evidence was overwhelming against him (IMO!!!), and I think he got MORE than a fair trial, and (and and and) I completely believe that Delucchi handled the jurors with all the knowledge and experience he brought to the table, and therefore none of THAT will be an issue - I do think ISP has a 50/50 chance of LWOP.

My question is - if he WERE to get LWOP, wouldn't that be even worse than where he is now? He'd have a cell mate, he'd be exposed to the general population, etc., wouldn't he?
No. Scott would be in protective housing unit and the only prison that has that is Corcoran. He'd be in with the likes of Manson. They still get only an hour a day outside I believe, and that is in an individual cage (too many problems on the yard with them. He's a high profile prisoner and a target. The only good thing for him is that he'd be nearer Mommy and Daddy. He'd be in the heat of the San Joaquin Valley in the summer and the charming Tule Fog in the winter. Boyzmomme knows a lot about Corcoran. Most of what I know is from her. But Scott would never be put in with general population, no matter how good he is. He's a baby killer and even prisoners have kids

[Miss Bootsie]

I saw Riviera's post..I did move the discussion to "evidence that points to innocence" thread..in fact, I started with a question addressed to the people that disagree with the theory that urine was the source of the mineral deposits..

Perhaps you should review this thread for questions that you never responded to and answer them on the "Evidence" thread.

[attorneywan2be]

Perhaps you should review this thread for questions that you never responded to and answer them on the "Evidence" thread.


There are quite a number of SIG's asking questions about my theory..I answered as many questions as I possibly could..I provided supporting links when it was needed, even so it is basically a theory and I'm not obligated to provide supporting facts or links... perhaps you want to review the thread for questions I addressed to SIGs that were never responded to...

[TopGunner]

On what basis did you form this opinion..I mean based on what issue do you think the court of appeal would reduce his sentence to LWOP?

No issue at all AW2B. However, I can see the possibility of the death penalty in CA being done away with some day.

[deputydi]

On what basis did you form this opinion..I mean based on what issue do you think the court of appeal would reduce his sentence to LWOP?
I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the appeals court can reduce his sentence unilaterally. I thought the only thing they would do if Scott's petition is approved would be to send the applicable part (guilt, penalty or both) back to the lower court and it would have to be retried.

Does anyone know?

[attorneywan2be]

I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the appeals court can reduce his sentence unilaterally. I thought the only thing they would do if Scott's petition is approved would be to send the applicable part (guilt, penalty or both) back to the lower court and it would have to be retried.

Does anyone know?

The court of appeal can vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing

[Luke Davis]

I think that's only in case of a hung jury or mistrial w/o prejudice. If court orders it retried - it's a whole new case.Yes, that is what I meant.

[deputydi]

The court of appeal can vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing
Isn't that what I said? They can't just commute his sentence -- the lower court would have to retry the penalty phase.

[Lavindar]

No issue at all AW2B. However, I can see the possibility of the death penalty in CA being done away with some day.


It has happened before. That is why Charles Manson and his groupies are still in prison rather than put to death as sentenced. Unfortunately, it means that IF the death penalty is abolished again, ALL prisoners on death row will have their sentences reduced.

[Luke Davis]

It has happened before. That is why Charles Manson and his groupies are still in prison rather than put to death as sentenced. Unfortunately, it means that IF the death penalty is abolished again, ALL prisoners on death row will have their sentences reduced.It can be so cruel. A man sentenced to death swore he would kill his wife who testified against him. When the DP was thrown out his sentence went to life. He got out and murdered her. :rose:

[deputydi]

It can be so cruel. A man sentenced to death swore he would kill his wife who testified against him. When the DP was thrown out his sentence went to life. He got out and murdered her. :rose:
Did you make that up?

[Luke Davis]

Did you make that up?No. Do you find it hard to believe?

This is even harder to believe.

DP foe pleads guilty.

(http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/163923.html)

"She was trying to undo and unravel capital verdicts," he said. "If you agree to be part of the criminal-justice system, you have to play by the rules, regardless of what your beliefs are."

[Lavindar]

No. Do you find it hard to believe?

This is even harder to believe.

DP foe pleads guilty.

(http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/163923.html)

"She was trying to undo and unravel capital verdicts," he said. "If you agree to be part of the criminal-justice system, you have to play by the rules, regardless of what your beliefs are." That's sad that it was done by a member of the justice system. Guess that answers the question "Do lawyers lie?"

[adnoid]

...Guess that answers the question "Do lawyers lie?"

It's simple to detect - just check to see if their lips are moving.

[enlightenme]

"Prepared by Culhane and submitted to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the documents said five jurors regretted their decision to condemn Morales to death for the 1981 rape and murder of 17-year-old Terri Winchell of Lodi.

The jurors told prosecutors they had never met Culhane and had never made the statements."



Morales gave someone else a death sentence. A 17 year old, no less!

[attorneywan2be]

Tonight Greta will discuss Scott's appeal..

[Lavindar]

I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the appeals court can reduce his sentence unilaterally. I thought the only thing they would do if Scott's petition is approved would be to send the applicable part (guilt, penalty or both) back to the lower court and it would have to be retried.



Does anyone know?

If the death penalty were abolished, he woudl revert to LWOP. That's the only scenario that I can envision.