Scott Peterson's appeal [Archive] - Page 6 - Crime Library Message Boards

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 01:21 PM

Geragos didn't testify so I don't understand your question..it is his job to ask the questions, and he is allowed to ask leading questions on cross.. and it is the job of the witness to either agree or disagree..
IMO, Conner's condition or the shape of his head doesn't prove BARD that he died on Dec 24th...they didn't even prove BARD that Laci was killed on Dec 24th...

IMO

The facts that were proven BARD are :
1-Scott went to the bay on Dec 24th...in fact, that was his alibi
2-4 months later the bodies were found in the bay area close to his alibi

However, the prosecution didn't prove BARD that Scott committed a murder..that he transported the body to the bay..that he attached anchors to the body..that he dumped the body in the bay..that the bodies were in the bay for about 4 months..that the bodies washed ashore where they were found..so the jury had to speculate in order to link #1 and #2...and they had to use facts/theories that were not proven BARD..

Think about it. Geragos testified with every question he asked. Twisting hsi questions to meet his own needs. That is in the court record. His
"appearing to be a full tern baby" is getting that into the record altho Peterson referred to him as a fetus. And people quote what Geragos says as gospel.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 01:27 PM

Exactly..I wrote about this extensively..and IMO by all indications the boat was no secret..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8834906&postcount=254

If the boat was no secret, why did NO ONE testify that they KNEW about it, including Scott's own father.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 01:28 PM

For example, the lack of fish bite marks on both bodies..no evidence of chewing either..so IMO it's impossible for the bodies to have been in the bay for about 4 months and no fish would touch them..!
Read Dr. Peterson's testimony. There WAS evidence of animal feeding on Laci

ekg

07-08-2007, 01:31 PM

Assisted by Karen Servas, who tightened it even further. In an attempt to pick her brain, or to otherwise fall into her good graces, she was invited to Scott's house for a special Christmas tortellini dinner.

IMO

and how coincidental is it that both the meringue and Karen S. tightened that noose b/c of Scott and Scott alone...

he said he heard meringue....... LE didn't believe him, but he did

Scott asked KS if she was sure about her time...so she went back to check and then changed her time..

imagine if he would have just kept his yapper shut, he'd had have an extra hr or more..;)

Hi Paula:seeya:

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 01:35 PM

Why? Why? Why?
Maybe he didn't like what he saw on South 9th.
Your right-he didn't get any after the last date-but he got it on the first!
Why did he keep calling her? Why did he keep telling her he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance?

I have my thoughts on some of the "why's" involving his actions - but why do YOU think he kept calling her? IMO it would have made a lot more sense in this pre-planned murder to shut it down.

My point is that he wasn't getting his raging hormones taking care of by Amber, yet he persisted in trying to stay in touch with her. I believe he was told to stop talkign to her - MOO

ekg

07-08-2007, 01:38 PM

Good Morning Frydaddy!

In nearly four months from the time Laci disappeared to the time of Scott's arrest, you would think that between the reward offer and the planning involved to keep Laci alive until Conner was "full term", the "real killers" would have surfaced or been outed. snipped

IMO

you mean like the $3.2 million dollar reward got Natalee Holloways killers to turn on each other or be outed in some way?:D

I'm kinda surprised that 'they didn't take the reward' is even an argument....... do rewards ever work?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 01:47 PM

Never heard this one before....what is your source for this information?

The number of calls and who placed them were listed on misfitting and I believe they are also on CTV. The calls that were transcripted on Court TV early on were mostly Scott originated

adnoid

07-08-2007, 01:52 PM

I'm kinda surprised that 'they didn't take the reward' is even an argument....... do rewards ever work?

Why don't you ask these folks? (http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Reward.html) Or do you consider them abject idiots?

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:07 PM

The doctor was explaining that if Conner had been born live and then put into the water when Laci was, his body would have been destroyed by feeding - BUT, he hadn't been, so his body, enclosed in the womb all that time, had been subject to autolysis and maceration.

His actual biological structure had changed: he wasn't decaying flesh any more, because his flesh wasn't flesh. Even the seagulls wouldn't have been interested. Conner's remains would have been poison to any fish or animal.

If that's what the doctor was referring to - why did he say considering his softened state? Would Conner have been in a softened state fresh out of the womb?

particularly including, particularly because Conner was so much smaller. And my thinking was that as small he was and as softened as he was, that if he had spent substantial unprotected time in the water, like Laci did, he would have been eaten. There simply wouldn't have been anything left

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:09 PM

If a homeless person owned a car I think they'd register it the same way Scott registered his boat, they don't. :biggrin: LOL, have to share this story with you. A friend a in the 80's in Modesto couldn't afford to register her car. She would cruise around until she found a tag the color of the current year (you keep the plates and get a new YEAR tag when you register. The color changes). She eventually got pulled over and hauled off to jail so the cops do check that stuff in Modesto - driving with expired plates. She was totally traumatized by the experience. She somehow found the money somehow to register her car after that

ekg

07-08-2007, 02:14 PM

Each fact has to be proven BARD before an inference of guilt can be drawn from that fact..IMO, they didn't prove BARD that Conner died on Dec 24th..

BTW, what evidence did the prosecution present that proved BARD that Scott killed Laci on Dec 24th? what evidence did they present to prove BARD that a murder occurred in the house at 523 Covena ave?

did they even try to prove the murder happened in the house? or did they just say 'it was here, HERE I tell ya!"

I remember one G's scenerio that Scott talked Laci into going for a nighttime drive to look at the christmas lights and killed her sometime during the drive...... there's just as much evidence for that as there is in the house being the 'spot'....... which is to say, no evidence of either..

they said that the baby was 33 weeks up to 38 weeks... 5 weeks is a pretty big window..IMO the 33 weeks only came into b/c Laci had to have been killed when he was 33weeks or it couldn't have been Scott...So IMO that early number is based on the CE..not the DE of science, which is also why the window of time is a huge 5 weeks...

rarely at her late date in her pregnancy is it changed to +/- 5 weeks...if there was that big of a discrepancy her OB/GYB would have noted it on the 23rd IMO...

I don't think the jury listened to any of that...b/c if they had they couldn't even be probably sure Connor died on the 23/24th... b/c even the science shows theres just as much of a chance he was 5 weeks older than he was on the 23/24... I think they just ignored it all together...or they just picked the date they wanted....and it's the picking and choosing that bothers me ...

here's something else to consider... there are 5 complete, scientifically proven, weeks in b/t 33-38, the 34th,35th,36th,37th,38th... any one of them prove Scott to be "Stone Cold Innocent"...but the jury picks the only week that it doesn't?

makes no sense to me....well, unless you pick and chose the parts of testimony you want to hear...then it makes total sense

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:14 PM

If that's what the doctor was referring to - why did he say considering his softened state? Would Conner have been in a softened state fresh out of the womb? Soft maybe, but he wouldn't have had liquified brains not his skin transparent enough to see muscle tissue. Read Dr. Peterson's description
Oh and he wouldn't have been MACERATED

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:15 PM

did they even try to prove the murder happened in the house? or did they just say 'it was here, HERE I tell ya!"

I remember one G's scenerio that Scott talked Laci into going for a nighttime drive to look at the christmas lights and killed her sometime during the drive...... there's just as much evidence for that as there is in the house being the 'spot'....... which is to say, no evidence of either..

they said that the baby was 33 weeks up to 38 weeks... 5 weeks is a pretty big window..IMO the 33 weeks only came into b/c Laci had to have been killed when he was 33weeks or it couldn't have been Scott...So IMO that early number is based on the CE..not the DE of science, which is also why the window of time is a huge 5 weeks...

rarely at her late date in her pregnancy is it changed to +/- 5 weeks...if there was that big of a discrepancy her OB/GYB would have noted it on the 23rd IMO...

I don't think the jury listened to any of that...b/c if they had they couldn't even be probably sure Connor died on the 23/24th... b/c even the science shows theres just as much of a chance he was 5 weeks older than he was on the 23/24... I think they just ignored it all together...or they just picked the date they wanted....and it's the picking and choosing that bothers me ...

here's something else to consider... there are 5 complete, scientifically proven, weeks in b/t 33-38, the 34th,35th,36th,37th,38th... any one of them prove Scott to be "Stone Cold Innocent"...but the jury picks the only week that it doesn't?

makes no sense to me....well, unless you pick and chose the parts of testimony you want to hear...then it makes total sense

And the author of that book also believes that a waterlogged Kermit can replicate Conner's body's behavor in the Bay.

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:18 PM

Brocchini excised information from HIS report because the information was in the report of the officer who wrote it. This was written and handed to Geregos PROIOR to Brocchini taking the stand and Geregos put his Hollywood spin on it. The information remained in the report of the officer who wrote it, and the defense had it the whole time.

So this is common practice - taking things out of a report simply because another officer has included it in his?

PsychNurse;~)

07-08-2007, 02:18 PM

i just want to repost this for aw2b to respond to since it seems to have been overlooked the first time around:

so you believe her body was stored in a tub in tracy.

ok--where's her head and missing limbs? you're convinced she wasn't in the bay since there's no 'fish bite marks' on the remains but you've no trouble believing someone was able to have removed her limbs without leaving tool marks? imo that's a total contradiction. how can you buy into one and not the other?

you realize laci's head disarticulated at the base of its connection to the spine meaning that if it had been removed by someone they'd have had to have cut it off BELOW the top of her shoulders--and do it without leaving any tool marks.

it would require extensive surgical skill and the appropriate surgical tools in order to remove someone's head/limbs without leaving tool marks, so in your scenerio someone also had to have been a surgeon or former surgeon.

decomposition wouldn't account for tool marks disappearing since the bones don't decompose.

now what about laci's uterus? who performed a cesarean by abrading the top (fundus) of her uterus? there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open. aside from that, who would open her up ABOVE the belly button and then reach in basically at the base of her rib cage and then reach their hands DOWN into her abraded uterus to lift conner's body up out of the top of her abraded uterus without pulling the top of her uterus wide open? the person would have to reach both their hands into the uterus, grab conner and pull him out through that abraded area.... based on the size of the opening do you really see that as likely?

wow.

cyn

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:25 PM

Soft maybe, but he wouldn't have had liquified brains not his skin transparent enough to see muscle tissue. Read Dr. Peterson's description
Oh and he wouldn't have been MACERATED

I think we're getting away from the issue. A poster said that Conner was not edible - the fish would not eat him. I provided testimony showing that Dr. Peterson did not agree with him/her and asked for a link to back up his/her statement that Conner was not edible. And another poster told me that one didn't need to be provided because it had been provided before. However I can't find one on this board. :shrug:

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:29 PM

What is an HIG, please?

Woman in the video in Longview came to the police and said it was a game she and her husband played about "kidnapping." So that is how Longview Police KNEW it wasn't laci. The actual person came forward.

The parks are closed at night at the shoreline. So anyone seen there at night would have been really suspicious. The park cops patrol through there frequently. Besides, who would go to an unknown area in the dark to frame someone they didn't know. The Berkeley Marina as the NG's like to say has boats with people living on them 24/7. But, of course, the bodies were not found at the Berkeley Marina - they were found on the shoreline

I believe you are misinformed....can you please provide a source for this information?

HIG stands for home invasion gang

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:32 PM

Sorry, I had company.
But since you asked so nicely, here's the reference. It was in everyone's favorite, A. Brocchini's testimony.
GERAGOS: Now, you said that the person went to the trunk of a white Honda, opened the trunk, and had carried out a bundle from the house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And placed that bundle into the trunk of the car?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that she saw the woman walking around in the front yard, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes. She saw her walk around in the front yard talking to herself, she said.

GERAGOS: That would have been back to People's 38.

BROCCHINI: Okay.

GERAGOS: Then she called the police; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And they were in the driveway as well, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And, once again, Krigbaum called 9-1-1. However, this time the officers, same as last time, I guess, by the time the officers arrived, these, the second wave of people had already left.

BROCCHINI: That's right.

GERAGOS: Now, at about, you get this first call, you didn't get the call, but the police received the call in the early morning hours at about 1:53 in the morning on Sunday morning. So from Saturday night going into Sunday morning, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: And so at some point at about three in the morning is when this second, the other threesome shows up, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Then at about ten in the morning, or is it ten at night, the following day, officers were dispatched over to Scott's house and Laci's house; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: It was about eight at night.

GERAGOS: Eight at night. Okay. Now, at that point, it was determined that there was a window that was broken, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

Three women standing in the driveway of a house where a woman went missing and was the biggest story in the news? Did you ever see the tributes left in the lawn? Thousands of people went by that house. Marlene even admitted to going up into hte driveway. Somehow I don't find this odd at all.

What I DO find odd, is that Scott goes out of town for several days, and does NOT turn on the burglar alarm....the same time frame in which a woman who admitted being obsessed with Scott and bi-polar broke into the house.

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:32 PM

The number of calls and who placed them were listed on misfitting and I believe they are also on CTV. The calls that were transcripted on Court TV early on were mostly Scott originated

Thanks but I was actually asking for the source of this information that you provided:

"If it were just ragin hormones, why didn't he take a trip down to south 9th. He'd been there before."

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:39 PM

So, why do you think the rags were found where they were?

They were found on top of the dryer right? Because Scott took them out of the washer to wash his clothes?

And I imagine they were in the washer because Laci took them out of the bucket (where Nava put them) on the 23rd - and placed them there (in the washer) with the intention of washing them at some time?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:50 PM

I believe you are misinformed....can you please provide a source for this information?

HIG stands for home invasion gang

There was a home invasion gang on Covena?

EBRegionalParks are patrolled by EB Park Police regularly to keep out the homeless

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:51 PM

isp's whole problem is that he claims he LOST his wife (didn't state 'gone' as ekg claimed), this would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with amber after the first of the year.

the above becomes glaringly incriminating based on the fact that the very next day isp starts looking for a boat to buy--and he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci had been together.

the above becomes even more incriminating based on the fact that less than 2 weeks later laci actually is LOST and it is isp's FIRST holidays without her, and he is FREE since laci disappeared on the very day isp drove over 4 hours to spend less than 1 hour on the water in a boat he'd started looking to buy the day after telling amber that series of lies about his LOST wife.

cyn

Didn't SP also tell Sibley in October that he had a soulmate but he "lost" her? Is this also a sign that he was planning Laci's demise?

And what an incredible coincidence that Amber was told by another man - around this same time that he had "lost his wife" - and lo and behold - his wife was still alive. Amber relayed this story to Scott - told him about "Dave" and his lost wife - it's just not clear when he told her.

There are alot of coincidences in this case - on both sides.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:51 PM

Thanks but I was actually asking for the source of this information that you provided:

"If it were just ragin hormones, why didn't he take a trip down to south 9th. He'd been there before." It was report that he picked up Victor Cordeiro at the Brave Bull which is on South 9th Street - an area also known for prostitution.

frydaddy

07-08-2007, 02:52 PM

They were found on top of the dryer right? Because Scott took them out of the washer to wash his clothes?

And I imagine they were in the washer because Laci took them out of the bucket (where Nava put them) on the 23rd - and placed them there (in the washer) with the intention of washing them at some time?

They were on the washer. People's 37. Can you explain a reasonable scenario for them to be there, given the supposed activities of the day?

Dora

07-08-2007, 02:53 PM

It was report that he picked up Victor Cordeiro at the Brave Bull which is on South 9th Street - an area also known for prostitution.

Victor Cordeiro - that man that claimed to have a homosexual encounter with Scott? Why should we believe him?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 02:54 PM

They were found on top of the dryer right? Because Scott took them out of the washer to wash his clothes?

And I imagine they were in the washer because Laci took them out of the bucket (where Nava put them) on the 23rd - and placed them there (in the washer) with the intention of washing them at some time?

Then I would say they needed a new washing machine. From the evidence photo on CTV, they were FILTHY

Dora

07-08-2007, 03:02 PM

They were on the washer. People's 37. Can you explain a reasonable scenario for them to be there, given the supposed activities of the day?

Oh I see - actually - there was a big pile on the washer and a smaller pile on both the washer and dryer. It's reasonable to me that SP would slide them over on top of the washer after closing it - since there were too many to fit on the dryer with the basket on there? I guess that's not reasonable to you?

Do you think he put them there so no one would look in the washer?

Brocchini testified that Scott told him about the clothes in the washer and then he looked in the washer.

Dora

07-08-2007, 03:02 PM

Then I would say they needed a new washing machine. From the evidence photo on CTV, they were FILTHY

I never said they were washed.

frydaddy

07-08-2007, 03:13 PM

Oh I see - actually - there was a big pile on the washer and a smaller pile on both the washer and dryer. It's reasonable to me that SP would slide them over on top of the washer after closing it - since there were too many to fit on the dryer with the basket on there? I guess that's not reasonable to you?

Do you think he put them there so no one would look in the washer?

Brocchini testified that Scott told him about the clothes in the washer and then he looked in the washer.

I don't think anything. But yes, looking at 37CC, it is absolutely unreasonable for me to see that pile in that fashion, given Scott's version of events.

Synopsis

07-08-2007, 03:39 PM

How can you possibly claim to know what Diane Jackson would have said under oath when questioned by both sides? This is your opinion, is that right?
Yes it is my opinion. Based on news reports quoting her, a live interview on TV, and documents filed by the prosecution objecting to her testimony being admitted

Synopsis

07-08-2007, 03:45 PM

Do you think Justin Falconer's opinion of this case mattered when he was on TV, saying the state had no case?
I didn't consider him to be important in the grand scheme of things at all.

After reading the TS of the comments in the judges chambers I didnt feel there was good reason to dismiss him as a juror

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 03:49 PM

Hi Cyn:

Sorry for any confusion.You mentioned fish bite marks in your post, so thought I would take the opportunity to give my opinion.

MB, I think the fact that ALL of her internal organs EXCept her uterus were gone means that either something ate them or tore them away. MOO The uterus was deep in the pelvis and somewhat protected and clothes were covering the rest of the body which had turned to adipocere

Synopsis

07-08-2007, 03:50 PM

I didn't mean to ignore your post adnoid..please keep in mind, that sometimes one NG would be debating with a number of SIGs..so it is not that easy to keep track and address each and every post...in addition, I have my own personal affairs to attend to.. so I don't have unlimited time..sometimes when I'm interrupted by a phone call or whatever I might not go back to where I left off...so I would probably miss some of the posts that are addressed to me..

I completely understand, but I once got banned for not answering a poster's question.

It probably won't matter to some, but I have a problem that maybe someone can explain regarding previous posts.

If I leave the computer, then come back & respond to a post, it puts me at the bottom of the most current reply. When I try to go back and pick up on a page missed, I get an error and cannot access that page. It's not EVERY time, but MANY times.
Any ideas?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 03:51 PM

Yes it is my opinion. Based on news reports quoting her, a live interview on TV, and documents filed by the prosecution objecting to her testimony being admitted Geragos filed documents to keep Kristen Dempewolfe's testimony out on the hypnosis issue. If they didn't allow Dempewolfe, they couldn't allow Jackson. Please show me a TV interview given by Jackson - she has never talked to anyone to my knowledge.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 03:52 PM

I didn't consider him to be important in the grand scheme of things at all.

After reading the TS of the comments in the judges chambers I didnt feel there was good reason to dismiss him as a juror

Well, a juge with YEARS of experience did. YOu don't think that his trying to engage other jurors in discussing the case after being told NOT to do it, is not good reason?

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 04:04 PM

Yes it is my opinion. Based on news reports quoting her, a live interview on TV, and documents filed by the prosecution objecting to her testimony being admitted

Could you please post a link to the news report(s) quoting her, TIA
A link to the live interview you say she gave on TV.. TIA.

ekg

07-08-2007, 04:09 PM

Why don't you ask these folks? (http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/Reward.html) Or do you consider them abject idiots?

so I said I thought someone was an idiot?

huh, I'll have to go back and check on that....

I'm kinda surprised that 'they didn't take the reward' is even an argument....... do rewards ever work?

ummmmm nope, didn't call or imply anyone was an idiot..I didn't even say the word idiot so I can't really see where you're coming from..

I think I asked if rewards really work since so much is being made that there can't be any 'real killers' b/c noone turned the buddy in for the money..

Oh wait... I get it, you're saying that everyone who offers a reward is an abject idiot..... well, I disagree, I think Sharon,Beth,Jackie or any parent that offers a reward for information is just trying everything they can in a desperate situation.... I just don't happen to believe it'll work in every single case...but that in no way means I think anyone who offers one is an idiot, abject or not...

:seeya:

ekg

07-08-2007, 04:10 PM

And the author of that book also believes that a waterlogged Kermit can replicate Conner's body's behavor in the Bay.

:confused: author of what book?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 04:13 PM

so I said I thought someone was an idiot?

huh, I'll have to go back and check on that....

ummmmm nope, didn't call or imply anyone was an idiot..I didn't even say the word idiot so I can't really see where you're coming from..

I think I asked if rewards really work since so much is being made that there can't be any 'real killers' b/c noone turned the buddy in for the money..

Oh wait... I get it, you're saying that everyone who offers a reward is an abject idiot..... well, I disagree, I think Sharon,Beth,Jackie or any parent that offers a reward for information is just trying everything they can in a desperate situation.... I just don't happen to believe it'll work in every single case...but that in no way means I think anyone who offers one is an idiot, abject or not...

:seeya:
imo the reason the $500,000 didn't work is because she was already dead. The reward was for the LIVE return.

ekg

07-08-2007, 04:28 PM

62) Margarita Nava: The floors, water, Pine-Sol, and the mop.
63) Rick Distaso: Would you mop the entire house?
64) Margarita Nava: Yes.
65) Rick Distaso: And did you do that on December 23rd?
66) Margarita Nava: Yes.
67) Rick Distaso: After mopping the entire house, what did you do with the mop?
68) Margarita Nava: There is a small door by the washer machine, and Laci told me to put it outside so it will dry out. And then later on the she will put it inside.
69) Rick Distaso: Is that what you did on the 23rd?
70) Margarita Nava: Yes.
71) Rick Distaso: How many mops did you use?

Now WHY would Laci mop the floor the next morning. She had not cooked anything (they ordered pizza). Mopping the floor makes no sense whatsoever.

yesterday I made my daughter mop out the kitchen and bathroom with pine-sol(usually we use bleach, but she liked the pine smell so I told her to use PS)... she did a really good job too........ so today when I was mopping it again she asked why and told her that the dog's feet were wet/dirty when he came in and he had left track marks all over the her nice clean tile..

I spot mop every day b/c I have small dog............. when I had the bloodhound, I spot mopped 2 times a day sometimes....

so it's no big deal that she would mop after the maid....especially when she had a dog.....

ekg

07-08-2007, 04:40 PM

There seems to be plenty of testimony that Laci was tired

snipped for space

and yet she wasn't too tired to do all the shopping the day before and carry the stuff in by herself..... nor was she too tired to not prepare the Christmas day stuff from scratch and then entertain ppl....... not too mention she wasn't 'weak' enough to not wear high-heels to that party she attended while Scott was out wooing his, well to be nice, 'friend'..

to me she was a normal active pregnant lady... who did what she would normally do...sure she may get tired easier and have to pee more... but she didn't seem to be the delicate flower that she's been portrayed to be....

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 04:51 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Rick Distaso: Deputy Mears, the tip that you got was from somebody. It was from the Highway Patrol, somebody driving by on 205, correct?
2) Paul Mears: That's what I believe, yes.
3) Rick Distaso: And this area that we're talking about, this was just an area that you knew?
4) Mark Geragos: Objection on that last question. I apologize. There is no foundation. Calls for speculation.
5) Judge Delucchi: That he was on 205. There is no evidence of that.
6) Mark Geragos: Someone at the time
7) Judge Delucchi: Sustaining the objection. Go ahead.
8) Mark Geragos: Motion to strike.
9) Judge Delucchi: Assuming a fact not in evidence. Jury can disregard. Next question.
10) Rick Distaso: The time that you went over with Officer Beffa, did feel you investigated that thoroughly?
11) Paul Mears: Yes, I do. We went over every access road through the south area from Kasson Road, all the way back up to Patterson Pass Road.
12) Rick Distaso: And this other area that we have been talking about where the trailers were, this was this just an area that you were aware of?
13) Paul Mears: Yes. Didn't really match, except for the fact that it had sheds and shanties. There was no white houses. There was no vehicles, trucks, or anything like that.
14) Rick Distaso: So I want to clear up. This goat thing didn't have anything to do with this other area?
15) Paul Mears: No, it did not.
16) Rick Distaso: Completely separate area?
17) Paul Mears: Yes, it was.
18) Rick Distaso: Was that when you were, just in the two weeks that you kept looking, you were driving around some other area?
19) Paul Mears: I was checking the Delta-Mendota Canal, the canals from the irrigation district I used to work, dirt roads, side roads from 132. I drive down the dirt roads in between McCracken and Kasson. I just checked everything while I wasn't on a call.
20) Rick Distaso: Nothing further.

'
He also testifies that this area could NOT been seen from the freeway. He only went there because he knew about it, not because it fit the description

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 04:53 PM

I didn't mean to ignore your post adnoid..please keep in mind, that sometimes one NG would be debating with a number of SIGs..so it is not that easy to keep track and address each and every post...in addition, I have my own personal affairs to attend to.. so I don't have unlimited time..sometimes when I'm interrupted by a phone call or whatever I might not go back to where I left off...so I would probably miss some of the posts that are addressed to me..

I completely understand, but I once got banned for not answering a poster's question.

Thanks for understanding..but I'm totally surprised that you would get banned for not answering a poster's question..maybe there is some kind of misunderstanding, you might want to ask FW about it..

Otter

07-08-2007, 04:58 PM

yesterday I made my daughter mop out the kitchen and bathroom with pine-sol(usually we use bleach, but she liked the pine smell so I told her to use PS)... she did a really good job too........ so today when I was mopping it again she asked why and told her that the dog's feet were wet/dirty when he came in and he had left track marks all over the her nice clean tile..

I spot mop every day b/c I have small dog............. when I had the bloodhound, I spot mopped 2 times a day sometimes....

so it's no big deal that she would mop after the maid....especially when she had a dog.....

Lol, wish I had someone to mop my floors! Send her over! I'll even feed her!

I've had dogs my whole life until the last few years. :-( Anyway, always big dogs, my last one was a Newfie (I miss him) and do I know what dirty paw prints look like. I was always spot cleaning after him. Never did I bother though before going for a walk. The floor would just be messy again with the trail to the water dish. So I always waited until we got home, the water was lapped up and dog would settle down for a nap. Then I would spot clean the paw prints.

Other dog owners here? What do you all do?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 05:03 PM

and yet she wasn't too tired to do all the shopping the day before and carry the stuff in by herself..... nor was she too tired to not prepare the Christmas day stuff from scratch and then entertain ppl....... not too mention she wasn't 'weak' enough to not wear high-heels to that party she attended while Scott was out wooing his, well to be nice, 'friend'..

to me she was a normal active pregnant lady... who did what she would normally do...sure she may get tired easier and have to pee more... but she didn't seem to be the delicate flower that she's been portrayed to be....

She never prepared the Christmas Day stuff from scratch. She was dead. She wore high heels but the only picture of her at that party she was sitting down. I have seen many women wear high heels to work and then change into something more comfortble. She had been very sick in November as was posted in testimony from her mother and her doctor. She was told NOT to walk in the morning.

Nava testified

160) Margarita Nava: Yes.
161) Rick Distaso: What did you see her doing next?
162) Margarita Nava: I imagine that, well, she brought the grocery bags one-by-one from the car to the house, put it right there next to it. And then I helped her take it to the kitchen, I'm sorry, to put it on the table

She never says she put the groceries away or anything. The door to the driveway is very near the car. I wish my door were that close for carrying in stuff.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 05:06 PM

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 05:40 PM

Lol, wish I had someone to mop my floors! Send her over! I'll even feed her!

I've had dogs my whole life until the last few years. :-( Anyway, always big dogs, my last one was a Newfie (I miss him) and do I know what dirty paw prints look like. I was always spot cleaning after him. Never did I bother though before going for a walk. The floor would just be messy again with the trail to the water dish. So I always waited until we got home, the water was lapped up and dog would settle down for a nap. Then I would spot clean the paw prints.

Other dog owners here? What do you all do?

No way would I change from black slacks into light colored ones to walk my dog, and no way do I mop the floor before I walk the dog.

adnoid

07-08-2007, 05:48 PM

Oh wait... I get it

Not really.

.... I just don't happen to believe it'll work in every single case...but that in no way means I think anyone who offers one is an idiot, abject or not...

But I do understand - if Laci's family offers one it's pointless, if Scott's family offers one it's meaningful. Pretty objective there.

Otter

07-08-2007, 05:48 PM

No way would I change from black slacks into light colored ones to walk my dog, and no way do I mop the floor before I walk the dog.

Speaking of changing clothes, I cannot recall anything about a coat or jacket. IIRC, something was mentioned, but what? If it was "too cold" to go golfing, I would think Laci would have put on a jacket to walk the dog that early. Weren't her jackets accounted for?

I've searched, but can't find anything.

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 05:48 PM

and yet she wasn't too tired to do all the shopping the day before and carry the stuff in by herself..... nor was she too tired to not prepare the Christmas day stuff from scratch and then entertain ppl....... not too mention she wasn't 'weak' enough to not wear high-heels to that party she attended while Scott was out wooing his, well to be nice, 'friend'..

to me she was a normal active pregnant lady... who did what she would normally do...sure she may get tired easier and have to pee more... but she didn't seem to be the delicate flower that she's been portrayed to be....

Nobody portrayed her to be " a delicate flower"..IMO.
It is a fact ( per chart & doctor testimony) she had a vasovagal episode in Nov, and was told to exercise later in the day.
It is a fact that several people testified she complained of fatigue.
The maid mopped the floor the previous day, mopping the floor again BEFORE walking the dog makes no sense, and changing from black slacks into light colored ones in order to walk the dog makes no sense, either.....IMO.

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 05:52 PM

Speaking of changing clothes, I cannot recall anything about a coat or jacket. IIRC, something was mentioned, but what? If it was "too cold" to go golfing, I would think Laci would have put on a jacket to walk the dog that early. Weren't her jackets accounted for?

I've searched, but can't find anything.

IIRC.Brocchini asked Scott about this, Scott said she usually STEALS his stuff.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 05:53 PM

So this is common practice - taking things out of a report simply because another officer has included it in his?
Dora, it was NEVER in Brocchini's reportas it should not have been. Brocchini did not talk to the witness - had he put it in his report it would have been hearsay. It was, however, in his notes which WERE turned over to the defense. How else would Geragos know about it?

Det Holmes interviewed the witness. The information was in his report. He was not called to the stand nor was the witness.

Otter

07-08-2007, 05:57 PM

IIRC.Brocchini asked Scott about this, Scott said she usually STEALS his stuff.

Oh yeah! The jammies! In that case, were any of his jackets missing? I've always been a bit hung up on it being too cold to golf, but not too cold to sit in a little boat in SF Bay. It leads me to believe that Laci would've put a jacket on to go to the park, his or her's.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 06:01 PM

IIRC.Brocchini asked Scott about this, Scott said she usually STEALS his stuff.

Laci allegedly left the hosue in white shirt and black pants. None of scott's stuff was missing. She left to walk the dog in a park where SCOTT said she confronted the homeless, yet she left her pepper spray, her keys, her purse at home - and left the house unlocked. The high that day was 48. It was very cold as I was working and remembered complaining about having to go outside. Whoever took her had to return to the house, pick up her khaki-colored pants (yet no top) to put her in before tossing her in the bay. They also ignored the $100,000 of jewelry lying in plain site on the dresser in the bedroom. My next question is what did they do with the white top that she was wearing when Scott left? And where did these kidnappers get a boat to trnasport Laci to the waters of the bay before the 27th?

ekg

07-08-2007, 06:13 PM

Not really.

But I do understand - if Laci's family offers one it's pointless, if Scott's family offers one it's meaningful. Pretty objective there.

um, no you don't understand.... because I didn't say that either.....

Originally Posted by ekg View Post
.... I just don't happen to believe it'll work in every single case...but that in no way means I think anyone who offers one is an idiot, abject or not.

since you missed it the 2nd time I posted it..I'll try again... even tho I can see the point in them.... I don't think they work in every case, no matter who offers them...

ekg

07-08-2007, 06:24 PM

so Aw2b gets called and out and out liar and decides not to dignify it with a rebuttal(smart thing btw)... synopsis is called a liar and when she replies in kind she gets banned today....

I guess it's down to me and AW2B...

pretty soon you SIG's won't have anyone left to argue with....:shrug:

to be able to insult without fear of reprisal... when did that happen?

ekg

07-08-2007, 06:40 PM

I don't know how many times this has already been repeated, but here it goes again:

Conner's body was in a putrified condition. It was not "edible". Even a carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it.

I gotta ask for a link that says nothing will eat something that 'putrefied'

that show "Planet Earth" on discovery channel had a time lapse of a whale carcass on the ocean floor that had been there for a year.... and it always had something feeding on it...even a year later, things were still eating off of it.... and I'd think it'd be in a 'putrefied' state sometime within that year wouldn't it?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 06:41 PM

deputydi

07-08-2007, 06:46 PM

So this is common practice - taking things out of a report simply because another officer has included it in his?
Actually, it is. This has already been answered but I'll repeat it. The officer who interviewed the witness put the details in his report. Since Brocchini didn't interview her personally, there was no reason for him to include the details of an interview he only heard about second hand.

ekg

07-08-2007, 06:51 PM

I do not believe that was why she was banned. And therw are reprisals for calling names.

well I'll take your word for that something happened to you for calling me one.... but did anything happen to wearing a halo for calling aw2b a liar in 2 different posts? s/he's not banned as far as I can tell..so I don't know...

I'm still trying to find where syn was over the top out of line..... she answered questions, she posted the TS when her answers were questioned and anything else she labeled as IMO..

whatever.. whats done is done and like I said, you guys only have me and aw2b left on a daily/hourly basis...:shrug:

cookiewench

07-08-2007, 06:54 PM

I gotta ask for a link that says nothing will eat something that 'putrefied'

that show "Planet Earth" on discovery channel had a time lapse of a whale carcass on the ocean floor that had been there for a year.... and it always had something feeding on it...even a year later, things were still eating off of it.... and I'd think it'd be in a 'putrefied' state sometime within that year wouldn't it?

Of course. Thanks for reminding us of what happened to poor beautiful Laci because of her husband.

The carcass that you saw on the ocean floor wasn't a fetus that had been kept in an airtight, sterile environment for several months after it's demise.

cookiewench

07-08-2007, 07:01 PM

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 07:05 PM

Here are some pictures of adipocerehttp://adipocere.homestead.com/images.html

Second one down is of a drowning victim It forms better in water. Here's come info on it

http://adipocere.homestead.com/chemistry.html

Conner had no adipocere because he had not been in the water long enough

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 07:05 PM

so you believe her body was stored in a tub in tracy.

ok--where's her head and missing limbs? you're convinced she wasn't in the bay since there's no 'fish bite marks' on the remains but you've no trouble believing someone was able to have removed her limbs without leaving tool marks? imo that's a total contradiction. how can you buy into one and not the other?

you realize laci's head disarticulated at the base of its connection to the spine meaning that if it had been removed by someone they'd have had to have cut it off BELOW the top of her shoulders--and do it without leaving any tool marks.

it would require extensive surgical skill and the appropriate surgical tools in order to remove someone's head/limbs without leaving tool marks, so in your scenerio someone also had to have been a surgeon or former surgeon.

decomposition wouldn't account for tool marks disappearing since the bones don't decompose.

now what about laci's uterus? who performed a cesarean by abrading the top (fundus) of her uterus? there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open. aside from that, who would open her up ABOVE the belly button and then reach in basically at the base of her rib cage and then reach their hands DOWN into her abraded uterus to lift conner's body up out of the top of her abraded uterus without pulling the top of her uterus wide open? the person would have to reach both their hands into the uterus, grab conner and pull him out through that abraded area.... based on the size of the opening do you really see that as likely?

wow.

cyn

Let me clarify a point I made earlier..I stated that the lack of tool marks is a moot point..why? IMO, if she was in the bay the ME should have found fish bite marks..and ,IYO, if she was dismembered he should have found tool marks..so I think we will have to agree to disagree on that..
BTW, the lack of fish bite marks on Laci's body is not the only evidence that leads me to believe Laci was not in the bay..

According to the ME, the opening at the top of the uterus was big enough to let Conner out of Laci's uterus..didn't he testify that Conner exited from that opening? I think when they made that opening they would have been able to get him out..the uterus is a muscle that can be streched creating room for someone's hands to grab Conner..

You stated:

"there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open"

However, the ME testified that he could not make a determination if there was an incision there or not because there was no tissue left in that area..

Mark Geragos: If there was an incision prior to her going into the water, and if the baby was removed prior to going into the water, and where the incision was ended up decomposing, you see that, isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: As I said earlier, there could have been a gunshot. There could have been any number of different kind of trauma. If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want. I guess I couldn't say yes or no.

frydaddy

07-08-2007, 07:06 PM

frydaddy

07-08-2007, 07:11 PM

I didn't consider him to be important in the grand scheme of things at all.

After reading the TS of the comments in the judges chambers I didnt feel there was good reason to dismiss him as a juror

It's too bad this poster is no longer here. When/if she returns under a new nic, I'd be curious to know what rules jurors should follow and what they shouldn't. It's okay to talk to witnesses? I will remind myself to feel free to talk to witnesses, but stay out of boats, should I be called.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 07:14 PM

Hi jdiski-ga,

The simple answer to your question is -- "pretty messy."

In reality your question has no exact answer. But by taking into
account some of the major variables, I think you'll be able to build a
fairly good description of what your hypothetical corpse would look
like.

Note that below each paragraph I've indicated which reference the
information came from. At the end are the links to the references.

Several things have bearing on the condition of a corpse over time.
The first is:

==================
TEMPERATURE
==================

You are correct in making the distinction between bodies found in a
cold water environment and those that spend weeks in a warm water
environment. Your warm-water body would be pretty much skeletonized
within weeks, whereas the decomposition of the cold water body would
be slower.

Cold water and/or air slows the activity of carrion-eating insects
that are attracted by a "death scent." Flies and their maggots,
followed by beetles, can quickly consume the flesh of an exposed
corpse.

[reference: DEATH TO DUST]

In temperate areas, flies are the first to colonize the body and are
responsible for the most dramatic consumption of the organs and
tissues. In general, fly eggs are deposited almost immediately after
death in the daytime. After 1-2 days, maggots hatch and grow and eat.
Maggots pupate in 6 – 10 days. The adult flies emerge from the pupae
in 12 – 18 days.

[Reference BASIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY]

However, below about 45F/5C, flies are grossly inactive and are less
likely to visit a body and lay eggs.

Extreme cold also inactivates the body's enzymatic breakdown (
autolysis ) and slows bacterial activity ( putrefaction ). Corpses in
freezing conditions may therefore, not decay. However, their skin
changes from its natural color to orange or black, usually embellished
with patches of mold.

The high on teh 23rd in modesto was 48 degrees. Not much time for insect activity

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 07:25 PM

Additionally, fish, crabs, and other marine animals will quickly
consume as much of the corpse as they can before it washes up on to
the beach. They begin to feed on the soft parts of a corpse's face --
eyelids, lips and ears then the eyes, nose and mouth. If sharks or
other large carnivores are present, they will remove large chunks of
flesh and/or extremities.

[reference: DEATH TO DUST]

When drowning in the open water, marine activity will eventually
develop, where marine life eat at the tissue of the body. Marine
activity first occurs in the soft tissues of the head, including the
eyelids, nose, lips, and ears. Another artifact comes from scraping
the knees, arms, head on the bottom of the sand/ground.

[Reference BASIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY]

Since most of laci's flesh was gone, it would be impossible to determine if there was feeding. Since what was left had turned to adipocere, it's most likely that was not appealing fish food

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 07:29 PM

TopGunner

07-08-2007, 07:32 PM

Dora, it was NEVER in Brocchini's reportas it should not have been. Brocchini did not talk to the witness - had he put it in his report it would have been hearsay. It was, however, in his notes which WERE turned over to the defense. How else would Geragos know about it?

Det Holmes interviewed the witness. The information was in his report. He was not called to the stand nor was the witness.

Thank you Lavindar - you just saved me from posting what I already posted. Not only did Geregos have the notes, he was also told that the officer who did talk with the witnesses had it in his report. MG knew this before Brocchini took the stand, but choose to put his Hollywood spin on it.

TopGunner

07-08-2007, 07:34 PM

It's too bad this poster is no longer here. When/if she returns under a new nic, I'd be curious to know what rules jurors should follow and what they shouldn't. It's okay to talk to witnesses? I will remind myself to feel free to talk to witnesses, but stay out of boats, should I be called.

LOL FD! :tongue:

TopGunner

07-08-2007, 07:37 PM

So this is common practice - taking things out of a report simply because another officer has included it in his?

Yup! :D :D

Otter

07-08-2007, 07:41 PM

TopGunner

07-08-2007, 07:46 PM

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 07:57 PM

Mark Geragos: If there was an incision prior to her going into the water, and if the baby was removed prior to going into the water, and where the incision was ended up decomposing, you see that, isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: As I said earlier, there could have been a gunshot. There could have been any number of different kind of trauma. If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want. I guess I couldn't say yes or no.

Problem. If the baby was removed after laci was dead, he would have to be kept in a sterile environment IN LIQUID in order for him to macerate.

If the baby was removed when Laci was alive, her body would have shown some shrinkage of the uterus.

Most non-medical people would make a cut at the largest part of the body, not at the top part protected by ribs. Geragos tried to prove that the broken 9th rib tore open the uterus too, but the end of hte rib was frayed.

More garegos word games. To cut open the fundus would mean cutting thru the ribs and there were no tool marks on the ribs either. No medical person wwould try to cut out a baby from the top end.

Even the instances of WOMEN who kill women for their babies cut at the fattest parts of the bodies. And there is NO MAN in history that I can find who kidnapped a woman for her baby.

That's teh problem with this case, imo. When you come up with any other scenario than the one presented you wind up in the realm of the ridiculous

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 08:30 PM

57) Brian Peterson: Sure. Due to the state of decomposition, there were a lot of postmortem changes in this case. There were a lot of parts missing that I would normally examine. The head, the neck, the forearms, the left lower leg were all absent. Much of the soft tissue was absent. Much of the internal organs gangs were absent. So in terms of the standard autopsy sequence, it was abbreviated in many ways, because there was actually so little there.
58) David Harris: Let me interrupt you there for a, you used a term postmortem changes. Go through this with you. If there is a change like that, going to try to jump and have you explain that what postmortem changes relate to.
59) Brian Peterson: Sure. There are a number. We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you. So there are a number of different things going on. And in this case there was a full range of that type of postmortem change, making the examination more difficult. As I said, there was a large amount of this body that was actually missing. For example, in terms of the internal organs, the only internal organ present was the uterus. Everything else was gone. So that, to a certain degree, limited my evaluation, and ended up limiting my determination at the end in terms of cause of death. So we would talk about those types of things, postmortem change, postmortem artifact, absence of certain body parts. And that's how she was when we started

Fish teeth could have eaten the soft tissue. He doesn't say they DIDN't feed.

Otter

07-08-2007, 08:41 PM

Lavindar posted:

As I said, there was a large amount of this body that was actually missing. For example, in terms of the internal organs, the only internal organ present was the uterus. Everything else was gone. So that, to a certain degree, limited my evaluation, and ended up limiting my determination at the end in terms of cause of death. So we would talk about those types of things, postmortem change, postmortem artifact, absence of certain body parts. And that's how she was when we started

Here's the difference in the direct and the cross. Harris wasn't asking Peterson to hypothesize, he was allowing him to testify as to his expert opinion on what he examined. "That's how she was when we started." :-(

This testimony didn't help SP. MG was obligated as SP's advocate to spin it and I don't fault him for that. MG did an excellent job attempting to establish "non-BARD". But you know what? It wasn't there, simply put. I can't use a defense attorney's testimony (and that's what he did, to his credit) as fact. It doesn't appear the jurors did either, considering the outcome.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 08:45 PM

133) David Harris: And I'll ask that, I guess kind of a dumb question. What is the uterus in the anatomy?
134) Brian Peterson: Well, the uterus is where a baby would develop. The womb would be the lay term. Originates low in the pelvis. And I think for estimation purposes, in a woman that hasn't had children, might be the size of a golf ball or so. This uterus was substantially larger.
135) David Harris: Let's go back through this. You said before that the clothing was not necessarily an indication that this person, Miss Peterson was pregnant. But you indicated when you got to the uterus, it was a strong indication. I want to go through that. And again just so the record is clear about anatomy, the uterus is only found in a female?
136) Brian Peterson: Correct.
137) David Harris: And so you look at this uterus. Can you describe for us what your findings were?
138) Brian Peterson: Sure. The uterus, in the first place, from the lowest portion of the uterus where it connects to the vagina, to the uppermost portion, the fundus, measured 23 centimeters. That would be roughly ten inches. As I said, normally, a uterus in the non-pregnant state may be the size of a golf ball. So an inch and a half or so. In greatest dimension, this is substantially larger. In the non-pregnant state, the uterus is almost solid muscle. There is obviously a cavity on the inside of it. But just to feel it, to make a section across, it is a relatively solid muscle. This uterus was markedly thin. The thickest, and I measured the wall of the uterus in several locations. The thickest was two millimeters, very small, all the way to nothing. Up near the top of the uterus it actually been, to my eye, abraded, and was open. So up there there was no wall. So the thickness of the wall ranged from nothing to two millimeters. So, in summary, what we have is a uterus that's much larger than a normal, non-pregnant uterus. The wall is much thinner. And as I put those two things together, I determined that that had been a pregnant uterus.

) Brian Peterson: Well, the uterus originates in the true pelvis. That's where the attachments are down below. For the uterus to be exposed, for a pregnant uterus, as in this case, to be exposed, you have to have portions of the abdominal wall missing. Namely skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat and muscle. And once those things are all gone, and one last layer of membrane called the peritoneum, at that point you expose the inside of the abdomen, and the top of the uterus would be visible there.
7) David Harris: So you were describing for us what happens or what you would see normally in a normal anatomical female uterus, about the golf ball shape and the pregnant uterus how it enlarges. After the woman gives birth, does the uterus shrink back down?
8) Brian Peterson: It does. In my experience, I've not seen a uterus where there's been previous birth go back to, say, golf ball size. Maybe a little bit larger. Again, using a typical pathology food analogy, maybe an apple size, orange size. It depends. So it will never go back to the complete non-pregnant stage, but it will get substantially smaller.
9) David Harris: So looking at Ms. Peterson's remains, looking at that uterus, from your expert opinion there had been a baby inside that uterus?
10) Brian Peterson: That's correct. And it never had a chance to go back down in size again.11) David Harris: Again, just from the lay person's point of view, that means that Ms. Peterson was pregnant and the baby had not been delivered and she had died while that baby was still there?

ekg

07-08-2007, 08:50 PM

Of course. Thanks for reminding us of what happened to poor beautiful Laci because of her husband.

huh? you did say this right?

I don't know how many times this has already been repeated, but here it goes again:

Conner's body was in a putrified condition. It was not "edible". Even a carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it.

I was repling to you using your words to describe Connor? so I don't know why you're thanking me for reminding you of what happened to Laci

The carcass that you saw on the ocean floor wasn't a fetus that had been kept in an airtight, sterile environment for several months after it's demise.

what does that have to do with a putrefied body that you said wasn't edible?... you were contesting the op's theory that had he been in the bay for even a short time fish would have gotten to him. and you countered with he wasn't edible b/c he was putrefied and that even 'carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it'

and b/c of the Planet Earth episode I saw RE the whale, I'm asking for something that proves what you said about nothing eating a body that is in a putrified condition

ekg

07-08-2007, 08:52 PM

Well, if it is gonna get whittled down to one, you get my vote! :hat:

:lol: :lol:

Thanks FD.......... but aw2b knows a whole heck of alot more about this case than I ever will...:patriot:

rachelslaw

07-08-2007, 08:57 PM

Do you think Justin Falconer's opinion of this case mattered when he was on TV, saying the state had no case?

Justin Falconer...lol Now there's someone who I haven't thought of in years. But to address your post, no, it really didn't matter what he thought then, nor does it matter much now.

IMO

:seeya:

Miss Bootsie

07-08-2007, 08:58 PM

rachelslaw

07-08-2007, 09:00 PM

More MG spin, thanks for posting this testimony.

If ... and if. He was trying his affirmative alternative kidnapping defense. Any scientist, given such a hypothetical, would answer just what Dr. Peterson answered.

If gravity was suspended, and if I could navigate my car in this new environment, I could hypothetically visit the moon. Stephen Hawking couldn't say yes or no.

What I'm saying is that I don't see where you find any weight in this snippet. IMO, it means nothing.

It does mean nothing. "IF" there was a kidnapping, and "IF" the kidnapper "planted" the bodies in the Bay to frame SP, then what are the logistics of doing so and not getting caught? It's simply not possible, nor is it logical.

IMO

ekg

07-08-2007, 09:11 PM

Ha.....I have four dogs. Mop once a week. I just let them out when they have to go. :D :tongue:

They are in and out all day.... I guess it's the cream colored tile and my ocd on foot-prints that compels me to clean them up when I see them that make me mop every day...... b/c I can stand to see a cleaned floor with water drops or dog prints on it...

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 09:19 PM

Mark Geragos: If there was an incision prior to her going into the water, and if the baby was removed prior to going into the water, and where the incision was ended up decomposing, you see that, isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: As I said earlier, there could have been a gunshot. There could have been any number of different kind of trauma. If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want. I guess I couldn't say yes or no.

Problem. If the baby was removed after laci was dead, he would have to be kept in a sterile environment IN LIQUID in order for him to macerate. I

f the baby was removed when Laci was alive, her body would have shown some shrinkage of the uterus.

Most non-medical people would make a cut at the largest part of the body, not at the top part protected by ribs. Geragos tried to prove that the broken 9th rib tore open the uterus too, but the end of hte rib was frayed.

More garegos word games. To cut open the fundus would mean cutting thru the ribs and there were no tool marks on the ribs either. No medical person wwould try to cut out a baby from the top end.

Even the instances of WOMEN who kill women for their babies cut at the fattest parts of the bodies. And there is NO MAN in history that I can find who kidnapped a woman for her baby.

That's teh problem with this case, imo. When you come up with any other scenario than the one presented you wind up in the realm of the ridiculous

And I have to add that his umbilical would have to be clamped or he would bleed to death. If laci were dead, there would be a very short window of time for Conner to be born alive. Also there was no evidence of any clamping found iirc

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 09:23 PM

Miss Bootsie

07-08-2007, 09:29 PM

I think if he was placed in a sealed plastic bag and was submerged that would account for the lack of decomposition..the maceration could be due to his body being soaked in his own bodily fluids that accumulated in the plastic bag..

Exactly..IMO, the evidence showed that there was some shrinkage of the uterus..the size of the uterus VS. the crown-rump measurement of Conner....uterus = 23 centimeters....crown-rump = 32 centimeters

His own bodily fluids? Would you please explain?

deputydi

07-08-2007, 09:31 PM

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 09:34 PM

Exactly..IMO, the evidence showed that there was some shrinkage of the uterus..the size of the uterus VS. the crown-rump measurement of Conner....uterus = 23 centimeters....crown-rump = 32 centimeters

I disagree. Laci's actual uterus was not measured prior to her death ( just fundal height).

cookiewench

07-08-2007, 09:49 PM

huh? you did say this right?

I was repling to you using your words to describe Connor? so I don't know why you're thanking me for reminding you of what happened to Laci

what does that have to do with a putrefied body that you said wasn't edible?... you were contesting the op's theory that had he been in the bay for even a short time fish would have gotten to him. and you countered with he wasn't edible b/c he was putrefied and that even 'carrion-eating species wouldn't have been interested in it'

and b/c of the Planet Earth episode I saw RE the whale, I'm asking for something that proves what you said about nothing eating a body that is in a putrified condition

Maybe you should look up the word "autolysis" along with maceration. The proteins in the body had broken down and changed into something else. Even the odor of something like this wouldn't attract any time of meat-eating mammal or insect.

Try tying a whole chicken in an airtight plastic bag for 4 months, and then see if your dog is interested in it. Then throw it in your yard and see if it attracts any insects.

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 09:56 PM

His own bodily fluids? Would you please explain?

It is part of the decomposition process....bodily fluids would drain from the body...

PsychNurse;~)

07-08-2007, 09:58 PM

Let me clarify a point I made earlier..I stated that the lack of tool marks is a moot point..why? IMO, if she was in the bay the ME should have found fish bite marks..and ,IYO, if she was dismembered he should have found tool marks..so I think we will have to agree to disagree on that..
BTW, the lack of fish bite marks on Laci's body is not the only evidence that leads me to believe Laci was not in the bay..

According to the ME, the opening at the top of the uterus was big enough to let Conner out of Laci's uterus..didn't he testify that Conner exited from that opening? I think when they made that opening they would have been able to get him out..the uterus is a muscle that can be streched creating room for someone's hands to grab Conner..

You stated:

"there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open"

However, the ME testified that he could not make a determination if there was an incision there or not because there was no tissue left in that area..

Mark Geragos: If there was an incision prior to her going into the water, and if the baby was removed prior to going into the water, and where the incision was ended up decomposing, you see that, isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: As I said earlier, there could have been a gunshot. There could have been any number of different kind of trauma. If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want. I guess I couldn't say yes or no.

just because there were no bite marks on laci's bones doesn't mean there wasn't fish feeding present. i think you need to re-read the medical examiner's testimony. fish nibble, they don't chomp on bones and leave marks, you know.

tools to dismember a body absolutely leave marks unless done by someone with extensive surgical experience using appropriate surgical tools.

if you had that, then who would abrade (or even cut based on your view) open laci's uterus at the fundus, meaning above the belly button, right below the rib cage? and then have to reach in at the base of the rib cage and then down into the uterus, pulling conner up and out of the uterus and then parallel to the rib cage to exit the body?

i simply find it difficult to believe you find that more believable than that laci's body was in the bay for over 3 months.

cyn

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 09:58 PM

I disagree. Laci's actual uterus was not measured prior to her death ( just fundal height).

It was measured in the autopsy..it was 23 cm and the crown-rump measurement of Conner was 32 cm..

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 10:05 PM

It is part of the decomposition process....bodily fluids would drain from the body...

from what I have read, this does not always happen like it does on TV, Not to mention, if it did, the environment would not longer be sterile, would it?

PsychNurse;~)

07-08-2007, 10:10 PM

It was measured in the autopsy..it was 23 cm and the crown-rump measurement of Conner was 32 cm..

conner's body was also so swollen/macerated that the medical examiner knew he could not make an ACCURATE assessment of gestational age, thus leaving it up to dr. galloway.

the crown rump measurement of a swollen/macerated body means nothing when you're trying to determine its ability to fit into a uterus.

cyn

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 10:18 PM

I don't think what you just described constitutes a "sterile environment"

I think the point is, he was less decomposed as compared to Laci..but he was definitely decomposed enough to the point his organs were remarkably liquefied...and IMO, the ME agreed when Geragos told him that it is possible for a plastic bag to provide a protected environment...

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 10:20 PM

deputydi

07-08-2007, 10:21 PM

JustMyOpinion

07-08-2007, 10:22 PM

It was measured in the autopsy..it was 23 cm and the crown-rump measurement of Conner was 32 cm..

How a fetus actually resides inside the uterus has nothing to do with "crown/rump" measurement, IMO. See "fetal position"............

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 10:30 PM

just because there were no bite marks on laci's bones doesn't mean there wasn't fish feeding present. i think you need to re-read the medical examiner's testimony. fish nibble, they don't chomp on bones and leave marks, you know.

tools to dismember a body absolutely leave marks unless done by someone with extensive surgical experience using appropriate surgical tools.

if you had that, then who would abrade (or even cut based on your view) open laci's uterus at the fundus, meaning above the belly button, right below the rib cage? and then have to reach in at the base of the rib cage and then down into the uterus, pulling conner up and out of the uterus and then parallel to the rib cage to exit the body?

i simply find it difficult to believe you find that more believable than that laci's body was in the bay for over 3 months.

cyn I am curious. Given your description (which was VERY good) I wonder how they could extract him without doing him any harm. Another good point is that meconium was still in his anus, proving that those particular fluids did NOT leave his body.

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 10:32 PM

from what I have read, this does not always happen like it does on TV, Not to mention, if it did, the environment would not longer be sterile, would it?

TV?? what are you referring to?

Days after death the bodily fluids begin to drain from the body...you don't have to take my word for it..you can read about decomposition stages...

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 10:37 PM

It was measured in the autopsy..it was 23 cm and the crown-rump measurement of Conner was 32 cm..

and I believe Galloway said crown rump measurement was not useful - it needed to be crown heel.35) Mark Geragos: And then did you measure specifically the crown-rump length?
36) Alison Galloway: No, I did not. We calculated the body length from the right humerus, the tibia, and the femur on -- actually I noticed yesterday there was an error in my stature calculation. The crown-rump length should say crown-heel length.
37) Mark Geragos: That's under stature?
Alison Galloway: Yes.
38) Mark Geragos: Okay. So you have got crown-rump length. And that's not correct?
39) Alison Galloway: That's incorrect.
40) Mark Geragos: Should be crown-heel length?
41) Alison Galloway: Crown-heel length.
42) Mark Geragos: That would be from the top of the head to the bottom of the feet?
43) Alison Galloway: But that is calculated from the long bones and not from the individual.
44) Mark Geragos: Right. And so you never did -- you never used Conner's remains to measure from the top of his head to the
45) Alison Galloway: No. I'm afraid the body was too decomposed to allow that.

PsychNurse;~)

07-08-2007, 10:39 PM

How a fetus actually resides inside the uterus has nothing to do with "crown/rump" measurement, IMO. See "fetal position"............

i spent weeks if not months arguing this point back and forth with aw2b and doccarrie among others--none of it was ever accepted.

cyn

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 10:39 PM

TV?? what are you referring to?

Days after death the bodily fluids begin to drain from the body...you don't have to take my word for it..you can read about decomposition stages...

And I believe Dr. Peterson testified that the bodily fluid do NOT always drain from the body - I will try to find that

ekg

07-08-2007, 10:39 PM

Maybe you should look up the word "autolysis" along with maceration. The proteins in the body had broken down and changed into something else. Even the odor of something like this wouldn't attract any time of meat-eating mammal or insect.

Try tying a whole chicken in an airtight plastic bag for 4 months, and then see if your dog is interested in it. Then throw it in your yard and see if it attracts any insects.

Link to your original comment that not even 'carrion-eating species' would eat a putrefied source.

nevermind.... I checked for myself

The animal called 'glanus' by some and 'hyaena' by others is as large as a wolf, with a mane like a horse, only that the hair is stiffer and longer and extends over the entire length of the chine. It will lie in wait for a man and chase him, and will inveigle a dog within its reach by making a noise that resembles the retching noise of a man vomiting. It is exceedingly fond of putrefied flesh, and will burrow in a graveyard to gratify this propensity

http://www.angelfire.com/ab/armeniangenocide/index.html
For a short while after that incident the Turks began to arrest Armenians that were living in the capital. But there wasn't enough room in the prisons that were there so they had to make some massive deportations. The total amount of deportees were about 2,492,000 Armenians and about 1,000,000 of those people were slaughtered. But then the murders began again, in 3 days the Turks rampaged 80 Armenian villages killing 24,000 Armenians. These bodies were sent to the city of Van, which served as a slaughterhouse for the dead Armenians. The entire village had been wiped out with the exception of some travelers and vultures that fed upon the putrefied human remains.

and here's something that pretty much matches what you said...

http://www.homestead.com/VonHapsburg/BarfingYourDane.html
Predigestion is an interesting phenomena. The Eskimo dog teams fared much better on high or putrefied meat; .meat that was left to lie several days without cutting it up. The explanation for this is that it is more of an autolysis..(predigestion) rather than a bacterial decomposition. Raw meat has ample stores of the proteolytic enzyme cathepsin and lipase which are instrumental in implementing the digestion process.

except it says Eskimo dogs will eat it and it's even better for them

:shrug:

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 10:40 PM

:lol: :lol:

Thanks FD.......... but aw2b knows a whole heck of alot more about this case than I ever will...:patriot:

Thanks ekg..but you are underestimating yourself BIG TIME..I do appreciate your insight...:patriot:

cookiewench

07-08-2007, 10:43 PM

It is part of the decomposition process....bodily fluids would drain from the body...

The fluids were not drained from Conner's body. The decomposition process is different if a body is out in the open, buried, under water - or in the airless environment of the womb.

This was explained at trial, I believe.

Otter

07-08-2007, 10:47 PM

Ekg, are you posting things from mythology? Travelers and vultures? Hyenna [fish]??? Predigestion I can buy, gross as it is, birds do it, wolves do it. But where is the nutrition with yikes, excuse me, little Conner?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 10:48 PM

i spent weeks if not months arguing this point back and forth with aw2b and doccarrie among others--none of it was ever accepted.

cyn

I guess Dr. Peterson who provided his credentials vs. doc carrie who never provided any, is wrong.
265) Mark Geragos: Is that correct? Now, asphyxia or smothering. If somebody was smothered or asphyxiated, strangled, or strangled in such a fashion, I guess you made the distinction if somebody was strangled, that there would be sometimes blood or foam coming out of the nose or the mouth?
266) Brian Peterson: There sometimes is.
267) Mark Geragos: Okay. And if they are smothered, you would not see that, is that,
268) Brian Peterson: Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.
269) Mark Geragos: Would something else happen, if something happened to a body when the body ceases to be alive, what is the first thing that happens with bodily fluids?
270) Brian Peterson: It depends. That's variable. Sometimes you get urination and defecation postmortem. Sometimes you don't. I have never seen a reliable trend. Depends on the person.
271) Mark Geragos: But that's one of the things that you do see postmortem; isn't that correct?
272) Brian Peterson: Sure. In some cases.

ekg

07-08-2007, 11:01 PM

Mistake free trials only exist on tv. I admit this wasn't a "perfect" investigation and things were done that, in retrospect, should have been done differently. Problem with all your complaints is they don't mean anything as far as the appeals process is concerned. Guaranteed, mistakes will be found -- but none will rise to the level of fatal error, which is what is required for the verdict to be overturned.

and you're willing to bet someones life on that?

see, I'm not........ b/c I can't be sure that the mistakes I don't know about aren't 'fatal error'

ekg

07-08-2007, 11:03 PM

LOL. Don't you snack on leftover pizza an hour before going to your in-laws for dinner? Doesn't everybody?

if I haven't eaten all day and still have a hour or more to go before dinner at the inlaws? I sure do snack on something...

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 11:07 PM

I guess Dr. Peterson who provided his credentials vs. doc carrie who never provided any, is wrong.
265) Mark Geragos: Is that correct? Now, asphyxia or smothering. If somebody was smothered or asphyxiated, strangled, or strangled in such a fashion, I guess you made the distinction if somebody was strangled, that there would be sometimes blood or foam coming out of the nose or the mouth?
266) Brian Peterson: There sometimes is.
267) Mark Geragos: Okay. And if they are smothered, you would not see that, is that,
268) Brian Peterson: Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.
269) Mark Geragos: Would something else happen, if something happened to a body when the body ceases to be alive, what is the first thing that happens with bodily fluids?
270) Brian Peterson: It depends. That's variable. Sometimes you get urination and defecation postmortem. Sometimes you don't. I have never seen a reliable trend. Depends on the person.
271) Mark Geragos: But that's one of the things that you do see postmortem; isn't that correct?
272) Brian Peterson: Sure. In some cases.

I think we are talking about 2 different issues..I was referring to the black putrefaction stage of decomposition. where a large volume of body fluids would drain from the body....

Miss Bootsie

07-08-2007, 11:12 PM

I think the point is, he was less decomposed as compared to Laci..but he was definitely decomposed enough to the point his organs were remarkably liquefied...and IMO, the ME agreed when Geragos told him that it is possible for a plastic bag to provide a protected environment...

No, the point is, and what you don't seem to understand -Conner's body was not decomposed.

Read Dr. P's testimony.
The first chemical change after the early postmortem period has passed, is Autolysis.
The next step is decomposition.
Bacteria has to be present for the body to decompose.
PETERSON: Okay. Once you are past the early postmortem period, there is a number of chemical changes that can happen. The first is called Autolysis, A-u-t-o-l-y-s-i-s. The implication there is that the body normally contains chemicals that can be quite destructive, but they are controlled in life. These would include the acid in the stomach, the enzymes in the pancreas. And, after death, those organs could actually start digesting themselves. That's autolysis. The next step is decomposition. That typically involves microorganisms, like bacteria. You have a lot of bacteria in your body normally, especially in the gastrointestinal tract.

As stated by Dr. P.-
there is so much more of her missing
there is really little of him missing.
The reason there was "little of him missing" is because his body was in a sterile environment.
PETERSON: Sure. We'll even use the term maceration in a hospital pathology where we're looking at a still birth and a baby that's died in the uterus and then, perhaps, is delivered a day or two or three or more later will undergo the same type changes. Not to the degree that we see in Conner, but maceration-type changes anyway. In a fresher stillborn, those will often involve skin changes, overriding of the skull plates, and, to a certain degree, liquefaction of the organs. So we'll see that in a hospital setting, too, and that's where that term maceration would be used. I think the difference is they were both in fluid, they were both in fluid environments, but Conner was much more protected than Laci. So the question is how can one reasonably explain the fact, both fluid environments, there's so much more of her missing, there's really little of him missing, how does that happen. And my conclusion was the fluid was different. He was protected in the uterus. There was amniotic fluid. She was in the ocean. Different kind of protection.

AW, I have provided more than enough information to support Conner's body being in utero.
I have even provided information to support Dr. Peterson's testimony.

Will you please provide something other than your opinion that Conner was stored in a plastic bag.

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 11:14 PM

Link to your original comment that not even 'carrion-eating species' would eat a putrefied source.

nevermind.... I checked for myself

and here's something that pretty much matches what you said...

except it says Eskimo dogs will eat it and it's even better for them

:shrug:

none of these animals reside in SF Bay do they? We are talking about fish feeding on Laci and Conner. Conner was only in hte water for approx 24 hours (based on Laci washint ashore and he would have floated ashore in a storm. Do fish feed on the surface in a storm?

Lavindar

07-08-2007, 11:17 PM

No, the point is, and what you don't seem to understand -Conner's body was not decomposed.

Read Dr. P's testimony.
The first chemical change after the early postmortem period has passed, is Autolysis.
The next step is decomposition.

As stated by Dr. P.-
there is so much more of her missing
there is really little of him missing.
The reason there was "little of him missing" is because his body was in a sterile environment.

AW, I have provided more than enough information to support Conner's body being in utero.
I have even provided information to support Dr. Peterson's testimony.

Will you please provide something other than your opinion that Conner was stored in a plastic bag.

Are plastic bags entirely non-permeable anyway?

ekg

07-08-2007, 11:33 PM

There are DMV records and drivers licences of the homeless people in the transcripts??? :eek: Are you talking about the Scott Peterson transcripts? :read: Never heard that one, you happen to have a link?:confused:

Detective Coyle, testimony on 7/19-20

there's just way too much testimony to post.. but he's the one who I think Synopsis was talking about.. he checked DMV records, DL, and address for sex offenders,homeless and others..

Otter

07-08-2007, 11:46 PM

Detective Coyle, testimony on 7/19-20

there's just way too much testimony to post.. but he's the one who I think Synopsis was talking about.. he checked DMV records, DL, and address for sex offenders,homeless and others..

Its hard to check on info for the homeless. I live in King County Washington, last I checked (2 years) there were over 300 level three sex offenders unaccounted for. That doesn't include warrants for other crimes not privy to a citizen.

What sort of testimony? A link would suffice and then I could see for myself. I have a suspicion that it would be MG spin, but that's okay. TIA!

ekg

07-08-2007, 11:52 PM

I don't recall anything about 3 women either. :shrug:

183 pages $213.00

June 28, 2004

Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge

15. Okay. Now, the -- go back to where I think we left off at. She indicated that when she was inside, and she -- I'm talking about Kim McGregor, that at some point she used a coffee cup, and she hit the glass by the door handle; is that correct?

16. Not when she was inside. That's when she was outside.

17. In order to get inside.

18. She used the coffee cup to break a pane in the French doors.

19. Okay. And just so that we're clear, the same French doors that are right next to the dining room, correct?

20. Yes. The north ones. The ones on the --

21. She said once she was inside she called a friend, right?

22. Yes.

23. Okay. And did you ever talk to that friend?

24. Yes, I did.

25. And then she said she started to go around the house; is that correct?

26. Yes.

27. Walk around the house.

28. MR. DISTASO: I'm going to object as hearsay. You know. The proper way to do this -- he objected to me in the same way when I was doing this -- was, you ask the detective, did you get some information? What did you do based on that information? Not go through basically, you know, every single thing said in the police reports or transcripts.

29. MR. GERAGOS: I'm not going through everything single thing. I'm asking specifics. Which I then want to see what he did to investigate. That's exactly what I'm doing.

30. THE COURT: Overruled.

31. MR. GERAGOS: Now, at some point she indicated that this -- that she had gone into the closet areas, correct?

32. She did.

33. So that we're clear, I was asking this morning the closet areas in the master bedroom, correct?

34. Yes.

35. And that's Laci's closet, and the second bedroom which is Scott's closet?

36. Yes.

37. Okay. Then you asked her specifically about what she was doing with these packages under the Christmas tree, right?

38. No. I asked her what she did with the wrapping from the packages.

39. Is that what you are talking about?

40. Yes.

41. Yes. Okay. And she couldn't give you an answer to that; isn't that correct?

42. She thought she just left it on the ground.

43. You knew that wasn't the case, correct?

44. Yeah. I think it was in the garbage can.

45. Okay. She denied putting it in it garbage can, correct?

46. No. She said she couldn't remember. She was intoxicated.

47. Okay. Now, the -- specifically she also said that she -- did you ask her if she was by herself?

48. Yes.

49. What did she tell you?

50. She was.

51. You received information that there were three women there later, about an hour and a half later; is that correct?

52. Yes.

53. Okay. And you received that from Amy Krigbaum?

54. Yes.

attorneywan2be

07-08-2007, 11:57 PM

No, the point is, and what you don't seem to understand -Conner's body was not decomposed.

Really?!

But Conner's body was indeed decomposed...

From Distaso's opening statement:

And he's going to tell you that based on Conner's level of decomposition, he was not able to make that determination. Nor was he, at that exact moment, able to determine a cause of death, because all he had was a very badly decomposed fetus. That was it.

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

Go ahead. Go on, Conner's body was, click back, John, for a moment. Okay, go forward. His body is, as you saw, is severely decomposed. However, when Doctor Peterson compares it to Laci's body, which you are going to see in a minute, it's severely less decomposed

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

From Distaso's closing argument:

Let's talk about Conner's condition. Conner was decomposed extremely. So much so that the doctor couldn't determine the cause of death. But he was much less decomposed than Laci

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

ME's testimony at the trial:

David Harris: I want to go through the process of this. Conner comes into the, into the facility. Can you run us through the process of what occurs?
Judge Delucchi: Well, start with what was the condition of the body when you first saw it.
Brian Peterson: Yes, your Honor. What we received was another deposed body, and this was received as just that, a decomposed infant or fetus body

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

So in Conner's case those plates were overriding. It was very easy to deform that head. In terms of changes beneath the skin, they weren't what you would see in an adult. It was more of a liquefying type process. So in Conner, for the most part the organs were still inside the body, but they were remarkably liquefied. How do I know that? Because the weights were substantially different than they should have been. So the tissue had to go somewhere, so that's basically what happens. It liquefies. So even though the organ looks like it's there, a lot of the mass was missing.

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

Again, you can see better in this picture the overriding of the skull plates. Partly because of the brain being decomposed, partly because the plates aren't joined yet, as would be in an adult.

--------------
The idea being that, in a living baby, when the umbilical cord is cut, there's inflammation at the end there. Eventually it scabs and dries and so forth. In this case, because of the post-mortem change, that simply wasn't practical. This was simply decomposed tissue.

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

The ME's testimony at the prelim.

17 Q. Okay. Now, you said that there was in addition to
18 that a -- I want to kind of accurately quote you, that you
19 had a -- and this would have been taking you fast forward to
20 after you completed Laci's autopsy, that there was a
21 significant difference in the decomposition between the two
22 bodies; isn't that correct?
23 A. There was a significant difference in the
24 condition. They were both decomposed. The differences tend
25 to be other things, what was present, what was absent, those
26 kind of environmental changes.

Otter

07-08-2007, 11:57 PM

Is this MG "testifying" again?

15-27 are words. Then RD says "hearsay".

It would be helpful to have some context. Who's testifying? TIA for a link to this.

ekg

07-09-2007, 12:05 AM

No, it's for the person who makes up stuff and claims it to be fact.

You know, a mentallly ill man in a white van, three women at teh Peterson house the night of the burglary, and the brown van people living in the encampment at East La Loma Park IN THEIR VAN
Check post 1191

ya know I really hope ppl didn't get synop banned b/c she didn't reply immediately to their questions....... some times life gets in the way... but so far I've corroborated most of what ya'll were round-robining her on...so I would hope that you would tell FW this .......we work on a 'honor-system' type thing here, and I know you guys can be fair.... so if anyone did jump the gun by reporting her for 'lying' or making unprovable statements' I would hope you have the character adniod talks about and tell FW you were wrong...

anyway....... heres the part about the guy in the white van...... even I remember this stuff guys, and I admit to not remembering a whole lot of things....

Detective Coyle again
214 pages $244.00

JULY 20, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED DELUCCHI, JUDGE

888. MR. GERAGOS: Just a couple questions.

889. MR. GERAGOS: The -- Mr. Distaso was asking you about number 42.

890. Yes.

891. Number 42 is this person who confessed to killing somebody in Scenic Park?

892. Yes.

893. Said a witness was -- the only witness to the murder was a dog?

894. Yes.

895. He said he was driving his sister's white 1985 Chevy van?

896. Yes.

snip

900. MR. GERAGOS: The reason that this person was cleared was two-fold: Because the sister said that he was with her; is that right?

901. Yes.

902. And that he had mental problems?

903. Yes.

904. Did anybody ever check whether or not the sister had a 1985 Chevy van?

905. I don't have that information, no.

906. Do you know if anybody ever did, if she had a van, any forensic testing of that van?

907. I don't have that information either, no.

908. Has anybody run a check on the sister to see if the sister had any criminal history?

909. No. Not that I know of.

910. Did anybody do any check to see if there was anything about why -- you've been an officer for how long?

911. Almost 25 years.

912. Have you ever known family members to cover up for other family members?

913. Oh, sure.

914. Can you tell me do you know of anything that was done, beyond calling the sister and the interview, to confirm whether or not she was, in fact, covering up?

915. Well, the mother was interviewed as well. But I don't know if you could tell from that whether the sister was covering up or not.

916. Okay. The mother said that she saw them the next day; is that correct?

917. That's correct.

918. Okay. She didn't see them on the 24th?

919. That's correct.

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 12:07 AM

:lol: :lol:

Thanks FD.......... but aw2b knows a whole heck of alot more about this case than I ever will...:patriot:

AW2B doesn't know that Amy Krigbaum knew nothing about DRISP being an avid golfer.

AW2B is, either lying or mis-informed, and misleading you to believe that Amy Krigbaum didn't hear DRISP say "golfing" when he did say "golfing."

Twice, AW2B has stated that Amy Krigbaum knew as a matter of fact that DRISP was an avid golfer before he got to their (Amy Krigbaum and Terra Venable's) door the night of 12/24/02 and AW2B is not telling the truth.

ekg

07-09-2007, 12:12 AM

Its hard to check on info for the homeless. I live in King County Washington, last I checked (2 years) there were over 300 level three sex offenders unaccounted for. That doesn't include warrants for other crimes not privy to a citizen.

What sort of testimony? A link would suffice and then I could see for myself. I have a suspicion that it would be MG spin, but that's okay. TIA!

I can't give you a link to my harddrive otter, I'm sorry...I tried that before to prove my TS were from timex and it didn't work.... I'm not comp-smart enough to make a pdf either....

I think you can get them at www.scottisinnocent.com....

ok, yeah..... here is all of coyles testimony

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Ray%20Coyle.htm#direct

the days I read were the 19-20th.... direct and cross..

hth.

ekg

07-09-2007, 12:23 AM

AW2B doesn't know that Amy Krigbaum knew nothing about DRISP being an avid golfer.

AW2B is, either lying or mis-informed, and misleading you to believe that Amy Krigbaum didn't hear DRISP say "golfing" when he did say "golfing."

Twice, AW2B has stated that Amy Krigbaum knew as a matter of fact that DRISP was an avid golfer before he got to their (Amy Krigbaum and Terra Venable's) door the night of 12/24/02 and AW2B is not telling the truth.

I don't think she heard golfing.... I think she heard "gone all day"...other than that I'm not sure what you're talking about....and frankly I don't understand where the venom is coming from... You don't see me rubbing it in anyones face this way that they were mistaken when they promoted the 'there was NO mental patient with a white van" or "There were never 3 women" do you? both of which, by your standards are out and out lies.not too mention may have gotten another person erroneously banned....

ppl can make mistakes and be forgiven without the hostility ya know... it's how you respond to those mistakes and how you conduct yourself when you make them that counts.....and IMO, you aren't conducting yourself in a manner conducive to debate..but maybe I am missing the humor.... it wouldn't be the 1st time...

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 12:27 AM

I don't think she heard golfing.... I think she heard "gone all day"...other than that I'm not sure what you're talking about....and frankly I don't understand where the venom is coming from... You don't see me rubbing it in anyones face this way that they were mistaken when they promoted the 'there was NO mental patient with a white van" or "There were never 3 women" do you? both of which, by your standards are out and out lies.not too mention may have gotten another person erroneously banned....

ppl can make mistakes and be forgiven without the hostility ya know... it's how you respond to those mistakes and how you conduct yourself when you make them that counts.....and IMO, you aren't conducting yourself in a manner conducive to debate..but maybe I am missing the humor.... it wouldn't be the 1st time...

"I think she heard "gone all day""

Based on what?

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 12:28 AM

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 12:31 AM

I don't think she heard golfing.... I think she heard "gone all day"

"Gone all day" doesn't sound like "golfing" and it's unbelievable that both the women who were there could mis-hear it this way. They didn't say that Scott was mumbling - they said he was speaking.

ekg

07-09-2007, 12:38 AM

According to the testimony you posted here, it sounds like those three women were at the house in the early morning hours of the day BEFORE the evening of the burglary.

oh c'mon....

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

how does that sound like she's talking about before Kim got there when it explicitly says an hour and a half after that with that meaning the KIM incident?

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 12:39 AM

A baby in a plastic bag would not sink to the bottom of the bay. It would partially float. And marine life would tear it apart.

Of course, a baby in a plastic bags with rocks in it would not float - but if the bag were weighted down it would be shortly torn apart but the currents - but not before those same currents knocked the body into the weights and damaged it.

"Connor was in a plastic bag" is nothing more than a theory..and my theory is that he was not submerged in the bay..he was placed in a sealed plastic bag and submerged in a body of water.. such as a bathtub...IMO, they transported him to the bay in the plastic bag..however, before placing him where he was found.. they removed the plastic bag leaving the twine around his neck...I don't think they meant to leave the twine..

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 12:43 AM

Detective Coyle, testimony on 7/19-20

there's just way too much testimony to post.. but he's the one who I think Synopsis was talking about.. he checked DMV records, DL, and address for sex offenders,homeless and others..Well, just like Scott's boat, nothing would show up if they didn't register their vehicles, now, would it?

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 12:49 AM

"Connor was in a plastic bag" is nothing more than a theory..and my theory is that he was not submerged in the bay..he was placed in a sealed plastic bag and submerged in a body of water.. such as a bathtub...IMO, they transported him to the bay in the plastic bag..however, before placing him where he was found.. they removed the plastic bag leaving the twine around his neck...I don't think they meant to leave the twine.. I a plastic bag and the bag was in the water? Then he woudl have decomposed like a dry body, nothing like what he decomposed as. His decomposition was dependent on being in a liquid sterile environment, i/e. like an amniotic sac. Had he been dry, his body would have eventually dried out imo

ekg

07-09-2007, 12:51 AM

"I think she heard "gone all day""

Based on what?

RD questioning Amie
276. You said No, we haven't seen her. And then you asked him Well, where have you been? Or what was kind of going on with that?

277. You know, I don't really know how the conversation went, verbatim. I just remember him telling me, you know, that he tried to call her all day and that he was golfing.

278. Uh-huh.

279. So I mean he -- he was distraught; it kind of made me a little distraught, so I didn't really know how to handle the situation, so...

280. Okay.

281. I just kind of took bits and pieces of it and didn't really know what to do. I shut the door and kind of asked Terra Help him look, or, you know?

MG questioning Amie
456. And then Scott looks distraught?

457. Uh-huh.

458. And he's very, very upset from the way that you normally know him; isn't that correct?

459. Yes. Well, from the way he normally looked, he looked distraught. I mean, he wasn't like crying, bawling or anything, but he looked distraught.

460. Okay. And that got you upset?

461. Well, yes. Yes.

462. Okay.

463. Definitely.

both were distraught enough that I can easily see her mistaking 'golfin' for 'gone'

gone

golfin'

:shrug: close enough for me to see the mistake given the upsetting circumstances..

ekg

07-09-2007, 12:52 AM

Well, just like Scott's boat, nothing would show up if they didn't register their vehicles, now, would it?

I don't know........ do you have to send in a release of liability on car you bought like you do with a boat? a release of liability that does show up in DMV records?

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 12:56 AM

oh c'mon....

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

how does that sound like she's talking about before Kim got there when it explicitly says an hour and a half after that with that meaning the KIM incident?

523 by January was a looky-loo kind of place. People were over there all the time - as evidenced by the gifts left on the lawn. I think Marlene made several pilgrimages herself.

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 12:57 AM

I don't know........ do you have to send in a release of liability on car you bought like you do with a boat? a release of liability that does show up in DMV records? yes, it's a standard form filled out by the seller

ekg

07-09-2007, 01:00 AM

"Gone all day" doesn't sound like "golfing" and it's unbelievable that both the women who were there could mis-hear it this way. They didn't say that Scott was mumbling - they said he was speaking.

Terra was 10 ft away...... so she could have thought she heard whatever, but when Amie told her "Laci's missing and he said he was golfin' " she then 'heard' the same thing...

you know how that works.... it's one of the reasons why eyewitness reports are different... it's why they don't like for eyewitnesses to compare notes with each other.. b/c one might not remember something 100% so they take on the memory of the other...

can I back that up with science? probably not, but I can't be the only one to have heard that....

and yes,

Golf
/gɒlf, gɔlf; Brit. also gɒf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[golf, gawlf; Brit. also gof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

and

Gone /gɔn, gɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gawn, gon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

are similar enough to see how a mistake could be made...

ekg

07-09-2007, 01:01 AM

yes, it's a standard form filled out by the seller

then you would think that since they had the boat release at the DMV, they'd have the car release also....

but I really don't know..

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 01:10 AM

I a plastic bag and the bag was in the water? Then he woudl have decomposed like a dry body, nothing like what he decomposed as. His decomposition was dependent on being in a liquid sterile environment, i/e. like an amniotic sac. Had he been dry, his body would have eventually dried out imo

IMO, his body fluids that drained from his body due to putrefaction would have been inside the bag..and it is usually a large volume of fluids (I'm not referring to urine..etc..) that decomposition process occurs about 2 weeks after death..

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 01:12 AM

RD questioning Amie

MG questioning Amie

both were distraught enough that I can easily see her mistaking 'golfin' for 'gone'

gone

golfin'

:shrug: close enough for me to see the mistake given the upsetting circumstances..

252) Rick Distaso: Okay. So he came to the door, asked you if you saw Laci. What happened next?
253) Amie Krigbaum: I had told him no, and he, he had told me, he told me he was golfing all day and he had tried to phone her, and I said that we hadn't seen her, we hadn't seen any movement, we thought they were out of town because the house had not moved at all, and we just thought the neighborhood was weird because it was so silent. We just figured everybody was out of town but us.
254) Rick Distaso: Okay.
255) Amie Krigbaum: And then,
256) Rick Distaso: Hold on, let me stop you. So he comes to the door, says Have you seen Laci?
257) Amie Krigbaum: Uh-huh.
258) Rick Distaso: You said No, we haven't seen her. And then you asked him Well, where have you been? Or what was kind of going on with that?
259) Amie Krigbaum: You know, I don't really know how the conversation went, verbatim. I just remember him telling me, you know, that he tried to call her all day and that he was golfing.

103) Terra Venable: Amie answered the door and he asked if she had seen Laci or we had seen Laci all day, and we hadn't seen her, and Amie asked him questions. He said he had been golfing all day and trying to call her all day and wasn't able to get a hold of her. And that was pretty much it.

Two separate people mistake "golfing" for "gone"?

ekg

07-09-2007, 01:14 AM

That is simply untrue.

Diane Jackson didn't testify at all.

:eek:

she simply did not say that CW.... she said "Diane J. was to testify"

Originally Posted by Synopsis View Post
QUOTE DORA:Reference to post by Lavinder
and you really believe that the men in front of the Medina home could have been friends of the Medina's -

Of course they weren't. Why would friends of the Medinas be stealing their safe. Diane J. was to testify that the 3 dark skinned men with a safe in the Medinas front yard. Those are the unidentified males.

I simply can't understand the tag-teaming and then the "misinterpretations"...that was going on against Synopsis...

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 01:14 AM

]"Connor was in a plastic bag" is nothing more than a theory[/B]..and my theory is that he was not submerged in the bay..he was placed in a sealed plastic bag and submerged in a body of water.. such as a bathtub...IMO, they transported him to the bay in the plastic bag..however, before placing him where he was found.. they removed the plastic bag leaving the twine around his neck...I don't think they meant to leave the twine..

""Connor was in a plastic bag" is nothing more than a theory"

Would the burglars know that putting Conner in a bag placed in a bath tub would mimic an amniotic sac within a uterus and then keep up with any mishaps? You have Conner dead after being "born" two months before being found on shore and the condition of his body tells Dr. Brian Peterson that this is not the case.

"sealed plastic bag"

What kind of "sealed plastic bag"? Grocery or "Hefty" trash bag?
How was it "sealed"? tied in a knot, twist-ties or glue gun?

"submerged in a body of water"

Was the water standing the whole time or did the burglars & friends drain the tub and refill it?

"bathtub"

This "bathtub" is where? In a house in a clean or dirty bathroom?
What is the temperature of the room where the bathtub is in?

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 01:23 AM

Terra was 10 ft away...... so she could have thought she heard whatever, but when Amie told her "Laci's missing and he said he was golfin' " she then 'heard' the same thing...

you know how that works.... it's one of the reasons why eyewitness reports are different... it's why they don't like for eyewitnesses to compare notes with each other.. b/c one might not remember something 100% so they take on the memory of the other...

can I back that up with science? probably not, but I can't be the only one to have heard that....

and yes,

Golf
/gɒlf, gɔlf; Brit. also gɒf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[golf, gawlf; Brit. also gof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

and

Gone /gɔn, gɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gawn, gon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

are similar enough to see how a mistake could be made...

"Golf
/gɒlf, gɔlf; Brit. also gɒf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[golf, gawlf; Brit. also gof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

and

Gone /gɔn, gɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gawn, gon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation"

This is exactly what AW2B posted on earlier post (way back when). What happend to "independent thinking"?

AW2B is basing her assumption on Amy Krigbaum being aware/knowing that DRISP was an avid golfer and thus "golfing" would be heard. So now you are following her assumption?

ekg

07-09-2007, 01:28 AM

ekg

07-09-2007, 01:32 AM

"Golf
/gɒlf, gɔlf; Brit. also gɒf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[golf, gawlf; Brit. also gof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

and

Gone /gɔn, gɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gawn, gon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation"

This is exactly what AW2B posted on earlier post (way back when). What happend to "independent thinking"?

AW2B is basing her assumption on Amy Krigbaum being aware/knowing that DRISP was an avid golfer and thus "golfing" would be heard. So now you are following her assumption?

HA! did she post the same thhing..... That's awesome.... great minds and all..

look I'm on like page 29 or something bouncing back and forth to see if I need to answer any new replies..... so I'm sorry for saying some things that someone else may have....

as for independent thinking comment? no I don't base moo on that.... I base it on I have bad ears so I can see how it could be mistaken:shrug:

One2Snoop

07-09-2007, 01:33 AM

if I haven't eaten all day and still have a hour or more to go before dinner at the inlaws? I sure do snack on something...

But he had cereal for breakfast and how do you know he didn't eat something in between then? :shrug: Maybe he took a PBJ sandwich with him in the car, but I guess after a rough day of fishing, I'd also be hungry as soon as I got home - I might eat a few crackers or something light, but pizza - seems like a heavy snack just before a big dinner. IMO

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 01:52 AM

HA! did she post the same thhing..... That's awesome.... great minds and all..

look I'm on like page 29 or something bouncing back and forth to see if I need to answer any new replies..... so I'm sorry for saying some things that someone else may have....

as for independent thinking comment? no I don't base moo on that.... I base it on I have bad ears so I can see how it could be mistaken:shrug:

"I have bad ears"

I will agree that you have bad ears, anything else bad with you?

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 01:54 AM

you totally don't have to tell me that.......:lol:

:beer: on the whole post..............

LOL...I know what you mean ekg...I posted that when we were 3 NGs (Synopsis included) + the new member Dora..! now Synopsis is banned..I hope it is temp...we definitely need her back...

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 01:58 AM

:eek:

she simply did not say that CW.... she said "Diane J. was to testify"

I simply can't understand the tag-teaming and then the "misinterpretations"...that was going on against Synopsis...

Diane Jackson never "was to testify" to what you said. She never "was to testify" to anything, as a matter of fact. She was not scheduled to testify in the first place, so I fail to understand how you can say that she "was to testify" - let alone what she actually might have said if she had testified.

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:05 AM

Lol, wish I had someone to mop my floors! Send her over! I'll even feed her!

uggggggggh It's like pulling teeth to get her to do it when she doesn't want something....... but she'll do it for other ppl without any problems.... the little heathen.. HA!

I've had dogs my whole life until the last few years. :-( Anyway, always big dogs, my last one was a Newfie (I miss him) and do I know what dirty paw prints look like. I was always spot cleaning after him. Never did I bother though before going for a walk. The floor would just be messy again with the trail to the water dish. So I always waited until we got home, the water was lapped up and dog would settle down for a nap. Then I would spot clean the paw prints.

Other dog owners here? What do you all do?

I've been known to do it before we leave that way the floor can dry... then I wipe their "feets" off before we come back in........ my bloodhound got wise to the process and would roll over on her back with her legs in the air.....LOL

I want a newfie as my next one....... I have 2 small dogs now and I love em.... but just love large dogs... my plans are a newfie and then a great pyrenees so I can have 2 (very) big dogs..but it'll be awhile.... both my little ones are young.

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:07 AM

She never prepared the Christmas Day stuff from scratch. She was dead. She wore high heels but the only picture of her at that party she was sitting down. I have seen many women wear high heels to work and then change into something more comfortble. She had been very sick in November as was posted in testimony from her mother and her doctor. She was told NOT to walk in the morning.

Nava testified

160) Margarita Nava: Yes.
161) Rick Distaso: What did you see her doing next?
162) Margarita Nava: I imagine that, well, she brought the grocery bags one-by-one from the car to the house, put it right there next to it. And then I helped her take it to the kitchen, I'm sorry, to put it on the table

She never says she put the groceries away or anything. The door to the driveway is very near the car. I wish my door were that close for carrying in stuff.

no, but she was going to prepare the Christmas Day stuff right?

and she had to walk into the house with those heels to be able sit......

I still say she was a normal pregnant woman.... who did normal everyday things...

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:09 AM

none of these animals reside in SF Bay do they? We are talking about fish feeding on Laci and Conner. Conner was only in hte water for approx 24 hours (based on Laci washint ashore and he would have floated ashore in a storm. Do fish feed on the surface in a storm?

well CW and I were talking about animals in general.... he brought up the dogs and other carrion animals....so I was replying to him on those issues...

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:12 AM

523 by January was a looky-loo kind of place. People were over there all the time - as evidenced by the gifts left on the lawn. I think Marlene made several pilgrimages herself.

oh I don't know who they were...... I was just proving that they existed.....lol

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:14 AM

523 by January was a looky-loo kind of place. People were over there all the time - as evidenced by the gifts left on the lawn. I think Marlene made several pilgrimages herself.

oh, and it was way before Jan that the place went crazy with ppl

from Amies K testimony

476. Now, the -- how long before the media started camping out in the street?

477. Man, I think it was when we got up that next day there were -- there were cars just up and down the whole neighborhood, so...

478. How long before all the satellite trucks and everything else started in?

479. I believe that next day.

480. Okay. Pretty much blocked off the whole block?

481. Yeah.

482. And that continued for how long?

483. I don't know. Five months?

484. Now, whenever -- whenever Scott would come home when the media was there, what -- what would happen when he would go in or out of the house?

485. They would pretty much take his picture, stand on the curb and videotape him, ask him questions.

486. They kind of surround him or swarm him, if you will?

487. They would stay off the grass, normally. So -- it got worse as time progressed.

488. And the -- come kind of -- you described it or I think it was described at the preliminary hearing as a feeding frenzy at a certain point?

489. Pretty much. Somebody said that. I don't know if I said that. I think I just agreed. It was hectic in our neighborhood.

490. Thank you. I have no further questions.

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:17 AM

But he had cereal for breakfast and how do you know he didn't eat something in between then? :shrug: Maybe he took a PBJ sandwich with him in the car, but I guess after a rough day of fishing, I'd also be hungry as soon as I got home -

as far as I know he didn't eat anything other than the cereal.......

I might eat a few crackers or something light, but pizza - seems like a heavy snack just before a big dinner. IMO

well, the size of my 'snack' depends on what their making..:lol:

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:20 AM

"I have bad ears"

I will agree that you have bad ears, anything else bad with you?

why ask me where I get my opinion from only to mock me about it when I tell you?

what's the point in that?

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:25 AM

Diane Jackson never "was to testify" to what you said. She never "was to testify" to anything, as a matter of fact. She was not scheduled to testify in the first place, so I fail to understand how you can say that she "was to testify" - let alone what she actually might have said if she had testified.

well tell her she was never going to testify...

http://www.findlaci2003.us/hypnosis-diane.html
Jackson said Thursday she could not comment publicly about the sighting because members
of Scott Peterson's defense team have informed her she will be subpoenaed as a witness,
bringing her under a sweeping gag order imposed in the double-murder case.

and you're right, I don't know what she'd have to say..... but I assume it would something like

But according to the report, Jackson told police she was driving to her home in
Modesto's La Loma neighborhood at 11:40 a.m. on Dec. 24 when she saw three men
standing near a tan van parked in front of 516 Covena Ave., directly across the street
from the Peterson home. One rear van door was open, the other ajar.

Jackson's account to police indicates that she saw no landscaping equipment with the
three men, whom she described as Hispanic or Asian. Todd and Pearce are white.

In interviewing Jackson, police displayed pictures of three men suspected of being
the trio she spotted in front of the Medina home. The pictures were of men who
previously performed yardwork for Jackson, and clearly different from the men
Jackson saw in front of the Medina home, according to the account. That
trio reportedly turned toward Jackson with malevolent looks as she drove by.

A doctor hypnotized Jackson at the Police Department in an attempt to draw
out more details. She reportedly recalled little else beyond perceiving a threat
from the three men. But authorities believe a link between the men and Peterson's
disappearance is tenuous. Petersons' dog, which her husband said Laci had taken for
a walk, was found running loose more than an hour before Jackson saw the van.

One2Snoop

07-09-2007, 02:31 AM

as far as I know he didn't eat anything other than the cereal.......

well, the size of my 'snack' depends on what their making..:lol:

Thats just it, are you sure he didn't stop at a drive thru somewhere? Do you know what they were making? I can't remember but it seems to me Sharon discoverd something in the oven several weeks later. I really don't find it funny though, considering the end result.

PsychNurse;~)

07-09-2007, 03:44 AM

oh c'mon....

GERAGOS: And she identified the female as somebody who appeared to be the same one who had been walking the dog. You understood walking the dog to mean walking MacKenzie, the Peterson's dog?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: That same day; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Did she say that same day?

GERAGOS: Earlier in the day.

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: You assume that to be the same day, correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: She said the police arrived, but whoever this female was had already left, right?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, she said about an hour and a half after that there were three more, or another car pulled up, and three more females got out; is that correct?

BROCCHINI: Yes.

how does that sound like she's talking about before Kim got there when it explicitly says an hour and a half after that with that meaning the KIM incident?

do you have any type of opinion as to whom these three women were?

were people leaving flowers etc at the house at this point?

cyn

PsychNurse;~)

07-09-2007, 03:47 AM

uggggggggh It's like pulling teeth to get her to do it when she doesn't want something....... but she'll do it for other ppl without any problems.... the little heathen.. HA!

I've been known to do it before we leave that way the floor can dry... then I wipe their "feets" off before we come back in........ my bloodhound got wise to the process and would roll over on her back with her legs in the air.....LOL

I want a newfie as my next one....... I have 2 small dogs now and I love em.... but just love large dogs... my plans are a newfie and then a great pyrenees so I can have 2 (very) big dogs..but it'll be awhile.... both my little ones are young.

i'm with you on the big dogs--dang, i just love them. i'm a fan of boxers especially, and my last one weighed 90 lbs--definitely on the big side for boxers.

cyn

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 05:44 AM

"Golf
/gɒlf, gɔlf; Brit. also gɒf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[golf, gawlf; Brit. also gof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

and

Gone /gɔn, gɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gawn, gon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation"

This is exactly what AW2B posted on earlier post (way back when). What happend to "independent thinking"?

AW2B is basing her assumption on Amy Krigbaum being aware/knowing that DRISP was an avid golfer and thus "golfing" would be heard. So now you are following her assumption?
Amie testified that she had never set foot in the peterson house nor had they ever been in her home. They were "waving" neighbors. How could she KNOW scott was an AVID golfer?

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 05:54 AM

well CW and I were talking about animals in general.... he brought up the dogs and other carrion animals....so I was replying to him on those issues... OH, I see. I know adipocere gives off a rancid odor, but I'm not sure about maceration. I don't believe that Conner was in the water long enough for feeding (although I have to wonder if that is what happened to the placenta and umbilical cord). I think he was there for less than a day when he washed ashore. There was no evidence of any land animals feeding on him either, which makes me he wasn't on shore long either.

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 06:57 AM

well tell her she was never going to testify...

and you're right, I don't know what she'd have to say..... but I assume it would something like thank you for not putting the "safe" into that scenario. In her original statement she never mentioned them and a safe - she said there were 2 men at the back of the van with the door open and one on the lawn. No dolly or safe mentioned. Also they do NOT fit the description of the MEdina burglars in any way shape or form.

http://www.mugshots.com/Criminal/Robbers/D.+Glenn+Pearce.htm

can't find a pic of Todd but Pearce is definitely not dark complected

adnoid

07-09-2007, 09:10 AM

"I think she heard "gone all day""

Based on what?

Is this a new appeal issue? "If we change the testimony of people to agree with our theory (because it's just so easy to assert that the witnesses are all wrong), Scott is innocent!"

adnoid

07-09-2007, 09:14 AM

LOL...I know what you mean ekg...I posted that when we were 3 NGs (Synopsis included) + the new member Dora..! now Synopsis is banned..I hope it is temp...we definitely need her back...

Yes, the policy of supporting the banning of those that disagree with you while also supporting the reinstatement of banned posters that do agree with you is a tactic used regularly by boards that support Scott (SII and F-pack for example). I don't think it will become policy here.

Note that by "you" I do not mean the OP personally, but instead I am referring to one side of a controversial issue.

deputydi

07-09-2007, 11:52 AM

I don't know........ do you have to send in a release of liability on car you bought like you do with a boat? a release of liability that does show up in DMV records?
Actually, you don't HAVE to send in a Release from Liability. It is an option that protects the seller from being liable for an accident after he sells a vehicle but before the buyer has registered it. It is available for all vehicles (cars included) but not necessarily mandatory. I got this information from CAs DMV site.

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 11:52 AM

MB, I think the fact that ALL of her internal organs EXCept her uterus were gone means that either something ate them or tore them away. MOO The uterus was deep in the pelvis and somewhat protected and clothes were covering the rest of the body which had turned to adipocere

I totally agree.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 11:57 AM

thank you for not putting the "safe" into that scenario. In her original statement she never mentioned them and a safe - she said there were 2 men at the back of the van with the door open and one on the lawn. No dolly or safe mentioned. Also they do NOT fit the description of the MEdina burglars in any way shape or form.

http://www.mugshots.com/Criminal/Robbers/D.+Glenn+Pearce.htm

can't find a pic of Todd but Pearce is definitely not dark complected

Judge Delucchi ruled that the tip from Diane Jackson was offered for the TRUTH..Geragos read part of a police report regarding Diane Jackson telling the police that she saw a van and a safe being removed from the Medina's house..Grogan agreed that is what the police report said.. she saw 3 dark-skinned men..we know that Todd and Pearce are white..however, the safe was found in Todd's possession...so IMO the 3 dark-skinned men were Todd's accomplices..

Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
Judge Delucchi: Right
Cross Examination, resumed
Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr?
Craig Grogan: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then Sebron Banks?
Craig Grogan: Is a detective assigned to burglary.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 12:26 PM

Actually, you don't HAVE to send in a Release from Liability. It is an option that protects the seller from being liable for an accident after he sells a vehicle but before the buyer has registered it. It is available for all vehicles (cars included) but not necessarily mandatory. I got this information from CAs DMV site.

According to CA DMV site, a seller must submit the notice of release of liability within 5 calendar days from the transaction date:

What is a notice of transfer and release of liability?

The Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability (NRL) is used to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) when you have sold or transferred your vehicle or vessel to another party. It is used only when ownership of the vehicle or vessel has changed. Legal owner transfers (transfers between lenders or removal of a lienholder from the title) do not require an NRL

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

Am I required to notify DMV when I sell or transfer my vehicle to another owner?

Yes. You are required by law to notify DMV within five calendar days from the date you sell or transfer title or interest in and deliver possession of a vehicle to another owner (Vehicle Code §5900]).

https://mv.dmv.ca.gov/nrl/welcome.do

(Scroll down to NRL frequently asked questions link)

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 12:44 PM

Let me clarify a point I made earlier..I stated that the lack of tool marks is a moot point..why? IMO, if she was in the bay the ME should have found fish bite marks..and ,IYO, if she was dismembered he should have found tool marks..so I think we will have to agree to disagree on that..
BTW, the lack of fish bite marks on Laci's body is not the only evidence that leads me to believe Laci was not in the bay..

AW, let me get this straight. On what part of the body do you think Dr. Peterson should have found evidence of fish bite marks?

According to the ME, the opening at the top of the uterus was big enough to let Conner out of Laci's uterus..didn't he testify that Conner exited from that opening? I think when they made that opening they would have been able to get him out..the uterus is a muscle that can be streched creating room for someone's hands to grab Conner..

When who made the opening AW? How did whoever abrade an opening? Will you please explain how someone goes about abrading an opening. :confused:
Although the Uterus is a muscle, it can't be stretched by hand like a rubber band and spring back into its original shape.
It would have ripped apart and I kinda think this is something Dr. P. would have seen and remarked on. Don't cha think?

You stated:

"there was no bleeding noted in the surrounding tissues indicating she'd been cut open"

However, the ME testified that he could not make a determination if there was an incision there or not because there was no tissue left in that area..

Dr. P. also said this. If they only affected soft tissue.
He did not include the Uterus as something we can pretty nuch hypthesize on. Did he?

If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want.

Mark Geragos: If there was an incision prior to her going into the water, and if the baby was removed prior to going into the water, and where the incision was ended up decomposing, you see that, isn't that correct?
Brian Peterson: As I said earlier, there could have been a gunshot. There could have been any number of different kind of trauma. If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want. I guess I couldn't say yes or no.

But, You should consider this testimony.

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

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

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

PETERSON: We do.

Dr. P. did not see any evidence that there had been an incision made in the Uterus, nor did he see any evidence of the Uterus being pulled apart.

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 01:16 PM

Judge Delucchi ruled that the tip from Diane Jackson was offered for the TRUTH..Geragos read part of a police report regarding Diane Jackson telling the police that she saw a van and a safe being removed from the Medina's house..Grogan agreed that is what the police report said.. she saw 3 dark-skinned men..we know that Todd and Pearce are white..however, the safe was found in Todd's possession...so IMO the 3 dark-skinned men were Todd's accomplices..

Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
Judge Delucchi: Right
Cross Examination, resumed
Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr?
Craig Grogan: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then Sebron Banks?
Craig Grogan: Is a detective assigned to burglary.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

The subject of and testimony about Diane Jackson doesn't
end with the testimony you quoted.
There is more.

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.

FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 01:57 PM

AW, let me get this straight. On what part of the body do you think Dr. Peterson should have found evidence of fish bite marks?

On the parts of her body that he examined looking for fish bite marks..but according to him he didn't find fish bite marks, chew or nibble marks...

When who made the opening AW? How did whoever abrade an opening? Will you please explain how someone goes about abrading an opening. :confused:
Although the Uterus is a muscle, it can't be stretched by hand like a rubber band and spring back into its original shape.
It would have ripped apart and I kinda think this is something Dr. P. would have seen and remarked on. Don't cha think?

I think her killers made the opening to remove Conner close to her due date..and IMO they were able to do that..the ME testified that near the top of the uterus was abraded, not the entire uterus ..the edges of the opening were friable and crumbly...I looked up "friable" in a medical dictionay..it means :

1. Easily reduced to powder.

2. In bacteriology, denoting a dry and brittle culture falling into powder when touched or shaken

If she was in water for almost 4 months why would the edges of the opening be dry and could be reduced to powder?

But, You should consider this testimony.

Dr. P. did not see any evidence that there had been an incision made in the Uterus, nor did he see any evidence of the Uterus being pulled apart.

He admitted that if the incision was made at the top there was no tissue left for him to make a determination on whether or not an incision was made....I understand that in a normal C-section procedure they make the incision much lower...however, I'm not talking about a normal C-section....my opinion is based on the killers making the opening..not doctors!

Otter

07-09-2007, 02:05 PM

I can't give you a link to my harddrive otter, I'm sorry...I tried that before to prove my TS were from timex and it didn't work.... I'm not comp-smart enough to make a pdf either....

I think you can get them at www.scottisinnocent.com....

ok, yeah..... here is all of coyles testimony

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Ray%20Coyle.htm#direct

the days I read were the 19-20th.... direct and cross..

hth.

Hi EKG! Thanks for link, and you weren't kidding that there was a lot of testimony. Wore me out reading.

Geragos did a good job with Coyle, IMO, and I don't really like saying that. :-) It told me that the MPD also did a good job investigating suspects, some of whom were homeless, the amount isn't clear. Its almost providential that "Edward" had mental problems, an old white van (or his sister did) and that he had killed someone in a park and the only witness was a dog and he lived in this within the one mile radius.

Was Edward's alibi valid? His mother and sister vouched for him and the police were satisfied. And he was on his meds at the time.

Its also showed me that not only were the authorities looking for Laci, keeping an eye on SP, there was another investigation going on. My short take and all MOO.

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 02:05 PM

It is part of the decomposition process....bodily fluids would drain from the body...

Yes, you're right. Draining of body fluids is part of the decomposition process.
Had his body been stored in a plastic bag, his body would have decomposed=putrefaction=bacteria.
Bacteria = Adiopocere

Aseptic Autolysis - sterile environment - No bacteria = No adiopocere = Conner's body in the sterile environment of the Uterus.

But, we know his body never went beyond the first post-morten change - Autolysis
He didn't have the changes associated with decomposition, because his body was in a sterile environment.

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:10 PM

Thats just it, are you sure he didn't stop at a drive thru somewhere? Do you know what they were making? I can't remember but it seems to me Sharon discoverd something in the oven several weeks later. I really don't find it funny though, considering the end result.

since MPD never proved he lied when he said he hadn't eaten all day, I can only assume he didn't...... but I can't tell you for 100% sure no...

and what does it matter if he ate something or not? You think he's lying about eating a piece of pizza? :confused:

what was Sharon making? other than choclate pie/cake I have no clue.... if he didn't like the cooking would it matter if it was Prime Rib or peanut butter? and no, I don't know whether he liked it or not.... I was just answering you on the whole "who eats before going to a dinner in an hour" question...

I don't see why you're trying to argue with me over such a non-issue ..

as for the ":lol: " I was LOL'ing at my in-laws cooking and not the situation.... and I am sorry that I, and the others on here, make light of things by LOL'ing and joking around.... we're not trying to offend you or mock the end result....:o

JustMyOpinion

07-09-2007, 02:25 PM

since MPD never proved he lied when he said he hadn't eaten all day, I can only assume he didn't...... but I can't tell you for 100% sure no...

and what does it matter if he ate something or not? You think he's lying about eating a piece of pizza? :confused:

I think it is telling that he claimed he found the dog with leash attached, came in the house, No Laci. Her car is in the driveway, her purse/keys/belongings there, no note, no smell of baking. ( and claimed he had not spoken with her since he left in the morning, she hadn't answered phone, returned his calls). Yet, he eats, washes the clothes he was wearing, takes a shower, empties water from a bucket. No concern, no worry, no looking for Laci. And yet he finally calls Sharon and tells her Laci is MISSING. Very telling, IMO.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 02:28 PM

The subject of and testimony about Diane Jackson doesn't
end with the testimony you quoted.
There is more.

FLADAGER: All right. Next I'm going to ask you about an interview Mr. Geragos referenced, statements by Diane Jackson. Do you remember that?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it.

JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.

FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.

FLADAGER: On the 24th?

GROGAN: 11:40.

The point is Grogan agreed that according to a police report, when Diane Jackson called the police in Dec to report that she saw 3 dark-skinned men and a van, she also stated that she SAW a SAFE being removed from the house...the testimony you quoted was about an interview done on January 16 2003..that interview was conducted by the police..so IMO, what she said would depend largely on the questions they asked her..so if their focus was on the description of the men and the van.. then that is what she would be talking about..if the police didn't ask her details about the safe, then it's possible she would not bring it up..by the time they conducted that interview they have already found the safe in Todd's possession anyway..so IMO, there was no reason to ask her about the safe..

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 02:32 PM

Yes, you're right. Draining of body fluids is part of the decomposition process.
Had his body been stored in a plastic bag, his body would have decomposed=putrefaction=bacteria.
Bacteria = Adiopocere

Aseptic Autolysis - sterile environment - No bacteria = No adiopocere = Conner's body in the sterile environment of the Uterus.

But, we know his body never went beyond the first post-morten change - Autolysis
He didn't have the changes associated with decomposition, because his body was in a sterile environment.

But he was indeed decomposed..I have already posted the testimonies in that regard when I responded to one of your posts...

ekg

07-09-2007, 02:41 PM

do you have any type of opinion as to whom these three women were?

were people leaving flowers etc at the house at this point?

cyn

friends or acquaintances of Kim M.. maybe? I can't find it, but IIRC one of them yelled 'murderer' or something and threw something at the house..so I don't think they were there as a memorial thing.. But thats just MOO with nothing to back it up....:shrug:

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 03:00 PM

On the parts of her body that he examined looking for fish bite marks..but according to him he didn't find fish bite marks, chew or nibble marks...

See, you have no idea on what part of the body, a forensic pathologist would look for fish bite marks.
Bone - NO - Crustean don't leave fish bite marks and I have posted over and over why they don't.

I think her killers made the opening to remove Conner close to her due date..and IMO they were able to do that..the ME testified that near the top of the uterus was abraded, not the entire uterus ..the edges of the opening were friable and crumbly...I looked up "friable" in a medical dictionay..it means :

1. Easily reduced to powder.

2. In bacteriology, denoting a dry and brittle culture falling into powder when touched or shaken
If she was in water for almost 4 months why would the edges of the opening be dry and could be reduced to powder?

Consider the amount of time between the body washing ashore and when Dr. P. finally received the body to examine. Yes, at the time Dr. P. examined the body the edges had dried out and could be reduced to powder.
The body went from a wet environment to a dry environment during the warm month of April.

Distaso: This is a common sense case. Play it again John. Yes, Mr. Distaso, I couldn't agree with you more.:beer:

He admitted that if the incision was made at the top there was no tissue left for him to make a determination on whether or not an incision was made....I understand that in a normal C-section procedure they make the incision much lower...however, I'm not talking about a normal C-section....my opinion is based on the killers making the opening..not doctors!

Oh Geez AW.
It's not all about the soft tissue.
There was not an incision made in the Uterus.
The fundus was simply abraded and worn away.

One2Snoop

07-09-2007, 03:01 PM

since MPD never proved he lied when he said he hadn't eaten all day, I can only assume he didn't...... but I can't tell you for 100% sure no...

and what does it matter if he ate something or not? You think he's lying about eating a piece of pizza? :confused:

what was Sharon making? other than choclate pie/cake I have no clue.... if he didn't like the cooking would it matter if it was Prime Rib or peanut butter? and no, I don't know whether he liked it or not.... I was just answering you on the whole "who eats before going to a dinner in an hour" question...

I don't see why you're trying to argue with me over such a non-issue ..

as for the ":lol: " I was LOL'ing at my in-laws cooking and not the situation.... and I am sorry that I, and the others on here, make light of things by LOL'ing and joking around.... we're not trying to offend you or mock the end result....:o

Sorry, I didn't realize my questions were argumentive - my bad. :punch: Not to lose site of the point here - it all boils down to Scotts demeanor and what he did prior to calling Sharon and Ron to let them know Laci was missing. To me his actions speak louder than his words. IMO :patriot:

ekg

07-09-2007, 03:13 PM

Amie testified that she had never set foot in the peterson house nor had they ever been in her home. They were "waving" neighbors. How could she KNOW scott was an AVID golfer?

well she paid enough attention to say

265. No, we had not seen Laci, and we hadn't seen any movement from the house at all; just her truck was there. The only movement I had seen was the Christmas lights come on; you know, that was like evening time, so...

and Terra paid enough attention to say

90. Okay. Did you see the blinds that are in the front that you can see in the picture, can you see those blinds that you can see from the window -- your porch?

91. Yes.

92. Do you remember if those were open or closed?

93. Those were closed.

94. And they were closed all day?

95. Yes.

so if they paid that much attention, enough attention to comment to each other that maybe Laci was alone on Christmas, when you'd think that with the blinds being closed all day and no movement and Scotts car missing, that maybe they were out of town instead of Laci being all alone.....and that tells me they noticed Scott gone and Laci home alone alot.

so I can assume they may have notice Scott carrying golf clubs to his car whenever he went golfing...

I know my neighbors extremely well... and I can't tell you if they even have blinds on their windows..

it's like that puzzle IMO...... each piece fits to make the reasonable picture that they could have known he played golf....

they noticed the house enough to notice no movement
they noticed the house enough to recognize the blinds being up or down
they noticed the package in the mailbox
they noticed that the house seemed quiet
they assumed that b/c Scott wasn't there that Laci was home alone, when a person who doesn't know much about their neighbor would think that maybe they were on vacation, like they had been a cpl wks earlier in Carmel, or with her being pregnant maybe they were at the hospital giving birth. instead, they assume Laci is alone..maybe b/c they noticed enough to notice that Laci was alone alot...

so it's likely they noticed enough to notice Scott carrying golf clubs...:shrug:

ekg

07-09-2007, 03:16 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize my questions were argumentive - my bad. :punch: Not to lose site of the point here - it all boils down to Scotts demeanor and what he did prior to calling Sharon and Ron to let them know Laci was missing. To me his actions speak louder than his words. IMO :patriot:

well I felt like I was being interrogated on whether Scott ate or not, what he could have eaten and why did he eat... when I only offered a reason as to why it's a reasonable action on his part...sorry I felt that way...:o

ekg

07-09-2007, 03:24 PM

ekg

07-09-2007, 03:27 PM

AW, let me get this straight. On what part of the body do you think Dr. Peterson should have found evidence of fish bite marks?

When who made the opening AW? How did whoever abrade an opening? Will you please explain how someone goes about abrading an opening. :confused:
Although the Uterus is a muscle, it can't be stretched by hand like a rubber band and spring back into its original shape.
It would have ripped apart and I kinda think this is something Dr. P. would have seen and remarked on. Don't cha think?

But, You should consider this testimony.

Dr. P. did not see any evidence that there had been an incision made in the Uterus, nor did he see any evidence of the Uterus being pulled apart.

but if there had been an incision... after being in the water for X amount of months... wouldn't that incision and any subsequent tears become 'abraded'?

ekg

07-09-2007, 03:35 PM

Hi EKG! Thanks for link, and you weren't kidding that there was a lot of testimony. Wore me out reading.

Geragos did a good job with Coyle, IMO, and I don't really like saying that. :-) It told me that the MPD also did a good job investigating suspects, some of whom were homeless, the amount isn't clear. Its almost providential that "Edward" had mental problems, an old white van (or his sister did) and that he had killed someone in a park and the only witness was a dog and he lived in this within the one mile radius.

Was Edward's alibi valid? His mother and sister vouched for him and the police were satisfied. And he was on his meds at the time.

Its also showed me that not only were the authorities looking for Laci, keeping an eye on SP, there was another investigation going on. My short take and all MOO.

see the parts where they had to go back and change the reports that said "he had no scratches or bruises on him" b/c it was a telephone interview report, the not being able to confirm where some sex offenders were, taking most of those asked at their word on where they were, or not caring if all if they didn't even bother with an alibi.......and not checking further into the mental guy who said he killed her and only the dog was a witness, stuff like that doesn't built my confidence that they investigated anyone...sure they asked, but in some cases didn't they ask months and months later? like right before/during the trial? (<--that could be wrong)

and I agree MG was pretty good with his cross of Coyle...

oh and it was a LONG read wasn't it.........LOL

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 03:37 PM

but if there had been an incision... after being in the water for X amount of months... wouldn't that incision and any subsequent tears become 'abraded'? Only if the incision were made at the top of the uterus. Does a scraped knee that gets wet look anything like a cut? There would also be some evidence of deep tissue bleeding and there was none

To remove an infant from the fundus involves getting up under the ribs to extract the infant and I really don't see how ANYONE could do that without some damange to the child. Remember, if you are thinking the baby was removed, it would have had to have been when all Laci's organs were there - not after they were gone. If the baby was removed AFTER the other organs were gone, he would have been dead. He could not have survived long after his mother (and source of life) had died.

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 03:40 PM

Thanks for the re-fresh on the info DD...:)
color me embarrassed. I always thought you had to do it and that is why they attach it to your pink slip.

ekg

07-09-2007, 03:43 PM

I think it is telling that he claimed he found the dog with leash attached, came in the house, No Laci. Her car is in the driveway, her purse/keys/belongings there, no note, no smell of baking. ( and claimed he had not spoken with her since he left in the morning, she hadn't answered phone, returned his calls). Yet, he eats, washes the clothes he was wearing, takes a shower, empties water from a bucket. No concern, no worry, no looking for Laci. And yet he finally calls Sharon and tells her Laci is MISSING. Very telling, IMO.

and I think that had he just come from dumping her in the bay he would have alerted ppl as soon as he got home instead of waiting.

the eating, putting clothes in the washer, taking a shower, dumping the bucket..... all of those things indicate a conscientiousness of innocence to me

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 04:07 PM

well she paid enough attention to say

and Terra paid enough attention to say

so if they paid that much attention, enough attention to comment to each other that maybe Laci was alone on Christmas, when you'd think that with the blinds being closed all day and no movement and Scotts car missing, that maybe they were out of town instead of Laci being all alone.....and that tells me they noticed Scott gone and Laci home alone alot.

so I can assume they may have notice Scott carrying golf clubs to his car whenever he went golfing...

I know my neighbors extremely well... and I can't tell you if they even have blinds on their windows..

it's like that puzzle IMO...... each piece fits to make the reasonable picture that they could have known he played golf....

they noticed the house enough to notice no movement
they noticed the house enough to recognize the blinds being up or down
they noticed the package in the mailbox
they noticed that the house seemed quiet
they assumed that b/c Scott wasn't there that Laci was home alone, when a person who doesn't know much about their neighbor would think that maybe they were on vacation, like they had been a cpl wks earlier in Carmel, or with her being pregnant maybe they were at the hospital giving birth. instead, they assume Laci is alone..maybe b/c they noticed enough to notice that Laci was alone alot...

so it's likely they noticed enough to notice Scott carrying golf clubs...:shrug: Or NOT. It's easy to notice if the blinds are open or closed every time you walk out the door. I know if my neighbors blinds across the street are open or closed and I couldn't tell you what THEY looked like. Their cars are parked on the street and much more visible than Scott's truck in the driveway would be. Do you KNOW that Scott did not keep his clubs at Del Rio. There was no mention of golf clubs in the search of the house that I can recall.

IF Scott's truck were backed into the driveway and he exited the house behind the gate, I seriously doubt that they would see anything being carried out. Carrying out clubs is a very short term event. Noticing blinds open or closed all day is something that is seen everytime they left the house and I do believe they left the house several times that day. Nothing would be odd about Scott's truck not being there. He allegedly worked and he was gone during working hours on the 24th which is NOT a holiday for everyone

One2Snoop

07-09-2007, 04:13 PM

and I think that had he just come from dumping her in the bay he would have alerted ppl as soon as he got home instead of waiting.
the eating, putting clothes in the washer, taking a shower, dumping the bucket..... all of those things indicate a conscientiousness of innocence to me

Why do you think he would've alerted people right away after just dumping her body? :shrug: I would think the opposite - stall to gather his composure and distance himself from what he had done that day. And as far as his actions when he returned home they all indicate COG to me, LOL JMO.

ekg

07-09-2007, 04:22 PM

Or NOT. It's easy to notice if the blinds are open or closed every time you walk out the door. I know if my neighbors blinds across the street are open or closed and I couldn't tell you what THEY looked like. Their cars are parked on the street and much more visible than Scott's truck in the driveway would be. Do you KNOW that Scott did not keep his clubs at Del Rio. There was no mention of golf clubs in the search of the house that I can recall.

IF Scott's truck were backed into the driveway and he exited the house behind the gate, I seriously doubt that they would see anything being carried out. Carrying out clubs is a very short term event. Noticing blinds open or closed all day is something that is seen everytime they left the house and I do believe they left the house several times that day. Nothing would be odd about Scott's truck not being there. He allegedly worked and he was gone during working hours on the 24th which is NOT a holiday for everyone

no I don't know where he kept his clubs...... but I know that he didn't always have that membership.... so you'd think he had to bring them out to the truck when he went pre-membership...

My front door faces my neighbor... and I don't know if they have blinds or not... but he's over here every night hanging out with hubby....

explain why they would automatically assume Laci was home alone? if on christmas eve, your pregnant neighbors house seemed deserted, the truck missing would your only thought be she was home alone? Mine would be she was out with him somewhere........ unless I had noticed the house looking deserted, his truck being gone and her being home alot...thats the only way to jump to that conclusion 1st....anyone else would think vacation,christmas shopping, or having the baby...

I think there is enough there to come to the assumption that they noticed alot of things, so it's reasonable that could have notice by some way that Scott was a golfer..

Otter

07-09-2007, 04:25 PM

see the parts where they had to go back and change the reports that said "he had no scratches or bruises on him" b/c it was a telephone interview report, the not being able to confirm where some sex offenders were, taking most of those asked at their word on where they were, or not caring if all if they didn't even bother with an alibi.......and not checking further into the mental guy who said he killed her and only the dog was a witness, stuff like that doesn't built my confidence that they investigated anyone...sure they asked, but in some cases didn't they ask months and months later? like right before/during the trial? (<--that could be wrong)

and I agree MG was pretty good with his cross of Coyle...

oh and it was a LONG read wasn't it.........LOL

I hear what you're saying. Some of these guys they didn't find until months later, so of course there was no scratches or bruises, but they did find them! They kept looking and found almost all of them. Some were dead, some were locked up others had moved out of state, and the homeless ones they couldn't find is just part of life.

They did spend time with Edward and apparently he was able to be ruled out. One thing about the cross -- MG was using what seemed to be a summary of the 300+ names and Coyle was attempting to answer using his binders of information on each one. I believe that limited Coyle in his answers.

Lol, the length is what prevented me from responding to you earlier. Thanks again for the link! :seeya:

Oh EKG, want to make a short comment on a previous post:

so I can assume they may have notice Scott carrying golf clubs to his car whenever he went golfing...

SP was a member of a private club. I grew up in private golf clubs, and they have places to store your equipment, usually the pro shop. Its one of the perks. Unless he needed to travel with his clubs, I'm sure he kept his clubs there. So IMO, its very unlikely that the neighbors saw him carrying his golf bag.

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 04:36 PM

well she paid enough attention to say

and Terra paid enough attention to say

so if they paid that much attention, enough attention to comment to each other that maybe Laci was alone on Christmas, when you'd think that with the blinds being closed all day and no movement and Scotts car missing, that maybe they were out of town instead of Laci being all alone.....and that tells me they noticed Scott gone and Laci home alone alot.

so I can assume they may have notice Scott carrying golf clubs to his car whenever he went golfing...

I know my neighbors extremely well... and I can't tell you if they even have blinds on their windows..

it's like that puzzle IMO...... each piece fits to make the reasonable picture that they could have known he played golf....

they noticed the house enough to notice no movement
they noticed the house enough to recognize the blinds being up or down
they noticed the package in the mailbox
they noticed that the house seemed quiet
they assumed that b/c Scott wasn't there that Laci was home alone, when a person who doesn't know much about their neighbor would think that maybe they were on vacation, like they had been a cpl wks earlier in Carmel, or with her being pregnant maybe they were at the hospital giving birth. instead, they assume Laci is alone..maybe b/c they noticed enough to notice that Laci was alone alot...

so it's likely they noticed enough to notice Scott carrying golf clubs...:shrug:

EKG, they never, ever saw DRISP withgc. Amie Krigbaum testified in the pre-lim that she didn't know that DRISP golfed. There is no assumption and thus it is known that Amie heard "golfing." Read the pre-lim. At trial, during cross of Amie Krigbaum, MG never brought up the "golfing."

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 04:38 PM

See, you have no idea on what part of the body, a forensic pathologist would look for fish bite marks.
Bone - NO - Crustean don't leave fish bite marks and I have posted over and over why they don't.

The point is that the ME was expecting to find fish bite marks otherwise why would he try to find them and why did he make a note of it that there was none..? and he also stated that there were no nibble or chew marks..
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that..

24 A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in
25 the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near
26 the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort
27 of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks.
28 Again, though, there were no specific chew marks on her

1471
1 body. As I examined the joints that were available for
2 examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there
3 were no bite marks either.
4 So could these disarticulations that I saw have been
5 caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on
6 that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any
7 particular positive evidence to say that they were, though

Consider the amount of time between the body washing ashore and when Dr. P. finally received the body to examine. Yes, at the time Dr. P. examined the body the edges had dried out and could be reduced to powder.
The body went from a wet environment to a dry environment during the warm month of April.

The autopsy was done few hours after the body was found..her body was found partially submerged in the water...so IMO, had she been in the bay for about 4 months, the edges of the uterus would NOT have been friable and crumbly.. in addition, it is not warm in Richmond..on April 14th 2003 the temperature ranged from 46 F to 60 F.. the humidity ranged from 55%to 93% and it was an overcast day, in fact, there was some light rain in the morning for about an hour ...so IMO, there was no time for the edges of the uterus to have dried out to the point of being friable and crumbly which could be reduced to powder! on the other hand, if she was placed there after the edges of her uterus had already been dried out, friable and crumbly.. that would explain why the ME found them that way...

David Harris: Now, is the, as the officers were, when you were first there, was the body actually awash in the water?
Alena Gonzalez: She was about halfway submerged in the water. Awash and came up, I don't understand your question.
David Harris: Try go through it a little bit different. Was the body actually touching the water?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: Was the water coming up over the body, or was the body just floating when you first observed it?
Alena Gonzalez: We think that she was kind of,
Judge Delucchi: No, just,
Mark Geragos: Objection.
David Harris: What you saw. What did you see?
Alena Gonzalez: I saw that she was already there in the water, and the water was splashing up on her like some,
David Harris: This particular photograph there, People's Number 104, was that after the police had come out, and so you saw the body, you went made the call, fire department comes out, police department comes out, somebody takes this picture?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: Is the water starting to recede, or the tide's going out by the time this photograph is taken?
Alena Gonzalez: Considerably.
David Harris: Now the, did you stay there until the police came and took a statement from you?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: In fact, there was a taped statement by one of the officers that day?

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 04:51 PM

Judge Delucchi ruled that the tip from Diane Jackson was offered for the TRUTH..Geragos read part of a police report regarding Diane Jackson telling the police that she saw a van and a safe being removed from the Medina's house..Grogan agreed that is what the police report said.. she saw 3 dark-skinned men..we know that Todd and Pearce are white..however, the safe was found in Todd's possession...so IMO the 3 dark-skinned men were Todd's accomplices..

Judge Delucchi: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have to sort of, in order to put all this evidence we've been receiving the last couple days back into context. A lot of this information that the, Detective Grogan got on the tip line is not being offered for the truth, okay? It's being offered to explain the reasonableness of Detective Grogan's conduct; what did he do as a result of this information that he received, okay? With respect to the testimony, and it's going to come in now as it relates to Ms. Jackson, that is being offered for the truth, okay? A little different from the other, other stuff. You can give this evidence whatever weight you think it's entitled to. That's for you to decide. Whatever you want, but it's being offered for the truth; all right? That's the distinction between this tip line stuff, this is also tip line stuff, but this is a little different, okay? All right. Hope that explains it. Go ahead.
Mark Geragos: Crystal clear.
Judge Delucchi: Right
Cross Examination, resumed
Mark Geragos: Detective, specifically, once again, this is a sheet like what we had up before on Harshman's, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: On 12:24 at 11:40 a.m.?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And she said she saw the van and the safe being removed from the house, correct?
Craig Grogan: That's what it says.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then apparently they called Sergeant Zahr. Who is Sergeant Zahr?
Craig Grogan: Sergeant Zahr was my supervisor in this investigation.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then Sebron Banks?
Craig Grogan: Is a detective assigned to burglary.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And to call Diane Jackson to tell them that they would contact her on Monday, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

Does he enter it into evidence? NO. It's a sheet LIKE - could be a typed piece of paper. Nowehre is it identified as a police report.
Grogan only admits that that is what IT says.

Let me refresh your memory with this:
FLADAGER: And I'm going to refer you to a defense report. Do you have a copy of it? There is not a Bates number on it. JUDGE: Remind the jury, this is the testimony that was off reports. A little different from the other.

GROGAN: All right, I have that report.

FLADAGER: What is the date of that interview?

GROGAN: I believe it's January 16th. Yes.

FLADAGER: The reports, in the course of that interview, is there any indication at all by Miss Jackson that she said she saw a safe?

GROGAN: No.

FLADAGER: Is there any indication at all in that interview that Ms. Jackson claimed to have witnessed a burglary?

GROGAN: No. It indicates that she made observations. And then she heard about the burglary and thought that the two individuals or these other vehicles and the burglary may be related.
FLADAGER: Is that because she saw a van?

GROGAN: Yes, it appears so.

FLADAGER: And that she saw three short, dark-skinned males by the van?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: In the video that we saw of the traffic on Covena and on La Loma and Encina, do you recall seeing a number of different vans driving around in the traffic?

GROGAN: Yes, I think there is a few of them.

FLADAGER: I'm going to take you back real quick to that report with Ms. Reed, excuse me, Miss Jackson. What was the time of her reported sighting of these individuals by a van on Covena?

GROGAN: It's around 11:40 a.m., based on this report.

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 04:56 PM

Seems Richard Cole left this out of his article:

20) Birgit Fladager: Do you have handy in front of you a report where you talk to Doctor Boyd Stephens? And I would refer you to page 15449.
21) Craig Grogan: Okay.
22) Birgit Fladager: Okay. All right. You were asked, you indicated that you asked Doctor Stephens about what you might expect if the body is placed in the San Francisco Bay, correct?
23) Craig Grogan: Yes, ma'am.
24) Birgit Fladager: And you gave him different ideas of conditions that the body might be in when initially placed in the bay, correct?
25) Craig Grogan: Yes.
26) Birgit Fladager: One of those hypotheticals was an unwrapped body, correct?
27) Craig Grogan: Correct.
28) Birgit Fladager: And what did he tell you about that?
29) Craig Grogan: He told me that an unwrapped body after a three-month period would likely be skeletal remains, and that those would be disarticulated. And he also told me that, however, if the body was clothed or wrapped, animal activity wouldn't take place where the clothing or wrappings were, and that those areas wouldn't be as rapidly to decompose.

Sounds JUST like what happened to Laci, doesn't it? Odd that Cole, a JOURNALIST (cough, cough) would ignore ALL the facts and only publish the defense spin on things, isn't it?

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 05:03 PM

The point is that the ME was expecting to find fish bite marks otherwise why would he try to find them and why did he make a note of it that there was none..? and he also stated that there were no nibble or chew marks..
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that..

24 A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in
25 the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near
26 the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort
27 of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks.
28 Again, though, there were no specific chew marks on her

1471
1 body. As I examined the joints that were available for
2 examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there
3 were no bite marks either.
4 So could these disarticulations that I saw have been
5 caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on
6 that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any
7 particular positive evidence to say that they were, though

The autopsy was done few hours after the body was found..her body was found partially submerged in the water...so IMO, had she been in the bay for about 4 months, the edges of the uterus would NOT have been friable and crumbly.. in addition, it is not warm in Richmond..on April 14th 2003 the temperature ranged from 46 F to 60 F.. the humidity ranged from 55%to 93% and it was an overcast day, in fact, there was some light rain in the morning for about an hour ...so IMO, there was no time for the edges of the uterus to have dried out to the point of being friable and crumbly which could be reduced to powder! on the other hand, if she was placed there after the edges of her uterus had already been dried out, friable and crumbly.. that would explain why the ME found them that way...

David Harris: Now, is the, as the officers were, when you were first there, was the body actually awash in the water?
Alena Gonzalez: She was about halfway submerged in the water. Awash and came up, I don't understand your question.
David Harris: Try go through it a little bit different. Was the body actually touching the water?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: Was the water coming up over the body, or was the body just floating when you first observed it?
Alena Gonzalez: We think that she was kind of,
Judge Delucchi: No, just,
Mark Geragos: Objection.
David Harris: What you saw. What did you see?
Alena Gonzalez: I saw that she was already there in the water, and the water was splashing up on her like some,
David Harris: This particular photograph there, People's Number 104, was that after the police had come out, and so you saw the body, you went made the call, fire department comes out, police department comes out, somebody takes this picture?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: Is the water starting to recede, or the tide's going out by the time this photograph is taken?
Alena Gonzalez: Considerably.
David Harris: Now the, did you stay there until the police came and took a statement from you?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: In fact, there was a taped statement by one of the officers that day?

Marine animal feeding is on the soft tissue beginning with the head and then the arms, legs, and UNCOVERED areas. None of those were available - all the flesh was either gone, protected by clothing or turned to adipocere. The fact that there was no soft tissue left would either mean it had floated away or been devoured.

I believe the ME did say he saw evidence of all of the above, including animal feeding. I will try to find that testimony as I have already posted it
57) Brian Peterson: Sure. Due to the state of decomposition, there were a lot of postmortem changes in this case. There were a lot of parts missing that I would normally examine. The head, the neck, the forearms, the left lower leg were all absent. Much of the soft tissue was absent. Much of the internal organs gangs were absent. So in terms of the standard autopsy sequence, it was abbreviated in many ways, because there was actually so little there.
58) David Harris: Let me interrupt you there for a, you used a term postmortem changes. Go through this with you. If there is a change like that, going to try to jump and have you explain that what postmortem changes relate to.
59) Brian Peterson: Sure. There are a number. We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you. So there are a number of different things going on. And in this case there was a full range of that type of postmortem change, making the examination more difficult.

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 05:07 PM

ekg

07-09-2007, 05:08 PM

I hear what you're saying. Some of these guys they didn't find until months later, so of course there was no scratches or bruises, but they did find them! They kept looking and found almost all of them. Some were dead, some were locked up others had moved out of state, and the homeless ones they couldn't find is just part of life.

They did spend time with Edward and apparently he was able to be ruled out. One thing about the cross -- MG was using what seemed to be a summary of the 300+ names and Coyle was attempting to answer using his binders of information on each one. I believe that limited Coyle in his answers.

Lol, the length is what prevented me from responding to you earlier. Thanks again for the link! :seeya:

Oh EKG, want to make a short comment on a previous post:

SP was a member of a private club. I grew up in private golf clubs, and they have places to store your equipment, usually the pro shop. Its one of the perks. Unless he needed to travel with his clubs, I'm sure he kept his clubs there. So IMO, its very unlikely that the neighbors saw him carrying his golf bag.

but there is testimony that they found some at the warehouse and in his truck...... so I can reasonably assume that they could have also been at the house and the neighbors, who noticed lots of things, could have noticed him with them...

you're welcome on the link....... since I can't link my harddrive I usually try to post the relevant testimony and a little extra......but there was no way I could post 2 days of Coyle.....LOL

ekg

07-09-2007, 05:11 PM

Why do you think he would've alerted people right away after just dumping her body? :shrug: I would think the opposite - stall to gather his composure and distance himself from what he had done that day. And as far as his actions when he returned home they all indicate COG to me, LOL JMO.

b/c I think he would have plenty of 'calm-down' time on the 90 mile drive home..and the time at the warehouse dropping the boat off... I would think he'd be anxious to make it look like he was worried to death about her being 'missing' and farting off at the house doesn't do that IMO..:shrug:

ekg

07-09-2007, 05:12 PM

EKG, they never, ever saw DRISP withgc. Amie Krigbaum testified in the pre-lim that she didn't know that DRISP golfed. There is no assumption and thus it is known that Amie heard "golfing." Read the pre-lim. At trial, during cross of Amie Krigbaum, MG never brought up the "golfing."

I don't have pre-lim TS..... can you post where she says that she never saw him with golf clubs before...

ok strike that......

I found some

Q. Had you ever seen Scott go golfing?

A. No. I never noticed him with any clubs.

Q. Okay. But did you know from just your passing acquaintance with your neighbors that he did golf?

A. No, I did not know.

but she goes on

A. Well, I had asked him -- I don't know how I asked him, but I'd asked him, and he said golfing, so -- because I remember conversating (sic) with my wife, well, I would never go golfing without her. And, plus, we didn't know he was a golfer. So -- because my wife had taken lessons, so --

Q. Did you ask him if that had been his plan that day --

A. No.

Q. -- or do you remember the exact question and then the exact answer that he gave you?

A. No. I just remember him saying he -- he was golfing and he tried to call her all day, so --

Q. And was he pretty upset when he was saying this?

A. He -- he acted upset, yes.

Q. And you were getting pretty -- I mean, this is, even at that point, pretty startling to you, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you asking him about plans being formed, or who had he called, or were neighbors going to be looking? Was there any conversation like that at that point?

hmmmmmm ok, so I will have to re-think why she could have heard 'golfin'.. I can understand it..... but I can't figure out a way to describe it....LOL

thanks for the info WAH

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 05:21 PM

but if there had been an incision... after being in the water for X amount of months... wouldn't that incision and any subsequent tears become 'abraded'?

First, Dr. Peterson explains how the fundus became exposed.

Distaso:What is it that has to occur for this uterus to become exposed and end up being abraded like this, as you were describing?
PETERSON: Well, the uterus originates in the true pelvis. That's where the attachments are down below. For the uterus to be exposed, for a pregnant uterus, as in this case, to be exposed, you have to have portions of the abdominal wall missing. Namely skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat and muscle. And once those things are all gone, and one last layer of membrane called the peritoneum, at that point you expose the inside of the abdomen, and the top of the uterus would be visible there.

I believe you are thinking in terms of the abraded area being normal decomposition.
We don't know that. It's very possible the top of the Uterus continuously rubbed against an object until it wore away. In this case, I think it would be a stretch to say the rubbing was so complete, there were no signs left of an incision.
PETERSON: Well, the fact is that her uterus was there at all, which was different compared to every other organ that she had had. So I think based on its location lower in the pelvis and however she acted against things at the bottom, and so forth, it took a while to wear away that part of her abdominal wall to get to the point where the uterus was exposed. It took further time to wear away the top of the uterus, which ultimately caused Conner's release.

Can you explain why, if there was an incision, the Uterus was not in a more advanced stage of decomposition?
PETERSON: I made the comment that areas that are injured can decompose faster.

I've always thought it possible that the Uterus was pushed up against the frayed rib and over time the continuous friction caused the top of the fundus to wear away.GERAGOS: And if you make that incision, and it's up high, it's going to be roughly in the area where, that 9th rib is frayed, is it not?

PETERSON: Well, again is that where a Cesarean section would, happen? No, never. But, hypothetically, could you make an, incision in somebody at that level? Sure you could. Of, course, it wasn't a cut mark in the rib. It was frayed.

GERAGOS: Was frayed. And the uterus was long enough that it, looked like the uterus was up around that 9th rib, wasn't it?

PETERSON: Correct.

I think it would be difficult for a skilled professional to remove a fetus from the top of the uterus, much less a person who has no skills at all.
That said, I would think the unskilled person doing the incision would have left a big mess behind, which would have been very recognizable to Dr. P. imo

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 05:36 PM

Does he enter it into evidence? NO. It's a sheet LIKE - could be a typed piece of paper. Nowehre is it identified as a police report.
Grogan only admits that that is what IT says.

Snip

A piece of paper???

Geragos was referring to a police report BATES stamped 14765..that's what the prosecution turned over to the defense during discovery..it's in the TS..
You are ignoring what she said when she called the police in December as documented in police reports..she stated that she saw a van and a safe being removed from the house.....you are quoting the testimony about the interview the police conducted with Diane Jackson on January 16 2003..that was way after the safe had already been found..so IMO, what she said in that interview was in response to questions the police addressed to her..if they didn't ask her about the safe ..there would be no info about the safe in that report..
In addition, when she called the police in DECEMBER to report the incident.. the police labeled her report as "penal code 459" which is a CA code for burglary..the call sheet said that she witnessed a burglary...IMO, she reported what she saw, based on her description of the event, the police probably realized that she was reporting a burglary...

Mark Geragos: Okay. And specifically it's a sheet that was phoned in at, looks like 4:10, looks like from Sergeant Ed Steele; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And who is he?
Craig Grogan: He's a sergeant with the Modesto Police Department. He was assigned to go –
Judge Delucchi: Detective Grogan, you're talking away from the microphone. I'm not sure they can hear you.
Craig Grogan: Assigned to go to the volunteer center after it was opened at the hotel.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he talked to Diane Jackson, who, the woman that we had pointed out, lived on this Edgebrook Street in that La Loma neighborhood; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: I'm not sure if he talked to her directly when, when she called in, or if he received that information and then just passed it on.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he said that, what was on the call sheet was that she witnessed a burglary on Covena, correct? 459 is a Penal Code Section for burglary?
Craig Grogan: Yes.

Otter

07-09-2007, 05:39 PM

but there is testimony that they found some at the warehouse and in his truck...... so I can reasonably assume that they could have also been at the house and the neighbors, who noticed lots of things, could have noticed him with them...

you're welcome on the link....... since I can't link my harddrive I usually try to post the relevant testimony and a little extra......but there was no way I could post 2 days of Coyle.....LOL

If you C&P'ed two days of Coyle, we'd all have to yell at you. Can't imagine how many pages that would've taken up! :tongue:

They found some what? If you mean golf clubs and not a whole set in a bag, that wouldn't surprise me. People very into golf are always buying new putters, wedges or drivers. They have to take out the old clubs to include the new ones in the bag because you're only allowed so many. People keep discarded clubs in the oddest places, because you never real discard them.

If you didn't mean clubs, I apologize.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 05:44 PM

Marine animal feeding is on the soft tissue beginning with the head and then the arms, legs, and UNCOVERED areas. None of those were available - all the flesh was either gone, protected by clothing or turned to adipocere. The fact that there was no soft tissue left would either mean it had floated away or been devoured.

I believe the ME did say he saw evidence of all of the above, including animal feeding. I will try to find that testimony as I have already posted it
57) Brian Peterson: Sure. Due to the state of decomposition, there were a lot of postmortem changes in this case. There were a lot of parts missing that I would normally examine. The head, the neck, the forearms, the left lower leg were all absent. Much of the soft tissue was absent. Much of the internal organs gangs were absent. So in terms of the standard autopsy sequence, it was abbreviated in many ways, because there was actually so little there.
58) David Harris: Let me interrupt you there for a, you used a term postmortem changes. Go through this with you. If there is a change like that, going to try to jump and have you explain that what postmortem changes relate to.
59) Brian Peterson: Sure. There are a number. We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you. So there are a number of different things going on. And in this case there was a full range of that type of postmortem change, making the examination more difficult.

This is what the ME testified to at the prelim:

24 A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in
25 the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near
26 the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort
27 of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks.
28 Again, though, there were no specific chew marks on her

1471
1 body. As I examined the joints that were available for
2 examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there
3 were no bite marks either.
4 So could these disarticulations that I saw have been
5 caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on
6 that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any
7 particular positive evidence to say that they were, though

ekg

07-09-2007, 05:46 PM

I'm not going to say she lied....b/c I don't believe that at all.....but I still think she heard wrong..

I still think she noticed ALOT of stuff...and I find that odd...

A. I always saw Laci coming in the side gate bringing groceries and with the dog or there mowing the lawn, so --

MR. MCALLISTER: I'll object to that. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DISTASO:

Q. The -- I'm really only specifically asking you about the blinds. If you're familiar with them, fine. If you're not, tell me.

A. Yeah.

Q. But are you familiar with kind of what the practice was of these people across the street from you --

A. Uh-huh.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I would see the blinds open. I don't know that they did it every day, but I would see the blinds open pretty much on a regular basis. We'd open our blinds, we'd look across the street, and they'd have their blinds open, they would only be open, like, so much (indicates). They wouldn't be open all the way.

MR. DISTASO:

Q. Let me stop you. When you say "open so much," you kind of made a hand thing. Can you give me some estimate for the record how big?

A. Yes. I'd see them open like this much (indicates).

Q. All right. So what's that? 18 inches? 12 inches?

A. Yeah, 12 inches (indicates).

Q. Okay. And if you could, just take that red marker and put on -- put on that diagram -- just draw in there where the blinds -- the blinds we're talking about, the ones that you can see from your house, where they would be. And just write -- just draw a little line right there, write "blinds." (Whereupon, the Reporter changed stenographic diskettes.)

she also says 2 totally different things here

A. I answered the door, and he asked if I had seen Laci, and I told him no. I thought that they were out of town, because the shades had not been up all day. I had seen no movement. I don't know. That's pretty much what I told him.

and here

A. Like I said, I -- I hadn't seen any movement at all in the neighborhood. I told him that the blinds hadn't been up. And I told him that I saw the Christmas lights come on at like 4:30-ish, right before I had to go back to the store. So, actually, I probably got home at like 4:15, so -- I had to go back to the store because I had forgotten something, so I saw the lights come on right before I went to the store, and --

Q. Okay.

A. -- only her car was there, so --

Q. Okay.

A. I didn't know if she was going to be alone -- we had talked about it, my wife and I, "Well, is she gonna be home alone for Christmas?" I'd noticed the lights came on. So that's what I told him. The lights came on, so I didn't know if she was there or not.

I don't think she lied at all..... but I do think she misheard and then stuck to that mistake.....

Q. Did he seem -- did he seem pretty upset?

A. Yeah. When he came to the front door, he seemed distraught, yes.

Q. How did you -- and you've seen him before, right?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. How would you -- how did you know he was distraught?

A. I don't know. You can just tell someone's distraught, when they have adrenaline going through them and they're scared or, you know, anxious, you can tell, and you kind of feed off that, so that's how --

Q. And you never -- you hadn't seen him in that state before?

A. No.

Scott was very upset... visibly upset..he was scared,anxious and she 'fed' off that and got upset herself....

I was gone all day and tried calling Laci...

I was golfin all day and I tried calling Laci..

he wasn't golfing all day..he was at the warehouse, on the comp,putting together that saw, driving for a cpl hrs, and in the bay...... I can't imagine he'd forget all that and mistakingly say 'golfin'

but he was 'gone' all day..

everyone else heard him say "I was gone all day.."

and they do sound alike.... so it's still moo she just misunderstood him in a time of great stress for the both of them..:shrug:

ekg

07-09-2007, 05:55 PM

First, Dr. Peterson explains how the fundus became exposed.

I believe you are thinking in terms of the abraded area being normal decomposition.
We don't know that. It's very possible the top of the Uterus continuously rubbed against an object until it wore away. In this case, I think it would be a stretch to say the rubbing was so complete, there were no signs left of an incision.

Can you explain why, if there was an incision, the Uterus was not in a more advanced stage of decomposition?

I've always thought it possible that the Uterus was pushed up against the frayed rib and over time the continuous friction caused the top of the fundus to wear away.

I think it would be difficult for a skilled professional to remove a fetus from the top of the uterus, much less a person who has no skills at all.
That said, I would think the unskilled person doing the incision would have left a big mess behind, which would have been very recognizable to Dr. P. imo

1st..... no I don't have the background to explain it.... I rely on you guys for that... LOL

and if there wasn't much left her to look at he really couldn't make an assumption that there wasn't a huge mess, right?

I don't know what the uterus looks like when other women have had their babies stolen(which we know happens) so I don't know if it can be compared to Laci or not..

and there is a person in this case with a prenatal/pediatric medical knowledge... a person who was said to be obsessed with Scott.. a person who did crazy things like break into the house, try on clothes, steal underwear.... and person who was at the scene that 1st night and interjected herself into the crime, like it's said killers will sometimes do....Kim McGregor is overlooked alot... and IIRC the dog that was pulled off the scent was going in the direction of KM house...

IMO there's enough to warrant a heavy duty look-see into her.... :shrug:

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 06:01 PM

b/c I think he would have plenty of 'calm-down' time on the 90 mile drive home..and the time at the warehouse dropping the boat off... I would think he'd be anxious to make it look like he was worried to death about her being 'missing' and farting off at the house doesn't do that IMO..:shrug:

It didn't work out too well for him did. He didn't even call the police and Sharon had to tell him what to do. Sharon was frantic and Scott didn't bother to reassure her or anything.

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 06:07 PM

But he was indeed decomposed..I have already posted the testimonies in that regard when I responded to one of your posts...

You can't make this testimony go away AW.
I don't think Dr. P. could have made it any more clear than this. You can't change the testimony in order to make your theory fit.
PETERSON:There's that difference between *decomposition and autolysis*. There's a difference between *decomposition and maceration*.
So the changes that I saw involving Conner were more along the lines of ***autolysis and maceration.***

Conner's body was not decomposed.

PETERSON: Okay. Once you are past the early postmortem period, there is a number of chemical changes that can happen. The first is called Autolysis, A-u-t-o-l-y-s-i-s. The implication there is that the body normally contains chemicals that can be quite destructive, but they are controlled in life. These would include the acid in the stomach, the enzymes in the pancreas. And, after death, those organs could actually start digesting themselves. That's autolysis. The next step is decomposition. That typically involves microorganisms, like bacteria.

ekg

07-09-2007, 06:07 PM

If you C&P'ed two days of Coyle, we'd all have to yell at you. Can't imagine how many pages that would've taken up! :tongue:

They found some what? If you mean golf clubs and not a whole set in a bag, that wouldn't surprise me. People very into golf are always buying new putters, wedges or drivers. They have to take out the old clubs to include the new ones in the bag because you're only allowed so many. People keep discarded clubs in the oddest places, because you never real discard them.

If you didn't mean clubs, I apologize.

no no... they found atleast one set in the truck..... and then a set and clubs in the warehouse...

Detective Hendee

198 pages $228.00

JULY 13, 2004

HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE

8. Can you describe for the jury what those items are that are in the office?

9. Sure. This is a couch. This is the desk. The chair. Right in here somewhere was a fax machine. There is a shelf unit. Another shelf unit. And some file cabinet. Over here in the corner is a trashcan. Trashcan underneath that too. There is a set of golf clubs over here.

Detective Brocchini
183 pages $213.00

June 28, 2004

Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge

973. MR. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you wrote that there was a set of golf clubs in the truck, there was a backpack with a sleeping bag, golf shoes, a drill; is that correct?

974. Yes.

975. Okay. And then McGill inventoried all the items that were in the supplemental report; is that correct?

976. He -- I saw those in the truck. He inventoried them all. I focused on the front seat of the truck.

977. Okay. And how long did you have possession of the truck?

Grogan

135 pages $165.00

September 23, 2004

Hon. ALFRED DELUCCHI, Judge

96. Detective Grogan, the location that's depicted in this particular scene where we are looking at some golf clubs, can you tell where that's filmed?

97. I believe it's the warehouse at 1027 Emerald Avenue.

98. Thank you. (RECORDING EXHIBIT 279B PLAYED) Detective Grogan, taking a look at what's on the screen right now. Can you tell us what that is?

99. Yes. That's the Croton watch.

100. And is this the same image that you eventually found on Ebay?

106. THE COURT: We'll admit 279A and B, take the same numbers.

107. MS. FLADAGER: All right, Detective Grogan, the number of those items that we saw at the end, golf clubs, metal rack.

108. THE COURT: Watches.

109. MS. FLADAGER: The watches.

and here a pic from ctv

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/laci-peterson/evidence-photogallery/golf-clubs-evidence-photogallery-093004.jpg
By Feb. 18, 2003, he had purchased a new pickup truck. Among the items detectives found in the truck were these golf clubs.

to me it seems like 2 bags/sets and some clubs...:confused:

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 06:10 PM

1st..... no I don't have the background to explain it.... I rely on you guys for that... LOL

and if there wasn't much left her to look at he really couldn't make an assumption that there wasn't a huge mess, right?

I don't know what the uterus looks like when other women have had their babies stolen(which we know happens) so I don't know if it can be compared to Laci or not..

and there is a person in this case with a prenatal/pediatric medical knowledge... a person who was said to be obsessed with Scott.. a person who did crazy things like break into the house, try on clothes, steal underwear.... and person who was at the scene that 1st night and interjected herself into the crime, like it's said killers will sometimes do....Kim McGregor is overlooked alot... and IIRC the dog that was pulled off the scent was going in the direction of KM house...

IMO there's enough to warrant a heavy duty look-see into her.... :shrug:
Kim, I beliebe woirked in a pediatric office. I don't know if she had any actual medical training or not. She was a pediatric medical assitant - that usually means clerk in a doc's office. I am sure she was looked into - how do you think they found her friend Laolgi or whatever his name was.

From what I have read about the uterus, it's deep in the body and one of the lst to decompose. Very strong. Women who have stolen other women's babies generally cut into the largest part of the abdoment, not feel around for the top of the uterus and cut there. I think PsychNurse could probably explain it better. Also, at that stage in Laci's pregnancy, the Conner was head down which means that a cut at the fundus would basiclly be a breach birth - removing him past the ribs, diaphragm etc, very difficult. Even doctors remove from the bottom - they never try to take a baby from the top and they are skilled.

ekg

07-09-2007, 06:11 PM

It didn't work out too well for him did. He didn't even call the police and Sharon had to tell him what to do. Sharon was frantic and Scott didn't bother to reassure her or anything.

I pride myself on being a strong person....... and I hope that in a time of extreme crisis I can pull it together the way SR did and direct everyone to do what has to be done..... b/c some ppl just can't cope...

and if Scott is anything like my hubby, I more surprised that he was able to feed himself than I am that SR had to tell him to call LE...:biggrin:

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 06:13 PM

no no... they found atleast one set in the truck..... and then a set and clubs in the warehouse...

Detective Hendee

Detective Brocchini

Grogan

and here a pic from ctv

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/laci-peterson/evidence-photogallery/golf-clubs-evidence-photogallery-093004.jpg
By Feb. 18, 2003, he had purchased a new pickup truck. Among the items detectives found in the truck were these golf clubs.

to me it seems like 2 bags/sets and some clubs...:confused: sure doesn't sound like he kept them at home, tho, does it?

deputydi

07-09-2007, 06:15 PM

<snip>hmmmmmm ok, so I will have to re-think why she could have heard 'golfin'.. I can understand it..... but I can't figure out a way to describe it....LOL

thanks for the info WAH
Why can't you just accept the fact that he SAID "golfing" and she HEARD "golfing".

Otter

07-09-2007, 06:15 PM

Thanks EKG!

I think we've cleared up the golf bag mystery! :patriot:

He was definitely an avid golfer as opposed to ... well, not gonna open that can of worms! ;)

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 06:21 PM

I don't have pre-lim TS..... can you post where she says that she never saw him with golf clubs before...

ok strike that......

I found some

Q. Had you ever seen Scott go golfing?

A. No. I never noticed him with any clubs.

Q. Okay. But did you know from just your passing acquaintance with your neighbors that he did golf?

A. No, I did not know.

I didn't know that she testified that she didn't know he was a golfer..so my theory was based on that she knew he was a golfer..having said that, there is no way I would believe he told her he was golfing..there was no reason for him to lie..he had already called Laci from Berkeley leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley..so why in the world would he tell Krigbaum that he was golfing...

IMO, is that she either misheard him or she was lying..!

Hey Paula

07-09-2007, 06:21 PM

Why can't you just accept the fact that he SAID "golfing" and she HEARD "golfing".

Do you know if Amy Krigbaum was the first neighbor Scott spoke to?

TIA

deputydi

07-09-2007, 06:25 PM

I didn't know that she testified that she didn't know he was a golfer..so my theory was based on that she knew he was a golfer..having said that, there is no way I would believe he told her he was golfing..there was no reason for him to lie..he had already called Laci from Berkeley leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley..so why in the world would he tell Krigbaum that he was golfing...

IMO, is that she either misheard him or she was lying..!
I don't think she misheard him and I don't think she had any reason to lie about it. Scott slipped up and gave the wrong alibi -- plain and simple.

Lavindar

07-09-2007, 06:26 PM

I'm not going to say she lied....b/c I don't believe that at all.....but I still think she heard wrong..

I still think she noticed ALOT of stuff...and I find that odd...

she also says 2 totally different things here

and here

I don't think she lied at all..... but I do think she misheard and then stuck to that mistake.....

Scott was very upset... visibly upset..he was scared,anxious and she 'fed' off that and got upset herself....

I was gone all day and tried calling Laci...

I was golfin all day and I tried calling Laci..

he wasn't golfing all day..he was at the warehouse, on the comp,putting together that saw, driving for a cpl hrs, and in the bay...... I can't imagine he'd forget all that and mistakingly say 'golfin'

but he was 'gone' all day..

everyone else heard him say "I was gone all day.."

and they do sound alike.... so it's still moo she just misunderstood him in a time of great stress for the both of them..:shrug:

but he told someone else "golf" too!

120) Rick Distaso: Okay. And what did he, where did he tell you he had been that day?
121) Harvey Kemple: He told me he went to play golf. And I said 'Golf.' And I immediately started heading back down to the park to find my brother that had been looking with me.
122) Rick Distaso: Okay. And at any time that night did Scott Peterson tell you that he had been fishing that day?
123) Harvey Kemple: I didn't,
124) Rick Distaso: Hold on. I want to get your memory of exactly just what he told you, not what someone else might have told you.
125) Harvey Kemple: No, he did not tell me that.

And Ron was under that impression too because that is what he told police in his 911 call - that scott had been golfing. That's four people who heard golf.

Did they all hear incorrectly in different situations? Or did Scott actually say GOLF

deputydi

07-09-2007, 06:26 PM

Do you know if Amy Krigbaum was the first neighbor Scott spoke to?

TIA
I don't know but it would be very telling to find out.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 06:27 PM

Why can't you just accept the fact that he SAID "golfing" and she HEARD "golfing".

I can't accept that he said he was golfing..it doesn't make any sense to me that he would call Laci leaving a message that he was leaving Berkeley, thereby documenting that he was in Berkeley..yet he would tell Krigbaum couple of hours later that he was golfing..that doesn't make any sense whatsoever..!

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 06:31 PM

TV?? what are you referring to?

Days after death the bodily fluids begin to drain from the body...you don't have to take my word for it..you can read about decomposition stages...

According to Dr. Peterson's testimony, Conner's body never advanced to the decomposition stage, because he was in the sterile environment of the uterus.

ekg

07-09-2007, 06:31 PM

Kim, I beliebe woirked in a pediatric office. I don't know if she had any actual medical training or not. She was a pediatric medical assitant - that usually means clerk in a doc's office. I am sure she was looked into - how do you think they found her friend Laolgi or whatever his name was.

From what I have read about the uterus, it's deep in the body and one of the lst to decompose. Very strong. Women who have stolen other women's babies generally cut into the largest part of the abdoment, not feel around for the top of the uterus and cut there. I think PsychNurse could probably explain it better. Also, at that stage in Laci's pregnancy, the Conner was head down which means that a cut at the fundus would basiclly be a breach birth - removing him past the ribs, diaphragm etc, very difficult. Even doctors remove from the bottom - they never try to take a baby from the top and they are skilled.

a peds medical assistant has to have school... and they can work in the front office or the back office with the patients....... I should know, I was one..:D

I had a 12 months of medical training...not nearly as in depth as a doc I know....... more along the line of RN/LPN...... in fact MA's were 'created' to be the link b/t an RN and a LPN.... we can do everything except start an IV... but even those we know how to do...;)

Clinical duties vary according to State law and include taking medical histories and recording vital signs, explaining treatment procedures to patients, preparing patients for examination, and assisting the physician during the examination. Medical assistants collect and prepare laboratory specimens or perform basic laboratory tests on the premises, dispose of contaminated supplies, and sterilize medical instruments. They instruct patients about medications and special diets, prepare and administer medications as directed by a physician, authorize drug refills as directed, telephone prescriptions to a pharmacy, draw blood, prepare patients for x rays, take electrocardiograms, remove sutures, and change dressings.

are just some of the things I did... before I was in peds I worked with cosmetic surgeon and a ER ARNP... both were extremely great teachers and probably let me do more than I should have....sutures,staples,cryo,cautery,paps,biopsies ...granted we're not talking open-heart surgery or anything......LOL but I was a wound specialist..The internists I worked for in the afternoon scheduled wound patients and skin problem patients for me to see.. then I'd give them my assessment on whether they could do the procedure with my help or if the cosmetic surgeon or ARNP had to do it the next day.... the funniest/scariest day was when my internist decided to fill the portable cryo-tank on his own by holding the tank with his bare hands... I got there just as he was about to tip the 'dipper' in the hole about the size of a 1/2 dollar...... HA! I yelled "STOP! DROP THE DIPPER!" scared the crap out of him.... but if I hadn't he'd have lost a finger tip or two...:lol:

anyyway I'm not alone in this kind of training... the MA is built for the Doc office so they don't have to employ the RN.....

many of them are more qualified than you think...
you might be think of a CNA? they have about 6wks of school I think..... I could be wrong tho..

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 06:34 PM

i spent weeks if not months arguing this point back and forth with aw2b and doccarrie among others--none of it was ever accepted.

cyn

And it's not going to be accepted now either.
Anymore than the facts that prove Conner was in the sterile environment of the uterus.

ekg

07-09-2007, 06:34 PM

but he told someone else "golf" too!

120) Rick Distaso: Okay. And what did he, where did he tell you he had been that day?
121) Harvey Kemple: He told me he went to play golf. And I said 'Golf.' And I immediately started heading back down to the park to find my brother that had been looking with me.
122) Rick Distaso: Okay. And at any time that night did Scott Peterson tell you that he had been fishing that day?
123) Harvey Kemple: I didn't,
124) Rick Distaso: Hold on. I want to get your memory of exactly just what he told you, not what someone else might have told you.
125) Harvey Kemple: No, he did not tell me that.

And Ron was under that impression too because that is what he told police in his 911 call - that scott had been golfing. That's four people who heard golf.

Did they all hear incorrectly in different situations? Or did Scott actually say GOLF

I think awhile ago we agreed not to bring up Harvey on both sides......:D

or maybe it was just me and FD or CW or otter who agreed to that........LOL

Otter

07-09-2007, 06:39 PM

Sigh, when I hit quote, it won't load, so I'll do it the old-fashioned way.

AW2B Said:

I can't accept that he said he was golfing..it doesn't make any sense to me that he would call Laci leaving a message that he was leaving Berkeley, thereby documenting that he was in Berkeley..yet he would tell Krigbaum couple of hours later that he was golfing..that doesn't make any sense whatsoever..!

Why not? Lavindar posted Uncle Harvey's testimony that SP told him golfing too. So we're up to at least three people independently testifying that he said he went golfing.

And for his calling Laci ... you believe one thing and I believe another. My belief is he was trying to establish an alibi, knowing full well all he would be doing is leaving message.

He didn't have any experience in covering up a murder. He made mistakes.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 06:43 PM

Krigbaum's testimony at the prelim:

10 Q. Okay. And what -- did he say anything else at that
11 time? I mean -- let me just ask you this: Did he tell you
12 what he had been doing all day?
13 A. He had said that he was golfing all day, and that
14 he had tried to call her all day, so --
15 Q. And what did you tell him?
16 A. Like I said, I -- I hadn't seen any movement at all
17 in the neighborhood. I told him that the blinds hadn't been
18 up. And I told him that I saw the Christmas lights come on
19 at like 4:30-ish, right before I had to go back to the
20 store. So, actually, I probably got home at like 4:15,
21 so -- I had to go back to the store because I had forgotten
22 something, so I saw the lights come on right before I went
23 to the store, and --

"I was golfing all day"

To me..that doesn't sound right...most people would say..I was playing golf..on the other hand, it is very common for people to say " I was gone all day"..that's why I believe that she misheard him..or she lied about it..

Hey Paula

07-09-2007, 06:43 PM

I don't know but it would be very telling to find out.

I think the order in which he spoke to the neighbors might explain the golfishing alibi. If Amy was the first, after immediately speaking to Sharon, COG and trying to distance himself from the Bay might have been uppermost in Scott's mind. However, after collecting his thoughts, Scott knew he couldn't use golfing as an alibi because it could be easily debunked due to what had transpired that day, e.g., having been seen at the Marina, calling Laci and leaving a message, etc.

IMO

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 06:44 PM

I didn't know that she testified that she didn't know he was a golfer..so my theory was based on that she knew he was a golfer..having said that, there is no way I would believe he told her he was golfing..there was no reason for him to lie..he had already called Laci from Berkeley leaving her a message that he was leaving Berkeley..so why in the world would he tell Krigbaum that he was golfing...

IMO, is that she either misheard him or she was lying..!

Ummm.......do you think by chance the pathalogical liar was lying? :tongue: I surely do. Keeping his lies straight was not his forte' by any stretch of the imagination. And the imaginations reallllllllly do stretch around here. :rolleyes:

Wearing A Halo

07-09-2007, 06:48 PM

b/c I think he would have plenty of 'calm-down' time on the 90 mile drive home..and the time at the warehouse dropping the boat off... I would think he'd be anxious to make it look like he was worried to death about her being 'missing' and farting off at the house doesn't do that IMO..:shrug:

The plan was to be anxious and worried to death, but, something happend to change the dynamic of DRISP's plan. Think of what it was ekg. What was it that DRISP came upon when he came home that night ekg? Hint: has four legs, wags a tail and still had his leash on. So what was it? DRISP sure as hell wanted to know what, how and who could have happend to... Mackenzie!

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 06:51 PM

I can't accept that he said he was golfing..it doesn't make any sense to me that he would call Laci leaving a message that he was leaving Berkeley, thereby documenting that he was in Berkeley..yet he would tell Krigbaum couple of hours later that he was golfing..that doesn't make any sense whatsoever..!

AW2B, does it make MORE sense that he would call a dead cell? Or that he'd leave several messages which Laci (jabber-jaws) never returned, yet he still wasn't the LEAST BIT concerned when he got home and there's her purse, truck, dog running around w/leash and the door unlocked, but no LACI?

I don't think a lot of what the convicted killer did made sense, and I am profoundly grateful for that because I don't WANT to be able to think like a murderer.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 06:54 PM

You can't make this testimony go away AW.
I don't think Dr. P. could have made it any more clear than this. You can't change the testimony in order to make your theory fit.

Conner's body was not decomposed.

Miss Bootsie..and you cannot make the ME's testimony that I posted go away either..he stated that both bodies were decomposed..and the differences tend to be what was there and what was missing from the body..! even Distaso agrees with me..he stated in his closing argument that Conner was decomposed EXTREMELY..

Conner's body was DECOMPOSED according to the trial record..

I guess we will have to agree to disagree..

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 07:00 PM

Miss Bootsie..and you cannot make the ME's testimony that I posted go away either..he stated that both bodies were decomposed..and the differences tend to be what was there and what was missing from the body..! even Distaso agrees with me..he stated in his closing argument that Conner was decomposed EXTREMELY..

Conner's body was DECOMPOSED according to the trial record..

I guess we will have to agree to disagree..

At no time and in no place did the ME ever say or imply that the difference was in "what was there and what was missing from the body".

He stated that the TYPE OF PROCESS the two bodies went through were completely different from each other.

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 07:03 PM

The point is that the ME was expecting to find fish bite marks otherwise why would he try to find them and why did he make a note of it that there was none..? and he also stated that there were no nibble or chew marks..
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that..

24 A. It certainly can. There are, obviously, animals in
25 the marine environment that will feed on a body. Down near
26 the bottom, there are shellfish, crabs, lobsters, that sort
27 of thing that will produce these sort of nibble marks.
28 Again, though, there were no specific chew marks on her

1471
1 body. As I examined the joints that were available for
2 examination, there were no tool marks, there was -- there
3 were no bite marks either.
4 So could these disarticulations that I saw have been
5 caused by large animal feeding, shark feeding, something on
6 that order? I suppose it could have. I don't have any
7 particular positive evidence to say that they were, though

The autopsy was done few hours after the body was found..her body was found partially submerged in the water...so IMO, had she been in the bay for about 4 months, the edges of the uterus would NOT have been friable and crumbly.. in addition, it is not warm in Richmond..on April 14th 2003 the temperature ranged from 46 F to 60 F.. the humidity ranged from 55%to 93% and it was an overcast day, in fact, there was some light rain in the morning for about an hour ...so IMO, there was no time for the edges of the uterus to have dried out to the point of being friable and crumbly which could be reduced to powder! on the other hand, if she was placed there after the edges of her uterus had already been dried out, friable and crumbly.. that would explain why the ME found them that way...

David Harris: Now, is the, as the officers were, when you were first there, was the body actually awash in the water?
Alena Gonzalez: She was about halfway submerged in the water. Awash and came up, I don't understand your question.
David Harris: Try go through it a little bit different. Was the body actually touching the water?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: Was the water coming up over the body, or was the body just floating when you first observed it?
Alena Gonzalez: We think that she was kind of,
Judge Delucchi: No, just,
Mark Geragos: Objection.
David Harris: What you saw. What did you see?
Alena Gonzalez: I saw that she was already there in the water, and the water was splashing up on her like some,
David Harris: This particular photograph there, People's Number 104, was that after the police had come out, and so you saw the body, you went made the call, fire department comes out, police department comes out, somebody takes this picture?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: Is the water starting to recede, or the tide's going out by the time this photograph is taken?
Alena Gonzalez: Considerably.
David Harris: Now the, did you stay there until the police came and took a statement from you?
Alena Gonzalez: Yes.
David Harris: In fact, there was a taped statement by one of the officers that day?

AW2B, saying they were "expecting" to find fish bites/marks is YOUR opinion. However, as unbelievably complicated all this has become here, the reality is really quite simple.

Peterson said that Conner was no where near as decomposed as Laci, which we are all aware is true. Therefore, although he did say he could say FOR SURE, he said his BEST guess (based on his experience) is that Conner was expelled naturally, due to Laci's condition. He stated that Conner had been PROTECTED in her womb until shortly before he was found. That is what he said, that is what he meant. Anyone (IMO) with an ounce of common sense can't argue it, because it makes PERFECT sense.

I am btw, one of those spiritual hokey people. As far as I'm concerned, IMO, Laci protected her baby and brought him home. The Universe (IMO) brought them both home. Not bumbling burglars on bicycles.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 07:06 PM

Ummm.......do you think by chance the pathalogical liar was lying? :tongue: I surely do. Keeping his lies straight was not his forte' by any stretch of the imagination. And the imaginations reallllllllly do stretch around here. :rolleyes:

You brought a point that needs to be explored.."Keeping his lies straight was not his forte' by any stretch of the imagination"

Actually, I think he was very consistent when he lied to Amber about being in Paris..he remembered all the small details..friends names..he even remembered to state his time based on Paris time zone..!

Based on that, it is hard to believe that the same person would document that he was in Berkeley, then would turn around and tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..then would turn around and tell the police he was fishing in Berkeley...makes no sense whatsover..

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 07:10 PM

You brought a point that needs to be explored.."Keeping his lies straight was not his forte' by any stretch of the imagination"

Actually, I think he was very consistent when he lied to Amber about being in Paris..he remembered all the small details..friends names..he even remembered to state his time based on Paris time zone..!

Based on that, it is hard to believe that the same person would document that he was in Berkeley, then would turn around and tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..then would turn around and tell the police he was fishing in Berkeley...makes no sense whatsover..

Nope, ITD. (I totally disagree). Being "consistent" means telling the same story over and over again, to different people, in different ways, and yet it's always the exact same story. He didn't do that at all AW2B. In your example above, he named the time of Paris (genius?) and his pretend buddies names once. Nothing there to be consistent about.

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 07:12 PM

At no time and in no place did the ME ever say or imply that the difference was in "what was there and what was missing from the body".

Snip

He did say that :

ME's testimony at the prelim:

17 Q. Okay. Now, you said that there was in addition to
18 that a -- I want to kind of accurately quote you, that you
19 had a -- and this would have been taking you fast forward to
20 after you completed Laci's autopsy, that there was a
21 significant difference in the decomposition between the two
22 bodies; isn't that correct?
23 A. There was a significant difference in the
24 condition. They were both decomposed. The differences tend
25 to be other things, what was present, what was absent, those
26 kind of environmental changes.

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 07:15 PM

Based on that, it is hard to believe that the same person would document that he was in Berkeley, then would turn around and tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..then would turn around and tell the police he was fishing in Berkeley...makes no sense whatsover..

Btw - and I still have that list of lies I'm working on, and it's getting longer than the Mississippi, however...I am trying to eat dinner, so I'll keep this short and sweet:

Did it make sense that he did not tell the cops about Amber, or Ron, or Brent (they all asked if he was having an affair before Amber was discovered), and yet, ON NATIONAL TV no less he looks Diane Sawyer and Lord knows how many millions of people in the eye and says "I told the cops about Amber the very first night".

And you can't believe he screwed up his alibi, starting with the night of the 23rd, CLEARLY telling Amy he was going golfing. No golfing OR fishing, just GOLFING.:rolleyes:

attorneywan2be

07-09-2007, 07:16 PM

Nope, ITD. (I totally disagree). Being "consistent" means telling the same story over and over again, to different people, in different ways, and yet it's always the exact same story. He didn't do that at all AW2B. In your example above, he named the time of Paris (genius?) and his pretend buddies names once. Nothing there to be consistent about.

That's your opinion..however, I disagree..he was definitely consistent in his lies to Amber about being in Paris..he made several calls as he was supposedly still in Paris..yet he didn't contradict himself during the course of these calls....!

Miss Bootsie

07-09-2007, 07:19 PM

Really?!

But Conner's body was indeed decomposed...

From Distaso's opening statement:

And he's going to tell you that based on Conner's level of decomposition, he was not able to make that determination. Nor was he, at that exact moment, able to determine a cause of death, because all he had was a very badly decomposed fetus. That was it.

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

Go ahead. Go on, Conner's body was, click back, John, for a moment. Okay, go forward. His body is, as you saw, is severely decomposed. However, when Doctor Peterson compares it to Laci's body, which you are going to see in a minute, it's severely less decomposed

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

From Distaso's closing argument:

Let's talk about Conner's condition. Conner was decomposed extremely. So much so that the doctor couldn't determine the cause of death. But he was much less decomposed than Laci

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

ME's testimony at the trial:

David Harris: I want to go through the process of this. Conner comes into the, into the facility. Can you run us through the process of what occurs?
Judge Delucchi: Well, start with what was the condition of the body when you first saw it.
Brian Peterson: Yes, your Honor. What we received was another deposed body, and this was received as just that, a decomposed infant or fetus body

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

So in Conner's case those plates were overriding. It was very easy to deform that head. In terms of changes beneath the skin, they weren't what you would see in an adult. It was more of a liquefying type process. So in Conner, for the most part the organs were still inside the body, but they were remarkably liquefied. How do I know that? Because the weights were substantially different than they should have been. So the tissue had to go somewhere, so that's basically what happens. It liquefies. So even though the organ looks like it's there, a lot of the mass was missing.

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

Again, you can see better in this picture the overriding of the skull plates. Partly because of the brain being decomposed, partly because the plates aren't joined yet, as would be in an adult.

--------------
The idea being that, in a living baby, when the umbilical cord is cut, there's inflammation at the end there. Eventually it scabs and dries and so forth. In this case, because of the post-mortem change, that simply wasn't practical. This was simply decomposed tissue.

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

The ME's testimony at the prelim.

17 Q. Okay. Now, you said that there was in addition to
18 that a -- I want to kind of accurately quote you, that you
19 had a -- and this would have been taking you fast forward to
20 after you completed Laci's autopsy, that there was a
21 significant difference in the decomposition between the two
22 bodies; isn't that correct?
23 A. There was a significant difference in the
24 condition. They were both decomposed. The differences tend
25 to be other things, what was present, what was absent, those
26 kind of environmental changes.

AW, you are quoting an Attorney during an opening statement. An Attorney, may I add, that is a lay person when it comes to forensic pathology.
As we know, opening statements are not evidence.

At one time before I really understood the trial testimony, I also used the word decomposition to describe the break down of Conner's body. Decomposition in terms of Conner's body is a lay-person's term.

Testimony during prelim is not what counts. It is the trial testimony that counts.
Dr. Peterson also used these terms.
To make a long story short
And to put that in lay people's terms

I have to say, you are really grasping for straws here.:eek:
Are you after the truth, or just out to prove your point in anyway you can?

He went into more detail for the Jury.
Peterson:
There's that difference between decomposition and autolysis. There's a difference between decomposition and maceration. So the changes that I saw involving Conner were more along the lines of autolysis and maceration.

Bacteria plays a major part in decomposition.
You claim he was stored submerged in a plastic bag -The perfect environment for adiopocere to form.
If Conner's body went through a bacterial putrefaction process=(decomposition), as you claim, why wasn't there adiopocere?

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 07:20 PM

That's your opinion..however, I disagree..he was definitely consistent in his lies to Amber about being in Paris..he made several calls as he was supposedly still in Paris..yet he didn't contradict himself during the course of these calls....!

AW2B, no..it is not my opinion, or I would say as much. He mentioned those make believe buddies once, in ONE phone call. Wanted to kill the dog in another.... He never EVER one time repeated those outrageous lies, he told brand new ones each and every time.

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 07:25 PM

You brought a point that needs to be explored.."Keeping his lies straight was not his forte' by any stretch of the imagination"

Actually, I think he was very consistent when he lied to Amber about being in Paris..he remembered all the small details..friends names..he even remembered to state his time based on Paris time zone..!

Based on that, it is hard to believe that the same person would document that he was in Berkeley, then would turn around and tell Krigbaum that he was golfing..then would turn around and tell the police he was fishing in Berkeley...makes no sense whatsover..

What do you mean by "he was very consistent when he lied to Amber about being in Paris"?

It was one conversation - what was there to keep straight?

Scott told so many different lies to so many people (and got busted on most of them) that it boggles my mind that anyone would think that he was good at keeping his lies straight.

He should have used index cards.

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 07:29 PM

He did say that :

ME's testimony at the prelim:

17 Q. Okay. Now, you said that there was in addition to
18 that a -- I want to kind of accurately quote you, that you
19 had a -- and this would have been taking you fast forward to
20 after you completed Laci's autopsy, that there was a
21 significant difference in the decomposition between the two
22 bodies; isn't that correct?
23 A. There was a significant difference in the
24 condition. They were both decomposed. The differences tend
25 to be other things, what was present, what was absent, those
26 kind of environmental changes.

What was present, what was absent, those kind of ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES.

He was NOT talking about what was missing in terms of limbs, etc. He was talking about what was there or not there pointing to the TYPE OF decomposition process.

But - I think you already know that.

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 07:30 PM

snip: He should have used index cards

ROFLMAO - maybe he was writing them on his hand!!!! LOL (right, who's hands are 1000 miles long??).:biggrin:

adnoid

07-09-2007, 07:43 PM

...I will have to re-think why she could have heard 'golfin'...

Just throwing something out here - she could have heard it because Scott said it. Just sayin'.

cookiewench

07-09-2007, 07:50 PM

Just throwing something out here - she could have heard it because Scott said it. Just sayin'.

LOL

Does anyone know the exact words Scott is said to have used? Most of the guys I know would say they had been playing golf that day - not "golfing".

TopGunner

07-09-2007, 07:50 PM

Just throwing something out here - she could have heard it because Scott said it. Just sayin'.

NO! Say it ain't so! Gasp even!!! :eek: LOL...

deputydi

07-09-2007, 07:51 PM